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

[MG 2.0]

I looked up mg's other reference:

Wow.

Wow indeed! Charlie Harrell sat down with Bill Reel and RFM…from the show notes…

The kinds of things that are being “restored” are all minor and pertain to procedural and organizational issues. There is little, if any, further light and knowledge on doctrinal matters.

In fact, on doctrinal matters, there has actually been a roll back, so that we know less now then we did before.

Lamanite identity
age of the earth
time of the second coming and millennium
why blacks were denied the priesthood and temple blessings
the general geography of the Book of Mormon
that plural marriage was required for the highest exaltation
How the Book of Mormon was translated
Location of Garden of Eden
Adam-God
That we would become just like God and not only get our own world but create worlds of our own
Notice that these are all doctrines that history, science and cultural pressures have caused the church to rethink. More and more, the answer to questions for which we used to have answers for is, “We don’t know” or “we don’t teach that.”

It’s pretty damning stuff.

It goes a bit farther than that:

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.

The fact that the sort of apocalyptic documents discussed here were among the typical literary vehicles for early Jewish and Jewish Christian esoteric traditions poses no less of a challenge for historians trying to reconstruct the sources of Joseph Smith’s esoteric doctrines. If he constructed his body of esoteric teachings piecemeal from various Christian nonconformists, as Charles Harrell proposes, or from a hodgepodge of folk-magical, Masonic, and Kabbalistic texts, as D. Michael Quinn argues,59 it seems very unlikely that Smith could have plucked from such a sea of distractions a significant number of elements attested in early Jewish Christian writings that he could fashion into a coherent theology and could then present in a standard format of early Jewish Christian esoteric literature. He must somehow have had relatively direct access to the early Jewish Christian esoteric tradition.
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/show ... -no-man-2/

I think Harrell made an important contribution but I'm not sure he understood the breadth and depth of Joseph's exposure to the 'divine history'. He was looking at things somewhat superficially. But he gave us a glimpse of the fact that the doctrines have a much longer/larger development pattern than we may have thought.

That seems to be obvious from some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially without digging deeper as Bickmore does in the linked essay.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially...

For example...

...He along with Charlie Harrell and others are helping to clarify things that were rather murky...

[Everybody Wang Chung]

...some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially...

For example...

...He along with Charlie Harrell and others are helping to clarify things that were rather murky...

[MG 2.0]

...some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially...

For example...

...He along with Charlie Harrell and others are helping to clarify things that were rather murky...

It never ceases to amaze me l, but I'm not surprised anymore, with the insubstantial responses that come my way when evidence comes forward that might make one reconsider previous assumptions/conclusions.

If I was an attorney and the opposing side didn't have anything to offer as a counter argument and simply provided a chart with silly emoticons or memes I would find a way to embarrass them in front of the jury.

That can't be done here. The jury is unfortunately rigged.

Charlie Harrell has something to offer...but it was only a start...not an end. That's the problem I continually see with critics. "Ah! A smoking gun!"

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity for further exploration.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[I Have Questions]

Wow indeed! Charlie Harrell sat down with Bill Reel and RFM…from the show notes… It’s pretty damning stuff.

It goes a bit farther than that:

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.

The fact that the sort of apocalyptic documents discussed here were among the typical literary vehicles for early Jewish and Jewish Christian esoteric traditions poses no less of a challenge for historians trying to reconstruct the sources of Joseph Smith’s esoteric doctrines. If he constructed his body of esoteric teachings piecemeal from various Christian nonconformists, as Charles Harrell proposes, or from a hodgepodge of folk-magical, Masonic, and Kabbalistic texts, as D. Michael Quinn argues,59 it seems very unlikely that Smith could have plucked from such a sea of distractions a significant number of elements attested in early Jewish Christian writings that he could fashion into a coherent theology and could then present in a standard format of early Jewish Christian esoteric literature. He must somehow have had relatively direct access to the early Jewish Christian esoteric tradition.
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/show ... -no-man-2/

I think Harrell made an important contribution but I'm not sure he understood the breadth and depth of Joseph's exposure to the 'divine history'. He was looking at things somewhat superficially. But he gave us a glimpse of the fact that the doctrines have a much longer/larger development pattern than we may have thought.

