I would imagine that just like Dan McClellan, it’s important for him not to speak about LDS in a way that would upset their fragile Mopologist friends.
Actually, Dan is pretty blunt in the introduction of his new book on this subject. Kudos to him!
Yes and no. On page 14 and 15 he as a matter of fact says that he sticks to the current scientific/scholarly consensus in his writing even if it runs counter to LDS ideology or doctrine. And then he says that this concensus may or may not always be the truth or be 100% correct. So it seems he leaves a loophole for further exploration on many subjects. As I've been reading his book that is my takeaway so far.
The introduction seems to make clear that he is an active member of the church.
Tarik is an interesting fellow. He is very open about his change of spiritual homes on Facebook. He often posts images of the saints, and he is a fan of Pope Leo XIII. From my interactions with him, it seems that he is a traditionalist and not a fan of modernism. He does, however, still attend the LDS Church with his family members, who are still LDS. He continues to be engaged with the LDS Church and still has many LDS friends. He remains intellectually active in the LDS sphere, as well. So, it is difficult to pin him down exactly. I think he is absolutely sincere and serious about his spiritual commitments, but he is also impossible to pigeonhole.
Tarik is attending two different sets of religious services on a weekly basis? Does his LDS family join him in attending Byzantine Catholic mass? (I don’t do Facebook so cannot see for myself).
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Actually, Dan is pretty blunt in the introduction of his new book on this subject. Kudos to him!
Yes and no. On page 14 and 15 he as a matter of fact says that he sticks to the current scientific/scholarly consensus in his writing even if it runs counter to LDS ideology or doctrine. And then he says that this concensus may or may not always be the truth or be 100% correct. So it seems he leaves a loophole for further exploration on many subjects. As I've been reading his book that is my takeaway so far.
The introduction seems to make clear that he is an active member of the church.
Regards,
MG
Of course. Just as he is clear that scholarship does not land on the Mormon side of things in many case, and what's moire, very important doctrinal cases which revelation was supposed to settle, but missed the boat entirely. It's almost as if Jesus doesn't know what he is talking about. The prophets have not, on numerous occasions been the guiding lights to truth they love to make members imagine they are through their brain washing talks and General Conference appearances.
Yes and no. On page 14 and 15 he as a matter of fact says that he sticks to the current scientific/scholarly consensus in his writing even if it runs counter to LDS ideology or doctrine. And then he says that this concensus may or may not always be the truth or be 100% correct. So it seems he leaves a loophole for further exploration on many subjects. As I've been reading his book that is my takeaway so far.
The introduction seems to make clear that he is an active member of the church.
Regards,
MG
Of course. Just as he is clear that scholarship does not land on the Mormon side of things in many case, and what's moire, very important doctrinal cases which revelation was supposed to settle, but missed the boat entirely. It's almost as if Jesus doesn't know what he is talking about. The prophets have not, on numerous occasions been the guiding lights to truth they love to make members imagine they are through their brain washing talks and General Conference appearances.
Scriptural exegesis is not limited to those that serve at the general church level of ecclesiastical assignments. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Dan McClellan has spent much more time engaged in that activity, with his scholarly pursuits and expertise, than most...if not all...of the folks serving in the First Quorums and General Leadership positions.
It absolutely is a rejection of the LDS Church. Presumably he now has to be excommunicated or formally resign from the Church?
It'll largely be up to his local leaders (unless he becomes vocal against the Corporation, then the command to ex him will come from the top). There was a poster on the old FAIR board who was both active LDS and Catholic for many years. He also dabbled in the occult. Generally, as long as you aren't bad-mouthing the Corporate leadership, or doing something embarrassing to the Corporation like advocating for polygamy, you're pretty safe from being ex'd.
It absolutely is a rejection of the LDS Church. Presumably he now has to be excommunicated or formally resign from the Church?
It'll largely be up to his local leaders (unless he becomes vocal against the Corporation, then the command to ex him will come from the top). There was a poster on the old FAIR board who was both active LDS and Catholic for many years. He also dabbled in the occult. Generally, as long as you aren't bad-mouthing the Corporate leadership, or doing something embarrassing to the Corporation like advocating for polygamy, you're pretty safe from being ex'd.
Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)
It’s hard to see how Tarik won’t fall foul of this at some point. From my perspective, I don’t understand how Tarik can, in all good conscience, truly believe in two, conflicting theologies. He’s trying to run with the hare and the hounds. I feel that damages his credibility.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Tue Aug 05, 2025 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It'll largely be up to his local leaders (unless he becomes vocal against the Corporation, then the command to ex him will come from the top). There was a poster on the old FAIR board who was both active LDS and Catholic for many years. He also dabbled in the occult. Generally, as long as you aren't bad-mouthing the Corporate leadership, or doing something embarrassing to the Corporation like advocating for polygamy, you're pretty safe from being ex'd.
Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)
It’s hard to see how Tarik won’t fall foul of this at some point. From my perspective, I don’t understand how Tarik can, in all good conscience, truly believe in two, conflicting theologies. He’s trying to run with the hate and the hounds. I feel that damages his credibility.
Yeah, that *and* in "formally joins another church and advocates its teachings" is going to be a bit of a minefield as far as staying in the good graces of the Corporation goes.
Tarik is attending two different sets of religious services on a weekly basis? Does his LDS family join him in attending Byzantine Catholic mass? (I don’t do Facebook so cannot see for myself).
Good question! I don’t know.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
On page 14 and 15 he as a matter of fact says that he sticks to the current scientific/scholarly consensus in his writing even if it runs counter to LDS ideology or doctrine. And then he says that this concensus may or may not always be the truth or be 100% correct. So it seems he leaves a loophole for further exploration on many subjects.
Regards,
MG
That exception means that something does not need to be the truth or 100% correct, which provides a glimmer of hope for the Church.
This gives Richard Nygren a chance to be the next Lion of the Faith for FAIRLDS.
On page 14 and 15 he as a matter of fact says that he sticks to the current scientific/scholarly consensus in his writing even if it runs counter to LDS ideology or doctrine. And then he says that this concensus may or may not always be the truth or be 100% correct. So it seems he leaves a loophole for further exploration on many subjects.
Regards,
MG
That exception means that something does not need to be the truth or 100% correct, which provides a glimmer of hope for the Church.
He's saying that even though the scholars may have their opinions (and that he does his YouTube channel and writes his book based on that consensus), they may not always be 100% 'true'. I think his point is that we ought to question and analyze everything that comes down to us through religious history.
That's a good thing. That was my point in lumping him and Charlie Harrell in together in this respect. They provide the beachhead (or moved baseline) by which further research and evaluation of existing information and knowledge can be explored. Ultimately this leads to deeper understanding.
The problem is that if we remain on the beach when enemy fire is coming down on us we will be mowed down. We have to move forward, not remain in place. That, in my opinion, is the way to further light and knowledge which we may not have obtained if we simply had stopped and remained in place.
I've found a much more expansive view open to me by remaining in the faith rather than simply giving up and calling out 'surrender!'.
