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

[I Have Questions]

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.

But it was MG who introduced Harrell as a source. It’s a bit odd that after doing so MG is unable or unwilling to provide an actual quote from Harrell rather than a third party talking at tangents. It’s as if MG now realises his source, Harrell, actually says the opposite to the point MG is trying to make. Hence why he’s running away from quoting Harrell. This is how MG introduced Harrell

He along with Charlie Harrell and others are helping to clarify things that were rather murky as a result of 'line upon line' being only part way down the road of understanding.

MG is yet to provide a quote from Harrell to support that. Whereas others have provided quotes from Harrell that show the opposite. That Harrell is providing evidence that the Church is walking back on doctrines because of new evidence, rather than building upon them and moving forward “line upon line” as MG claimed Harrell was showing. He should just hold his hands up and admit he was mistaken about Harrell.

[huckelberry]

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.

But it was MG who introduced Harrell as a source. It’s a bit odd that after doing so MG is unable or unwilling to provide an actual quote from Harrell rather than a third party talking at tangents. It’s as if MG now realises his source, Harrell, actually says the opposite to the point MG is trying to make. Hence why he’s running away from quoting Harrell. This is how MG introduced Harrell

He along with Charlie Harrell and others are helping to clarify things that were rather murky as a result of 'line upon line' being only part way down the road of understanding.

MG is yet to provide a quote from Harrell to support that. Whereas others have provided quotes from Harrell that show the opposite. That Harrell is providing evidence that the Church is walking back on doctrines because of new evidence, rather than building upon them and moving forward “line upon line” as MG claimed Harrell was showing. He should just hold his hands up and admit he was mistaken about Harrell.

I would understand MG to be thinking of doctrine development to include clarifications and minor corrections. I probably can accept the quoted list of changes as mostly falling into that category. I do not believe there has been any change in the doctrine of becoming divine. The priesthood ban is still ugly. You probably will find believer variety on Genesis literalism now as in the past.

I can see thinking that since Brigham Young there really has not been doctrinal development.

[I Have Questions]

I probably can accept the quoted list of changes as mostly falling into that category. I do not believe there has been any change in the doctrine of becoming divine. The priesthood ban is still ugly. You probably will find believer variety on Genesis literalism now as in the past.

I can see thinking that since Brigham Young there really has not been doctrinal development.

MG wants to suggest that LDS doctrine has progressed “line upon line, precept upon precept” in the same way that a wall is built. That’s not by removing bricks, but by adding bricks. Harrell highlights the fact that the Church has simply removed bricks since the start of the Church, but has not added any. I’d be interested to hear of any Harrell quote that meets the criteria of him (Harrell) providing an example where an original Church doctrine has been added upon, rather than been taken away from. It’s clear that MG isn’t going to put any effort into doing that, maybe you will?

It should be noted that MG has yet to provide a quote from Harrell. It should also be noted he has point blank refused to follow Rivendale’s advice and listen to what Harrell (a reference MG brought into the thread) actually says. MG prefers to keep his head in the sand, you will not hear him admit that Harrell says the opposite to that which MG wants to believe. It’s fascinating psychological behaviour.

[huckelberry]

I probably can accept the quoted list of changes as mostly falling into that category. I do not believe there has been any change in the doctrine of becoming divine. The priesthood ban is still ugly. You probably will find believer variety on Genesis literalism now as in the past.

I can see thinking that since Brigham Young there really has not been doctrinal development.

MG wants to suggest that LDS doctrine has progressed “line upon line, precept upon precept” in the same way that a wall is built. That’s not by removing bricks, but by adding bricks. Harrell highlights the fact that the Church has simply removed bricks since the start of the Church, but has not added any. I’d be interested to hear of any Harrell quote that meets the criteria of him (Harrell) providing an example where an original Church doctrine has been added upon, rather than been taken away from. It’s clear that MG isn’t going to put any effort into doing that, maybe you will?

It should be noted that MG has yet to provide a quote from Harrell. It should also be noted he has point blank refused to follow Rivendale’s advice and listen to what Harrell (a reference MG brought into the thread) actually says. MG prefers to keep his head in the sand, you will not hear him admit that Harrell says the opposite to that which MG wants to believe. It’s fascinating psychological behaviour.