That seems to be obvious from some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially without digging deeper as Bickmore does in the linked essay.

Regards,
MG

You don’t seem to realise that your quote from the geologist Bickmore about Joseph picking and choosing to practice in private things he didn’t teach in public, in no way relates to Harrell’s observation that the Church has walked back a number of doctrinal positions due to objective external evidences. If we are going to discuss this you need to work on your comprehension of what is being discussed.
Not only that, you were the one who put forward Harrell, and you’re now, seemingly, trying to rebut him (unsuccessfully) with a randomly plucked information about an unrelated discussion point. You’re literally arguing with yourself.

If I was an attorney and the opposing side didn't have anything to offer as a counter argument and simply provided a chart with silly emoticons or memes I would find a way to embarrass them in front of the jury.

No. the accurate parallel would be - if you were an attorney you would put yourself in the witness box and assassinate your own position under your own cross examining of yourself. It would be well worth watching. It’s incredible the number of times you’ve done exactly that on this board.

On a separate note to get the thread back to the topic, Dan’s book doesn’t get universal praise (I note I haven’t read it for myself). Some people have suggested it’s just an opinion piece rather than scholarship, and that it is annoying in its attempted use of “down with the Tik Tok kids” street slang type phraseology.

[MG 2.0]

It goes a bit farther than that:



I think Harrell made an important contribution but I'm not sure he understood the breadth and depth of Joseph's exposure to the 'divine history'. He was looking at things somewhat superficially. But he gave us a glimpse of the fact that the doctrines have a much longer/larger development pattern than we may have thought.

That seems to be obvious from some of the reactions to his book by those that may have read it superficially without digging deeper as Bickmore does in the linked essay.

Regards,
MG

You don’t seem to realise that your quote from the geologist Bickmore about Joseph picking and choosing to practice in private things he didn’t teach in public, in no way relates to Harrell’s observation that the Church has walked back a number of doctrinal positions due to objective external evidences. If we are going to discuss this you need to work on your comprehension of what is being discussed.
Not only that, you were the one who put forward Harrell, and you’re now, seemingly, trying to rebut him (unsuccessfully) with a randomly plucked information about an unrelated discussion point. You’re literally arguing with yourself.

If I was an attorney and the opposing side didn't have anything to offer as a counter argument and simply provided a chart with silly emoticons or memes I would find a way to embarrass them in front of the jury.

No. the accurate parallel would be - if you were an attorney you would put yourself in the witness box and assassinate your own position under your own cross examining of yourself. It would be well worth watching. It’s incredible the number of times you’ve done exactly that on this board.

On a separate note to get the thread back to the topic, Dan’s book doesn’t get universal praise (I note I haven’t read it for myself). Some people have suggested it’s just an opinion piece rather than scholarship, and that it is annoying in its attempted use of “down with the Tik Tok kids” street slang type phraseology.

It is interesting how two people can come to two different views in their observations. That also never ceases to amaze me. I see a correlation where you don't. Be that as it may, the thread has gone a bit off kilter. I'll let my words stand as they are.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

To get the thread back to the topic of the OP, Dan’s book doesn’t get universal praise (I note I haven’t read it for myself). Some people have suggested it’s just an opinion piece rather than scholarship, and that it is annoying in its attempted use of “down with the Tik Tok kids” street slang type phraseology.

[MG 2.0]

Wow indeed! Charlie Harrell sat down with Bill Reel and RFM…from the show notes…


It’s pretty damning stuff.

I've had Charlie on my show many times and everything we talked about and showed on numerous subjects is not supportive of LDS doctrine at all.

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

[Rivendale]

I've had Charlie on my show many times and everything we talked about and showed on numerous subjects is not supportive of LDS doctrine at all.

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