Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[Marcus]

Did you read the post you are responding to? Your paragraph above mangles every concept discussed.

It looks like he is getting better at AI prompting. “Answer the question I wish they'd asked, not the one they actually asked.”

Yes, but you'd think he would also learn to leave out the "MG responds" when he cuts and pastes his AI.

[MG 2.0]

Did you read the post you are responding to? Your paragraph above mangles every concept discussed.

It looks like he is getting better at AI prompting. “Answer the question I wish they'd asked, not the one they actually asked.”

I didn't mangle anything to begin with. I may have comingled my thoughts. I so that now and then. My wife will testify to that.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Let's try this again. Back to the topic:

I have not followed everything Dan has said but have followed a bunch. I have not heard him say that he does not think the Book of Mormon is historical. I have heard him say a few times that the data does not support the book as history
He then has added faith can go beyond data, hope can go beyond what is demonstrated ( referencing that line in Hebrews)

I do not know what he thinks on that ,he has declined to say. I imagine he may see it as something uncertain but hoped for.

Yes, on the face of it Dan does seem to be trying to have a foot in both camps. He’s acknowledging that the evidence for it being of 19th century origin is strong, whilst also acknowledging that there’s room for people believing it’s of ancient origin despite the evidence. That’s intellectually inconsistent. But as you say, he’s not really articulating his own position. He’s sort of arguing for “belief despite evidence” which is fine when there aren’t in real life consequences. What I mean is, believing in the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins despite the evidence showing it isn’t ancient, is different to a wall street trader throwing good money after bad to try and rescue a losing position in the hopes the stock will come good despite the evidence that it’s bombing.

I agree with your distinction. As I mentioned before, I see the "arguing for 'belief despite evidence' " to be his acknowledgement that people actually do this and that it's not really relevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. He's absolutely correct in that. In no academic analysis would you find someone arguing that non-factually based beliefs should be considered as a factor in an evaluation of a fact-based assessment of something.

It is a bit jarring to see him so rationally separate the process of evaluating evidence-based knowledge from the process of simple acceptance of a faith-based belief, but at least he's consistent.

[Rivendale]

Let's try this again. Back to the topic:

Yes, on the face of it Dan does seem to be trying to have a foot in both camps. He’s acknowledging that the evidence for it being of 19th century origin is strong, whilst also acknowledging that there’s room for people believing it’s of ancient origin despite the evidence. That’s intellectually inconsistent. But as you say, he’s not really articulating his own position. He’s sort of arguing for “belief despite evidence” which is fine when there aren’t in real life consequences. What I mean is, believing in the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins despite the evidence showing it isn’t ancient, is different to a wall street trader throwing good money after bad to try and rescue a losing position in the hopes the stock will come good despite the evidence that it’s bombing.

I agree with your distinction. As I mentioned before, I see the "arguing for 'belief despite evidence' " to be his acknowledgement that people actually do this and that it's not really relevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. He's absolutely correct in that. In no academic analysis would you find someone arguing that non-factually based beliefs should be considered as a factor in an evaluation of a fact-based assessment of something.

It is a bit jarring to see him so rationally separate the process of evaluating evidence-based knowledge from the process of simple acceptance of a faith-based belief, but at least he's consistent.

Your last sentence verbalized what I have been trying to wordsmith without success. Most of the Dan's critics regarding biblical critique are puzzled why he adheres to an even more bizarre belief system and his privacy around it breeds deep resent from both sides of the faith fence. I wonder what his out is?

[Limnor]

Let's try this again. Back to the topic:

I agree with your distinction. As I mentioned before, I see the "arguing for 'belief despite evidence' " to be his acknowledgement that people actually do this and that it's not really relevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. He's absolutely correct in that. In no academic analysis would you find someone arguing that non-factually based beliefs should be considered as a factor in an evaluation of a fact-based assessment of something.

It is a bit jarring to see him so rationally separate the process of evaluating evidence-based knowledge from the process of simple acceptance of a faith-based belief, but at least he's consistent.

Your last sentence verbalized what I have been trying to wordsmith without success. Most of the Dan's critics regarding biblical critique are puzzled why he adheres to an even more bizarre belief system and his privacy around it breeds deep resent from both sides of the faith fence. I wonder what his out is?

I’ve been thinking something similar. If the historical claim is the basis for the church’s authority, doesn’t that claim to authority collapse if the historical fact is removed? I wonder how, or even if, McClellan reconciles this.

[MG 2.0]

For those interested Dan McClellan was interviewed on the latest episode of Inside Out podcast.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4wFirVmg0LGcNcDB8sYRSU

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

For those interested Dan McClellan was interviewed on the latest episode of Inside Out podcast.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4wFirVmg0LGcNcDB8sYRSU

Regards,
MG

A fun interview once Dan came in to the chat although the introduction by Jim and Ian is worth listening to. At around 29:45 or so he uses the phrase, "internal sectarianism". Listening to that phrase within the surrounding context was interesting.

I think David Whitmer, way back when, was one of the first of many to come along with certain traits, presuppositions, etc., that put him squarely within that description. There have been many since then. Some of them have left the church as Whitmer did for pretty much the same reason. Whether this might apply to anyone on this board is anyone's guess.

They talk at some point after that about potential future changes to the text of the Book of Mormon. I thought that was interesting.

I would suggest that before anyone makes comments on the interview/podcast they actually listen to it first.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

For those interested Dan McClellan was interviewed on the latest episode of Inside Out podcast.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4wFirVmg0LGcNcDB8sYRSU

Regards,
MG (MOD NOTE: original content/names within quoted posts should remain unchanged. -c-)

Ouch! Good episode, but believers in a historic Book of Mormon are going to be sorely disappointed.

[MG 2.0]

For those interested Dan McClellan was interviewed on the latest episode of Inside Out podcast.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4wFirVmg0LGcNcDB8sYRSU

Regards,
MG (MOD NOTE: original content/names within quoted posts should remain unchanged. -c-)

Ouch! Good episode, but believers in a historic Book of Mormon are going to be sorely disappointed.

You may want to go into a bit more detail. Time stamp. What did he say exactly? Context within the rest of the interview?

You're just throwing stuff out there.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Ouch! Good episode, but believers in a historic Book of Mormon are going to be sorely disappointed.

You may want to go into a bit more detail. Time stamp. What did he say exactly? Context within the rest of the interview?

You're just throwing stuff out there.

Regards,
MG

TTOC