I had not thought MG, meant rigid addition Of bricks only. That would be simpler than including adjustments and alterations. It appeared to me he was happy to include alterations. It would be helpful if MG explained his thought more fully instead of resting on a vague generalization. I probably should not try to fill in further. I was just trying to further conversation.

I do think of religious thought as progressing fitfully struggling with errors. But I do not believe in LDS authority or that Chtistian faith is centered In one group.

[I Have Questions]

It would be helpful if MG explained his thought more fully instead of resting on a vague generalization.

Ain’t that the truth!

[huckelberry]

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.

Questions, back to topic might be worth a try.

I have listened to a fair number of presentations from Mak and would be happy if he put in a reappearance here. I have only listened to portions of Philos presentation of the book . It seems to cover material I have seen him present. A quick perusal at the book store showed the same. That is not bad. Dan is focusing on a group of related important ideas presented with a variety of examples. He can be abrupt in argument and slow to allow uncertainty. I am unsure what street slang is Iso am uncertai. About that criticism. I do find myself wincing from repetitions of some achademic tropes like dogma is expression of social control and repression of out groups. Perhaps tropes is not the best word. I think dogma can be part that . I incline to doubt that it always or only is that so feel uncomfortable with repetition of the formula.

I heard in Philo reading that scripture can say nothing without interpretation. Then there is a problem of interpretation overriding what scripture says. That sounds like a contradiction but I think it means competing considerations must be both respected.

An example presented is Genesis creation account , "let us.."where a divine plurality is in view. Sometimes Christian commentators state that the Trinity is in view. Dan sees this as unacceptable as no concept of the trinity existed when Genesis was written but the idea of a divine counsel did. Dan is right of course. Educated Christian commentators know this as well but might think the Genesis phrase contains a germ or beginning of something not understood or aware of at original writing. For a fourth century Christian a new interpretation emerges. For a fourth century Jew a new monotheistic meaning appears different than the Trinity of course.

A similar evolution of meaning appears related to slavery. The actual Biblical text accepts slavery. I may be inspired by the Bible to reject slavery.

I have heard Dan use the phrase negotiating with the text for this back and forth process.(hope I have remembered that correctly)

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Any guess which one is MG?

[MG 2.0]

But it was MG who introduced Harrell as a source. It’s a bit odd that after doing so MG is unable or unwilling to provide an actual quote from Harrell rather than a third party talking at tangents. It’s as if MG now realises his source, Harrell, actually says the opposite to the point MG is trying to make. Hence why he’s running away from quoting Harrell. This is how MG introduced Harrell MG is yet to provide a quote from Harrell to support that. Whereas others have provided quotes from Harrell that show the opposite. That Harrell is providing evidence that the Church is walking back on doctrines because of new evidence, rather than building upon them and moving forward “line upon line” as MG claimed Harrell was showing. He should just hold his hands up and admit he was mistaken about Harrell.

I would understand MG to be thinking of doctrine development to include clarifications and minor corrections. I probably can accept the quoted list of changes as mostly falling into that category. I do not believe there has been any change in the doctrine of becoming divine. The priesthood ban is still ugly. You probably will find believer variety on Genesis literalism now as in the past.

I can see thinking that since Brigham Young there really has not been doctrinal development.

The quote on page three of this thread contains the following:

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.

The link to this quote and the rest of Barry Bickmore's essay was given upthread.

As I said, Harrell saw the aftermath. He didn't see what was going on underneath the surface. I think many times this is the case for many of us, including those that dabble in history. This is where a bit of faith comes in.

Regards,
MG

[msnobody]

I watched a couple of those and enjoyed them.
Edited to refer to Charlie Harrell (sp?)
I hope I got that right. Too lazy to go looking.

[MG 2.0]

Any guess which one is MG?

Who made the comments in regards to the angel with a flaming sword? What year(s)? What was the location of that person or persons when the comment was made?

Did Joseph Smith himself or through a scribe record that event? Source?

Regards,
MG