So why hasn't Dan been crowing up Dan McClellan and his materials and engaging with him concerning biblical scholarship? That just seems odd doesn't it? Dan is attempting here to insinuate himself into some credibility having been the so-called master to the now wildly famous student. Why hasn't Dan been out there cheering him on and co-videoing with him on biblical exegesis? Just seems odd to me is all. Those two together could kick out some fascinating materials, even while disagreeing. Or is it that Dan can't stand to even associate with anyone who has a different take on things than his, because his always has to be the best and correct?
Hi Philo, I would think a reason for your question would be the distance between the views of Drs McClellan and Peterson. I would expect that Dan McClellan is in some danger of church discipline. His biblical scholarship clashes with standard LDS views of history but he might get away with that. He might not get away with supporting changes in laws attitudes towards homosexuality. I really do not know of course. I think he presented at least part of a reasonable argument.
Your presentation made me wish to look beyond Thoughtful faith presentation so found relevant presentation by Dan McClellan himself. It was both interesting and a bit puzzling. We must and people have negotiated with the text. Ancient laws are shaped by culture and the power structures then present. As societies change and that would include relationship to power structures people change how they view Biblical law. For all religious groups changes have been made. With these straightforward observations Dan does some review of the developement of Old Testament beliefs, transition from polytheism toward monotheism. He notes importance of the Josiah reform in this an how that reform was shaped or influenced by power struggle. There is real history in the observation but might undermine Biblical legal authority more than many including church leaders would like.
So why hasn't Dan been crowing up Dan McClellan and his materials and engaging with him concerning biblical scholarship? That just seems odd doesn't it? Dan is attempting here to insinuate himself into some credibility having been the so-called master to the now wildly famous student. Why hasn't Dan been out there cheering him on and co-videoing with him on biblical exegesis? Just seems odd to me is all. Those two together could kick out some fascinating materials, even while disagreeing. Or is it that Dan can't stand to even associate with anyone who has a different take on things than his, because his always has to be the best and correct?
Hi Philo, I would think a reason for your question would be the distance between the views of Drs McClellan and Peterson. I would expect that Dan McClellan is in some danger of church discipline. His biblical scholarship clashes with standard LDS views of history but he might get away with that. He might not get away with supporting changes in laws attitudes towards homosexuality. I really do not know of course. I think he presented at least part of a reasonable argument.
Your presentation made me wish to look beyond Thoughtful faith presentation so found relevant presentation by Dan McClellan himself. It was both interesting and a bit puzzling. We must and people have negotiated with the text. Ancient laws are shaped by culture and the power structures then present. As societies change and that would include relationship to power structures people change how they view Biblical law. For all religious groups changes have been made. With these straightforward observations Dan does some review of the developement of Old Testament beliefs, transition from polytheism toward monotheism. He notes importance of the Josiah reform in this an how that reform was shaped or influenced by power struggle. There is real history in the observation but might undermine Biblical legal authority more than many including church leaders would like.
Dan McClellan is plenty safe from discipline, in my opinion. While he has tangentially been critical of positions which the Church holds, I have never seen him directly criticize the Church, or its leadership. Whenever he specifically notes that scholarship and/or his views directly contradict LDS teachings/doctrine, it is never done in a way that could be perceived by the brethren as an attack, or an attempt to undermine or embarrass them or the Church.
Dan is generally very careful in maintaining boundaries in what he presents, and not letting anyone force those boundaries into becoming a discussion of the Church.
A further question or subject Dan McClellan brought out I puzzled further over. He observed that in the past people approached religious truth statements not concerned so much with how true they were but were concerned that love of God be genuine. I had decidedly mixed reactions to this proposal. I find it very difficult to imagine people unconcerned about the truth of their doctrines. I quick glance at Christian history might see a lot of vigorous argument over what are truthful statements. In fact a person might wish people gave more value to genuine love and admit uncertainties in truth claims. I sort of understood that Dan had a relative point. With to Protestant reformation there increased a desire to distill the Bible into a single rational presentation of doctrinal truth. Considering that the Bible contains variation in point of view and incomplete point of view there is something artificial and manipulative in forcing it into one unified rational system (as with Calvin and others)
I did wonder if Dan was really thinking of the time BC before there was large Hellenistic influence. Perhaps people in earlier periods had more sense of the tentative and exploratory aspect of religious ideas and images. They could hope the images were aimed in the right direction enough to help people with love of God and love of neighbor. I am unsure just how much such a view held sway in historical periods but I think Dan recommends it for himself and for us in the present and future.
Dan McClellan is plenty safe from discipline, in my opinion. While he has tangentially been critical of positions which the Church holds, I have never seen him directly criticize the Church, or its leadership. Whenever he specifically notes that scholarship and/or his views directly contradict LDS teachings/doctrine, it is never done in a way that could be perceived by the brethren as an attack, or an attempt to undermine or embarrass them or the Church.
Dan is generally very careful in maintaining boundaries in what he presents, and not letting anyone force those boundaries into becoming a discussion of the Church.
Doctor Steuss, I certainly do not wish any trouble for Dan so hope you are correct. I can also hope that his attitude finds more influence.
So why hasn't Dan been crowing up Dan McClellan and his materials and engaging with him concerning biblical scholarship? That just seems odd doesn't it? Dan is attempting here to insinuate himself into some credibility having been the so-called master to the now wildly famous student. Why hasn't Dan been out there cheering him on and co-videoing with him on biblical exegesis? Just seems odd to me is all. Those two together could kick out some fascinating materials, even while disagreeing. Or is it that Dan can't stand to even associate with anyone who has a different take on things than his, because his always has to be the best and correct?
Hi Philo, I would think a reason for your question would be the distance between the views of Drs McClellan and Peterson. I would expect that Dan McClellan is in some danger of church discipline. His biblical scholarship clashes with standard LDS views of history but he might get away with that. He might not get away with supporting changes in laws attitudes towards homosexuality. I really do not know of course. I think he presented at least part of a reasonable argument.
Your presentation made me wish to look beyond Thoughtful faith presentation so found relevant presentation by Dan McClellan himself. It was both interesting and a bit puzzling. We must and people have negotiated with the text. Ancient laws are shaped by culture and the power structures then present. As societies change and that would include relationship to power structures people change how they view Biblical law. For all religious groups changes have been made. With these straightforward observations Dan does some review of the developement of Old Testament beliefs, transition from polytheism toward monotheism. He notes importance of the Josiah reform in this an how that reform was shaped or influenced by power struggle. There is real history in the observation but might undermine Biblical legal authority more than many including church leaders would like.
I agree entirely, and it is sad that a person with actual biblical integrity and knowledge could so be in danger from a church of "truth" which has Jesus to reveal to them the real situation, yet they continually misunderstand those very scriptures Jesus is supposed to be enlightening them on. Yet they disparage and threaten scholarship for finding different realities than their own proclaimed "revelations" which turn out to be.....erm........not so faithfully true to evidence as it has been unearthed and analyzed with serious intent on knowing what is going on. The church then usually punts to faith, a clear admission they have no actual leg in reality to stand on. I wish the best for Dan McClellan, as he appears to me to be one of the singular most scholars of integrity to the Bible I have ever seen. One should be able to say this of church leaders, unfortunately they closed that option down looooong ago with their deliberate deception of their own history, its doctrines, and policies.
Critical Bible scholarship is not well tolerated by the church. David Bokovoy was treated very poorly by the brethren.
And he knows more than they all combined on the subject, weird how they can't fathom that and learn at his knees. But then, after all, they are prophets...
