Why Dan McClellan is such a breath of fresh air

[drumdude]

Number 1: he doesn’t have an agenda or perspective he is trying to push. He may have biases, but he is careful to label his opinions as just that, opinions. He is (presumably) a believing LDS member, and yet he is completely and transparently honest about what the facts say even, and especially when those facts do not support his religious beliefs.

It’s difficult to overstate how different this is than Mopologetics. Mopologists start at the wrong end, trying to make the facts fit their beliefs. Dan clearly starts with the facts and lets them guide his points wherever they lead.

Often you’ll see DCP claim that there are no clear eyed, open minded, neutral critics of the LDS church. I think over the next several years you’ll see him try to minimize McClellan’s impact, because McClellan is exactly that. And it’s going to be devastating for fundamentalist belief like most Mormons cling to.

Secondly, McClellan is amazing at weaving in salient facts to his arguments. Unlike idiots like Robert Boylan who speed read thousands of pages and just copy-paste quotes on their blogs, McClellan shares all of this knowledge by responding to fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

Because McClellan doesn’t have a specific dogma to uphold, he’s able to lay out the plain facts with no omissions, no spin, no embellishment, no equivocation. It’s absolutely refreshing. It’s a sight to behold, and honestly a gift from God for those interested in truth, no matter where it leads.

His channel continues to grow exponentially, and Mopologists would be wise to take notes.

[Nolan]

Caveat: I'm not LDS anymore.

I both hope and think that the modern, educated LDS believer is more like Dan M. than Dan P.

I hope for the dawning of a brighter day for the church, in all seriousness.

[I Have Questions]

Caveat: I'm not LDS anymore.

I both hope and think that the modern, educated LDS believer is more like Dan M. than Dan P.

I hope for the dawning of a brighter day for the church, in all seriousness.

I think that’s exceptionally unlikely. Sadly. It’s more likely (in my opinion) that Dan M will leave the Church or be asked to leave the Church, than for any single Apostle to start acting and thinking outside of the carefully choreographed script.

[Physics Guy]

If McClellan can still believe enough in Mormonism to remain in his church, more power to him. If someone discerns a message from God in something, I figure the message is more important than the medium. And if there are things in Mormon tradition that seem hard for a modern person to swallow, well, there are eyebrow-raisers in every religion I know. Many of them can be neutralized safely by reclassifying stuff from message to medium, and saying that this or that implausible thing was just the best way those olden-time people had for expressing something that we would say differently. Some of the crazy things can just be jettisoned, without destroying everything. If there’s a worm in my apple, I’m not going to swallow the worm just to stop people from calling me a cafeteria apple-eater.

And I don’t necessarily expect everyone to have finished doing all the requisite purging or re-interpreting. I think it can be okay to go on for a while just not focusing on a problematic issue, not defending it but not actively attacking it as long as it doesn’t seem to too serious a problem, like a benign tumor. There are a few basic things in electromagnetism (wires, motors, and batteries—so yeah, pretty basic) that I don’t understand to my own satisfaction even though I often teach the advanced course. I’m sure that some people, somewhere do understand those physics problems properly; and I’m not saying that the same must be true of any religious conundrums. My point is just that nobody has to time to straighten out everything, even in a subject where everything is probably straightenable. It’s enough to be rational enough.

For me the kind of fundamentalist Mormonism that believes in the whole nine yards of literal golden plates and Jaredite barges and all is below that threshold. That’s not just a worm in the apple; it’s a big bowl of worms. A lot of Mormon apologetics seems to be dying on hills in Never-Never-Land. But I could have a lot more time for someone like McClellan.

[It’s easy enough to find grade-school-level explanations of motors and batteries, and maybe even of wires, though I think it’s rare to realize that there is anything about a humble wire that even needs explaining. It’s surprisingly hard to find discussions of wires, motors, or batteries at senior undergrad level. Textbooks often mention them briefly to give the impression that they are simple and obvious, but if they were actually that simple, textbook authors would be only too happy to pad out their books by adding clear and simple chapters spelling it all out in detail. The reason to dismiss these basic things as obvious is that they are horribly hard to understand. If you try to write a Lagrangian for a DC motor, you’re going to have a bad time.]

[MG 2.0]

If McClellan can still believe enough in Mormonism to remain in his church, more power to him. If someone discerns a message from God in something, I figure the message is more important than the medium. And if there are things in Mormon tradition that seem hard for a modern person to swallow, well, there are eyebrow-raisers in every religion I know. Many of them can be neutralized safely by reclassifying stuff from message to medium, and saying that this or that implausible thing was just the best way those olden-time people had for expressing something that we would say differently. Some of the crazy things can just be jettisoned, without destroying everything. If there’s a worm in my apple, I’m not going to swallow the worm just to stop people from calling me a cafeteria apple-eater.

And I don’t necessarily expect everyone to have finished doing all the requisite purging or re-interpreting. I think it can be okay to go on for a while just not focusing on a problematic issue, not defending it but not actively attacking it as long as it doesn’t seem to too serious a problem, like a benign tumor. There are a few basic things in electromagnetism (wires, motors, and batteries—so yeah, pretty basic) that I don’t understand to my own satisfaction even though I often teach the advanced course. I’m sure that some people, somewhere do understand those physics problems properly; and I’m not saying that the same must be true of any religious conundrums. My point is just that nobody has to time to straighten out everything, even in a subject where everything is probably straightenable. It’s enough to be rational enough.

For me the kind of fundamentalist Mormonism that believes in the whole nine yards of literal golden plates and Jaredite barges and all is below that threshold. That’s not just a worm in the apple; it’s a big bowl of worms. A lot of Mormon apologetics seems to be dying on hills in Never-Never-Land. But I could have a lot more time for someone like McClellan.

[It’s easy enough to find grade-school-level explanations of motors and batteries, and maybe even of wires, though I think it’s rare to realize that there is anything about a humble wire that even needs explaining. It’s surprisingly hard to find discussions of wires, motors, or batteries at senior undergrad level. Textbooks often mention them briefly to give the impression that they are simple and obvious, but if they were actually that simple, textbook authors would be only too happy to pad out their books by adding clear and simple chapters spelling it all out in detail. The reason to dismiss these basic things as obvious is that they are horribly hard to understand. If you try to write a Lagrangian for a DC motor, you’re going to have a bad time.]

I know that you may look at what I think/believe and write on this board as being non defensible or a bit hickish but I do need to say that even though you are a non believer in the truth claims of the LDS Church and yet a believer in some form of spiritual/Christian practice... I sure enjoy your thoughtful and scientifically oriented posts.

For whatever it's worth. They have real substance. I have McClellan's book and am still plowing my way through it.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

I imagine apologists and the SCMC have been working to build a case against Dr. McClellan. The restraint they face is that this would be a very public excommunication, and the Church would take a huge hit regarding their honesty and integrity.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Dan McClellan's content might by top notch, but he still has a long way to go before he can compete with the Interpreter Foundation's videos:

https://youtu.be/GCGKnJxyrBM?t=82

[MG 2.0]

I imagine apologists and the SCMC have been working to build a case against Dr. McClellan. The restraint they face is that this would be a very public excommunication, and the Church would take a huge hit regarding their honesty and integrity.

Has he directly criticized the leaders of the LDS Church?

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Not that I have heard or read. But Dan did say he makes people uncomfortable in classes where he had to set them straight with their so called knowledge.

[MG 2.0]

Not that I have heard or read. But Dan did say he makes people uncomfortable in classes where he had to set them straight with their so called knowledge.

Yes, I can imagine that.

Regards,
MG