DiscussMormonism.com

McClellan vs. White: Guessing About God: Mormonism's Inability to Resist the Onslaught of Modernistic Skepticism

On December 29, 2008 a video appeared on YouTube featuring James White asking a question he and many others have asked many times before: is Mormonism Christian? In the video, White says that it's "not really a difficult question, to be honest with you" and goes on in the standard fashion of comparing creedal Christianity with Mormonism.

On a fairly recent blog post, LDS scholar Daniel McClellan takes it upon himself to respond to the video. When James White is made aware of McClellan's blog, he posts a response to McClellan's response. A very interesting online debate ensues. But, like most debates with LDS scholars, White backs out.

What's more interesting is how White describes McClellan:

James White wrote:I was recently referred to a blog article by a young Mormon writer and scholar, Daniel McClellan. He seems like a bright, intelligent young man, though, sadly, he has clearly been influenced by the less-than-mature behavioral ticks of his mentors at BYU, men like Daniel C. Peterson and William Hamblin. We will note how this mars his otherwise interesting article below.

Ah, yes, Drs. Peterson and Hamblin. Two BYU professors who completely smoked White in past debates. It's no wonder White doesn't like them.

In the same post, White says a few interesting things under the heading: "The New Mormon Apologists"

But times have changed. Brigham Young University was founded, and over time, the desire to be viewed as presenting credible “scholarship” within the “academy” has entered into the thinking of the LDS leadership (which is often drawn from the graduates of BYU).

Readers should take note of the scare quotes here.

Does this seem at all familiar to anyone?

Do they like linux?

Simon Belmont wrote:Does this seem at all familiar to anyone?

You know Simon, I am never quite sure whether you mean "familiar" or "similar" since you misuse the former to mean the latter.

Simon Belmont wrote:But, like most debates with LDS scholars, White backs out.

Well, technically, James White is not himself a debate with LDS scholars. And I think, if pressed for comment, most folks would agree that debates don't typically back out of things.

Those quibbles aside, I wonder where you picked up the notion that a debate happened (leaving aside the multiple debates you referenced in your thread title).

I saw White say, in essence, that he was going to restrict his blog responses to only the things he wanted to talk about. One can interrogate the motivations behind and implications of that decision, of course. But, it's not clear to me how you make the leap from that to your claim that White backed out of a debate.

Now, I happen to like and respect mak. On at least one occasion, when a Latter-day Saint asked a question on MADB about some arcane Hebrew construction, I responded: "you should PM mak." On another similar occasion, if I recall correctly, I responded: "ask Bokovoy." Which is just to say that I don't dislike or a priori distrust Mormon scholars, generally, and actually defer to them, specifically, on occasion, in certain circumstances.

But, I do tend to agree with a very general thrust of White's criticism: viz., that some contemporary Mormon biblical scholarship has largely embraced the scholarly conclusions of skeptics.

Run this experiment: search "Bart Ehrman" over on MADB/MD.org and observe just how often and with what degree of deference the LDS there reference and quote from Ehrman's works (well, for the most part, they reference his popular-level books--the majority of his output), but he is generally considered to be a first-rate scholar by those folks who reference him. And, he's certainly a scholar.

Ehrman is an agnostic, ex-Christian apostate (that's not pejorative, just a statement of fact as the term has been historically employed) who completely rejects the notions of divine revelation and any historically-ascertainable knowledge of an objectively-orthodox Christian tradition.

I'm suggesting that the seemingly general approbation of Ehrman typical of a certain sort of online LDS poster may be the result of a top-down effect, rather than a grassroots uprising sort of thing.

They're certainly not quoting Ehrman because he gives any positive aid or comfort to Mormonism. So, why are they so hot for him? He is deemed useful in some way(s), I'd surmise. I have my own theories as to why that may be.

But, again, just to be clear, James White is not a debate.

The subject made me think that we were going to learn the identity of the McClellan whom White debates, but then we already have a pretty good handle on who mak is.

Kishkumen wrote:
You know Simon, I am never quite sure whether you mean "familiar" or "similar" since you misuse the former to mean the latter.

Familiar is what I meant.

Care to contribute?

Simon Belmont wrote:Care to contribute?

To what? Were you insinuating something about the identity of White?

cksalmon wrote:Well, technically, James White is not himself a debate with LDS scholars. And I think, if pressed for comment, most folks would agree that debates don't typically back out of things.

How about this, then: But as is the case with most debates with LDS scholars, White backed out.

Satisfied?

Those quibbles aside, I wonder where you picked up the notion that a debate happened (leaving aside the multiple debates you referenced in your thread title).

Well, I picked up on the notion that a debate happened when I saw that a discussion occurred which included opposing viewpoints -- one might call that an argument, or a debate.

I saw White say, in essence, that he was going to restrict his blog responses to only the things he wanted to talk about.

And isn't that just perfectly convenient?

One can interrogate the motivations behind and implications of that decision, of course. But, it's not clear to me how you make the leap from that to your claim that White backed out of a debate.

I make the claim that White backed out of a debate because White backed out of a debate.

McClellan wrote:James White is apparently finished responding to my initial post. I have waited a bit and don’t see any indication he intends to address any of my responses, so I will let them stand in response to his first five posts.

Now, I happen to like and respect mak. On at least one occasion, when a Latter-day Saint asked a question on MADB about some arcane Hebrew construction, I responded: "you should PM mak." On another similar occasion, if I recall correctly, I responded: "ask Bokovoy." Which is just to say that I don't dislike or a priori distrust Mormon scholars, generally, and actually defer to them, specifically, on occasion, in certain circumstances.

But, I do tend to agree with a very general thrust of White's criticism: viz., that some contemporary Mormon biblical scholarship has largely embraced the scholarly conclusions of skeptics.

Run this experiment: search "Bart Ehrman" over on MADB/MD.org and observe just how often and with what degree of deference the LDS there reference and quote from Ehrman's works (well, for the most part, they reference his popular-level books--the majority of his output), but he is generally considered to be a first-rate scholar by those folks who reference him. And, he's certainly a scholar.

Ehrman is an agnostic, ex-Christian apostate (that's not pejorative, just a statement of fact as the term has been historically employed) who completely rejects the notions of divine revelation and any historically-ascertainable knowledge of an objectively-orthodox Christian tradition.

I'm suggesting that the seemingly general approbation of Ehrman typical of a certain sort of online LDS poster may be the result of a top-down effect, rather than a grassroots uprising sort of thing.

They're certainly not quoting Ehrman because he gives any positive aid or comfort to Mormonism. So, why are they so hot for him? He is deemed useful in some way(s), I'd surmise. I have my own theories as to why that may be.

Thanks for the information... I hadn't noticed the Ehrman quotes before.

But, again, just to be clear, James White is not a debate.

But he loves to debate. And he is often good at it, unless his opponent is an LDS scholar, in which case he usually backs out. That, and bringing the blog post to another audience, is the whole point of this thread.

Kishkumen wrote:To what? Were you insinuating something about the identity of White?

No, but I have heard the "new apologetics" vs. the "old guard" theory repeated by a number of people here. I guess my specific question is: did White get it from you guys, or did you guys get it from White?

Simon Belmont wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:To what? Were you insinuating something about the identity of White?

No, but I have heard the "new apologetics" vs. the "old guard" theory repeated by a number of people here. I guess my specific question is: did White get it from you guys, or did you guys get it from White?

Ah, so you want to know if White is Scratch. I thought so.