I'm reviewing Dan McClellan's Book "The Bible Says So" Tonight on my BYP LIVE Show

[MG 2.0]

At first blush that is what seems to be the case. On further analysis, such as in the link I've provided earlier in this thread, there may be more to the story.

Such often seems to be the case in many of the issues that critics bring up over and over again.

Regards,
MG

That simply isn't true. Go listen to his interview on Mormonism live where he rails on the leaders trying to make doctrine a present tense thing by requiring all 15 to teach it. He spends the entire interview explaining why they are disingenuous and masters of obfuscation. https://www.youtube.com/live/q8pAbD85yr ... cbZ05WD_m

From the previously provided link:

Joseph Smith appears, from the beginning, to have had in mind a theological framework in which the gap between God, angels, and humans was considerably narrower than commonly depicted in traditional Christian theology. What is more, I demonstrated that every essential point of this framework—an anthropomorphic God, the premortal existence of human souls, the fundamental similarity of God’s spiritual essence to that of angels and human souls, the oneness of the Son and Spirit with the Father as a oneness of will rather than being, the subordination in rank and glory of the Son and Spirit to the Father, creation from preexisting material rather than absolute nothingness, and the ultimate deification of humans—is found in a very narrow set of sources that scholars attribute to the most primitive early Christian sects, collectively known as early Jewish Christianity. Once again, given that Joseph Smith claimed his mission was mainly to restore primitive Christianity and that he demonstrably did gradually roll out a theological framework that would have been at home within early Jewish Christianity, it seems clear that Smith’s esotericism was rooted in legitimate insights he had somehow gained into Christian origins.

Where did he get those insights? Smith’s environment was awash with Christian primitivists attempting to return to the original, pristine religion,3 and Charles Harrell has collected evidence that here and there a few people on the fringes of contemporary Christianity expressed beliefs similar to those of the early Jewish Christians just mentioned.4 The idea that Joseph Smith, on the American frontier, could have plucked these ideas from the sea of contemporary thought to construct a theological framework that would have been at home among the most primitive of early Christian sects seems incredible, however.

Whether the inspiration for Smith’s theology was divine or mundane, in this contribution I argue that Joseph Smith’s body of esoteric teachings simply could not have been constructed piecemeal from the sorts of sources Harrell proposes. Instead, he must have somehow gained relatively direct access to the early Jewish Christian esoteric tradition. We can be relatively certain of this because the book of Moses is composed in the form of a typical early Jewish and Jewish Christian esoteric text called an “ascent apocalypse.”5 I will argue that the evidence for this is so compelling that the focus of historians working on early LDS doctrinal history should shift more fully to whether and how Smith could have gotten his hands on early Jewish Christian esoteric traditions.

Harrell brought us only part way along the path of discovery/exploration. His work spurred others to dig deeper. That should be the goal. Why would we assume that his work is the 'end all'?

Something to keep in mind, he was an engineering/technology guy. His background was not in the area of expertise that would lend to his being qualified and able to do the 'deeper dive'.

I read his book when first published. It shows that the restoration was indeed and continues to be incremental. The School of the Prophets in the time of Joseph Smith makes the same case. The ongoing restoration, as it is referred to, is indeed ongoing. Has been and will continue to be. In the process some will be left behind kicking against the pricks.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

That simply isn't true. Go listen to his interview on Mormonism live where he rails on the leaders trying to make doctrine a present tense thing by requiring all 15 to teach it. He spends the entire interview explaining why they are disingenuous and masters of obfuscation. https://www.youtube.com/live/q8pAbD85yr ... cbZ05WD_m

From the previously provided link:

Joseph Smith appears, from the beginning, to have had in mind a theological framework in which the gap between God, angels, and humans was considerably narrower than commonly depicted in traditional Christian theology. What is more, I demonstrated that every essential point of this framework—an anthropomorphic God, the premortal existence of human souls, the fundamental similarity of God’s spiritual essence to that of angels and human souls, the oneness of the Son and Spirit with the Father as a oneness of will rather than being, the subordination in rank and glory of the Son and Spirit to the Father, creation from preexisting material rather than absolute nothingness, and the ultimate deification of humans—is found in a very narrow set of sources that scholars attribute to the most primitive early Christian sects, collectively known as early Jewish Christianity. Once again, given that Joseph Smith claimed his mission was mainly to restore primitive Christianity and that he demonstrably did gradually roll out a theological framework that would have been at home within early Jewish Christianity, it seems clear that Smith’s esotericism was rooted in legitimate insights he had somehow gained into Christian origins.

Where did he get those insights? Smith’s environment was awash with Christian primitivists attempting to return to the original, pristine religion,3 and Charles Harrell has collected evidence that here and there a few people on the fringes of contemporary Christianity expressed beliefs similar to those of the early Jewish Christians just mentioned.4 The idea that Joseph Smith, on the American frontier, could have plucked these ideas from the sea of contemporary thought to construct a theological framework that would have been at home among the most primitive of early Christian sects seems incredible, however.

Whether the inspiration for Smith’s theology was divine or mundane, in this contribution I argue that Joseph Smith’s body of esoteric teachings simply could not have been constructed piecemeal from the sorts of sources Harrell proposes. Instead, he must have somehow gained relatively direct access to the early Jewish Christian esoteric tradition. We can be relatively certain of this because the book of Moses is composed in the form of a typical early Jewish and Jewish Christian esoteric text called an “ascent apocalypse.”5 I will argue that the evidence for this is so compelling that the focus of historians working on early LDS doctrinal history should shift more fully to whether and how Smith could have gotten his hands on early Jewish Christian esoteric traditions.

