John I really appreciate how you can host this kind of show on your podcast. I also appreciate how Dan came on and talked with you for this many hours, for all of us to consume and digest. I appreciate the lengthy unedited videos because it allows us all to see the human-ness of yourself and your guests. I wish religious leaders and politicians would surrender themselves to such things. Anyhow, thank you both and all the behind the scenes help.
Enjoyed the discussion very much. However, I came away with the sense that Dan spent 4 hours carefully explaining that his beliefs are irrational. I'm a bit confused about what he actually thinks at this point.
My impression is that Dan wants to be a force for good and change within the church, and how he justifies it isn't really up to anyone else. I can see that. I couldn't do it, but i understand the impulse.
I didn't expect to get so emotional at the end of this and John and Dan mutually thanking and supporting each other. Religion has been a sore spot for me for many years. It warms my heart to hear people speak honestly and kindly to one another on such difficult issues.
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below: No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth. The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America. The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon. CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence? Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But: THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool. The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25). An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors. Bible: The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC. Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church. The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1 One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon. Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie. Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this. Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)? Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)? If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
@@charlesfinn-z4d I'm sorry, but I tried for thirty years and never found it. Life is short and I'm not giving more of my time and effort to "give it another shot"
The sad part of this 'part three ' presentation, to me, is the obvious tip-toeing that both Dan and John felt they had to do - neither felt free to say, in straight terms, what he really thought, personally ; Dan, for his own personal reasons .... and John, so as not to make things awkward for Dan. This highlights the ever-present elephant in the room - that if they ( particularly Dan ) do express their real opinions in straight terms, they risk reaping the wrath of the LDS church, with all the possible repercussions in their personal and family lives. Very few statements were made by either Dan or John without taking time and great thought before speaking. It's difficult for those of us who live well away from Utah to fully grasp how careful LDS members / ex members in ' Zion ' have to be.
Well, if I had cameras and knew literal hundreds of thousands of people are looking, I'd be reluctant to say much at all, but particularly about that which I believe. If it was a one-on-one, no problem.
But Dan was there voluntarily to explain how / why thoughtful members stay in the church. It's not as if he was being pressured to do or say ANYthing. Most guests on John's podcast are happy to say what they really think but I noticed that Dan was only willing to explain why he thought OTHERS remained in the church ....and kept his personal views to himself ....which indicated to me that he had something to lose by stating his personal opinions.
@@allanjeffrey6666 not necessarily. He said it at the beginning that it was very personal to him and that’s why he doesn’t just go out there proclaiming it to the world.
I think you're right ....and if you listen carefully to what he said in this podcast, it's not difficult to figure out why he wants to keep his real views private. Thanks for replying, BTW. @@javiervargas5940
I'm revisting MSP after having taken a long break. I took an intro to world religions class at my secular community college, and now I'm really fascinated with academic religious studies. I listened to all the David Bocavoy (sorry if that's not spelled correctly), and now I'm working through Dan's interviews. Next semester, I'm taking ancient religion, and we'll be covering ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Norse, Celtic, and Aztec pantheons and belief systems within those civilizations in ancient times. I asked my intro to world religion teacher, "Where is the cut off of ancient? We covered Hinduism, and that's the oldest religion right now." She said, "We consider it ancient if it isn't practiced today. " It should be an awesome class.
John, as an active member of the church trying to hold on to her faith, I appreciate you facilitating this conversation and asking hard questions. Many of the questions you asked were my own. I actually feel very satisfied with many of Dan’s answers to these questions and I feel at peace continuing in a church that I must accept is not wholly perfect but slowly moving towards changing for the better. Thank you for this interview.
One of the best Mormon stories episodes that I've seen! I see that it's not to the taste of my fellow commenters but I thought the discussion on what constitutes religion and the ways communities operate was interesting
When I was a young man an elder in my ward told me that the stars are celestialized planets and that gods live on them. I remember being awed by the idea, but a thought then quickly entered my mind and I innocently asked him, "What about our sun?" He replied that our sun is indeed a celestialized planet but that whether or not a god lives on it is a mystery we're not meant to know. I thought about this as I learned about astronomy, learned about the sun and what it's made of and how it operates, learned about what we know of the actual life cycles of stars. I learned about what the actual surface of our sun is like. It wasn't long before I realized that what my elder friend told me was an absurdity, impossible to believe. People will be quick to say things like, "That was never doctrine!" but the church--all churches in fact that I'm aware of--are chock full of such absurdities. Like the Catholic priest who holds up a cracker, rings a bell, and declares it to be the body of Christ, a thoughtful person is left looking at it and thinking, "It's still a cracker." I think it's hard for a "thoughtful" person to stay in the church without engaging in some serious mental compartmentalization gymnastics, and I think that's the only way to do it.
I have absolutely never heard that "doctrine" and if that is the reason some people are leaving the church then our problems are not the ones ex mormons say they are.
Very very apologetic response to many of the later questions. I wonder what’s holding him back from opening up about his beliefs. The beautiful people in the live chat have helped me not get too frustrated with this one
He’s expressed numerous times and ways, that his personal belief is not the bases of his work, and he wants to continue to stay data focused (ie: data over dogma podcast, etc.). His work is public, his personal belief and faith is not.