Harrell brought us only part way along the path of discovery/exploration. His work spurred others to dig deeper. That should be the goal. Why would we assume that his work is the 'end all'?

Something to keep in mind, he was an engineering/technology guy. His background was not in the area of expertise that would lend to his being qualified and able to do the 'deeper dive'.

I read his book when first published. It shows that the restoration was indeed and continues to be incremental. The School of the Prophets in the time of Joseph Smith makes the same case. The ongoing restoration, as it is referred to, is indeed ongoing. Has been and will continue to be. In the process some will be left behind kicking against the pricks.

Regards,
MG

Rivendale is talking about what Harrell says for himself. In response you’ve quoted someone else giving their view about Joseph Smith and their opinion about Harrell. Apples and Oranges. Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Rivendale is talking about what Harrell says for himself. In response you’ve quoted someone else giving their view about Joseph Smith and their opinion about Harrell. Apples and Oranges. Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

[MG 2.0]

...provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

Have you read his book? I did. It is THAT which I am interested in...not necessarily where he came out at in the struggle between faith in the restoration and unbelief. I've heard LOTS of those stories. His book is where the rubber meets the road. Barry Bickmore and others have demonstrated that Harrell began the journey but may have taken a premature offramp to nowhere.

If you've read the book then I'll be a bit more open to your own position relative to what he has said vs. what Bickmore has said. Otherwise, I'm not all that interested in your cul-de-sac questions.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

...provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

Have you read his book? I did. It is THAT which I am interested in...not necessarily where he came out at in the struggle between faith in the restoration and unbelief. I've heard LOTS of those stories. His book is where the rubber meets the road. Barry Bickmore and others have demonstrated that Harrell began the journey but may have taken a premature offramp to nowhere.

If you've read the book then I'll be a bit more open to your own position relative to what he has said vs. what Bickmore has said. Otherwise, I'm not all that interested in your cul-de-sac questions.

Regards,
MG

Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

[Rivendale]

You are suspicious over an engineer but use a geology professor (Brickmore) as part of your argument. It is clear Brickmore was looking for a place to bury his hatchet in Harrell's back. A quote regarding Harrell's book.

Harrell leaves out the passage Pratt used to argue
that the doctrine is clearly implied: “Yea, even all men were created in
the beginning afer mine own image” (Ether 3:15). If God created “all
men . . . in the beginning,” then how are we to avoid positing some sort
of doctrine of premortal existence of souls? Obviously, this is another
case where ignoring the explicitly stated exoteric-esoteric pairing of the
Book of Mormon and book of Moses leads to serious mistakes interpret-
ing early Latter-day Saint doctrinal history.

[MG 2.0]

Have you read his book? I did. It is THAT which I am interested in...not necessarily where he came out at in the struggle between faith in the restoration and unbelief. I've heard LOTS of those stories. His book is where the rubber meets the road. Barry Bickmore and others have demonstrated that Harrell began the journey but may have taken a premature offramp to nowhere.

If you've read the book then I'll be a bit more open to your own position relative to what he has said vs. what Bickmore has said. Otherwise, I'm not all that interested in your cul-de-sac questions.

Regards,
MG

Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

Apparently you didn't read the book. Yes, it is a long read...but don't let that discourage or stop you. Come back when you're ready to stand up Harrell along with Bickmore and give us something substantial besides cul-de-sac questions.

Thanks. By the way, you pretty much ignored everything I've said. Including the rather meaty quotes. I can't have a conversation with someone that does that.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Joseph Smith’s first esoteric document, the book of Moses, was written in exactly the style of an ascent apocalypse, missing (or merely hinting at) only a few themes that he later explicitly introduced and incorporated (along with much of the material from the book of Moses) into the esoteric temple rites. This fact strongly supports the conclusion that Smith was employing esotericism throughout his prophetic career, which is undeniably inconvenient for historians attempting to reconstruct a timeline of development for early Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Joseph Smith's first esoteric document is the Book of Mormon, not the Book of Moses.

[I Have Questions]

Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make?

Apparently you didn't read the book. Yes, it is a long read...but don't let that discourage or stop you. Come back when you're ready to stand up Harrell along with Bickmore and give us something substantial besides cul-de-sac questions.

Thanks. By the way, you pretty much ignored everything I've said. Including the rather meaty quotes. I can't have a conversation with someone that does that.

Regards,
MG

I don’t understand why you are running away from this. Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make? Don’t you have any actual Harrell quotes that demonstrate your point?

[huckelberry]

Apparently you didn't read the book. Yes, it is a long read...but don't let that discourage or stop you. Come back when you're ready to stand up Harrell along with Bickmore and give us something substantial besides cul-de-sac questions.

Thanks. By the way, you pretty much ignored everything I've said. Including the rather meaty quotes. I can't have a conversation with someone that does that.

Regards,
MG

I don’t understand why you are running away from this. Why not do as Rivendale has suggested, and go and listen to what Harrell actually says for himself? Or provide something that Harrell says for himself that you think demonstrates the point you’re trying to make? Don’t you have any actual Harrell quotes that demonstrate your point?

I do not think MG is looking for Harrell quotes to back MG up because MG is not agreeing with Herrell but agreeing with this other author who presents a different view.