@@AdreeSoxy I think I was hoping for an answer that would help me understand why my parents stay. I definitely should’ve had more of an open mind in hindsight.
@@danielkirienko1701 since I made this comment I’ve actually had a chat with my parents. I see now why Dan wouldn’t express his own beliefs. The same reason my parents couldn’t all those years ago. There shouldn’t be shame in having questions and doubts about the church; openly. Pretending everything is AOK fixes nothing and helps no one
Through these 3 episodes Dan has very clearly made the case that there is no logic or reason to believe the church is true. However he finds value himself in the community.
It's funny that in my decades in the LDS church, they kept harping on that *considering the church a mere social club would be a waste of time* ... One needed a "testimony", and had to be there with one's whole heart and soul, sacrificing everything for the "truth". Besides, they kept saying that, if the BOM was not true, the entire church would collapse -- a fraud. I took their own word for it.
@@mah244 Exactly - there is a lot more value in an inclusive, egalitarian, uplifting community, and such a community really can't be found in Abrahamic religion.
Seeing this on the upturn of a couple years existential and faith crisis. I feel like it may have given me a couple of the missing pieces i needed. Thank you Dan :)
Because it doesn’t defend religion. It reduces it to mere social communities, and a reduction of the LDS church to a mere community can be reasonably countered with the argument that there probably are better communities out there than the majority of active Mormons.
@@alexanderschofield3728I agree that it doesn't defend religion, but it also doesn't reduce religion in any way -- it's a set of ideas that can be equally used to explain religion from an atheistic worldview or that can be used to describe one of the ways that a creator deity purposefully designed humans in order that humans could have a relationship with said deity.
I enjoyed this episode as others. Everybody is different. Some people can cut the church off and be ok and some are not able to without going into a depression. If you do decide to leave the church, wean off. Don’t just cut it off and leave. There are many who attend the Christian churches and they do not believe all the teachings being taught. But they enjoy the community. I say, stay or stay until you have a replacement. Don’t cut it off and don’t have another community or place to fellowship. Don’t give up! Be blessed!
@@brycebarker1582your a liar...you are not at peace ..your here following around LDS topics ..cuz you miss it....get back to church...find peace again
I listened for about 1.5 hours and heard him acknowledge that the concerns are valid but didn’t hear any answers to the question posed in the title. Not sure how the title isn’t misleading.
The dichotomy that’s the church (Jesus and god appearing, B of M , priesthood restored, the church being only True one) has been established by the Church. We didn’t. I understand what Dan is saying. It makes sense. But we are faced with black and white issues as a badge of faith and membership.
Exactly. That's the point. We skeptics aren't the ones that defined the issue. The church defined itself as "literally, absolutely, true (i.e., real)" and the fact that that is decidedly and verifiably false is the reason there is a problem. And you can't rationalize that away because it is specifically how the church differentiates itself from all the others.
@@Fatfinger4378Yes! I didn't find Dan's defense of this as an attempt by critics to do 'boundary maintenance' and his attempt to downplay the importance of this as odd. Just because The Reformation redefined religion as being an appeal to truth and historicity as a good excuse for the lack therefore when the Mormon church themselves outlined their own belief that they are truthful.
I love the views Dan put forth in this. I do understand this is not necessarily his personal beliefs, however, I wonder if he has ever tried to argue any of these positions with his church leadership. From my experience, if he seriously tried to argue these things he would be seriously "put in his place," so to say. That was my experience. The last bishop I seriously spoke with made it clear that not toeing the line with the official positions of the church was absolutely required. When I said, "I think they [the apostles and prophets] are wrong," he sent me to the stake president to see if I should be excommunicated.
Dan is really smart. Book smart and street smart. He’s playing the long game of CYA and I can’t begrudge him that. I wish he could be honest about that…at least. He doesn’t have to talk about his personal beliefs to say, “Hey…this religion is serving me and all the “problematic stuff” is none of my business”. For me now, I am having a trust crisis. Do I trust his work on the Bible if I do not trust his core values?
You don't need to "trust" his work on the Bible. Dan is a scholar. He is, or at least should be, open about his sources and methods. Trust, but verify. When you do, you'll find out whether his beliefs are coloring his work. If they are, then you have an answer. If they aren't, then you have an answer.
I personally stopped listening to him because I cannot resolve the conflict that you describe. I go one step further and call him cowardly for dunking on other religions (keep in mind he went into academia to study the old testament) while keeping his own nonsensical, hateful faith safe from any criticism. It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
Dog gone! I only started watching part one on my laptop and here's part 3 on my phone. Each part is more than 4 hours long. The fortitude alone to create this. . . . !
I'm very late on this, but I'm struck by how carefully Dan moderates much of his speech with reference to its fundamental or necessary sociality or picking/choosingness, but consistently appeals to "the data" as though "the data" is objective and self-evident.
Thank you Dan and John for this thought provoking 3 part series! As one who has studied scriptures for all of my adult life, and still do, although I have increasingly been studying the principles of Buddhism more so over the past decade or so, this 3 part series was absolutely wonderful. As I believe "striving" for a so called "objective truth" is what could be the thing of most worth in aiming for, it does require great patience, which I am not very good at...😮 Much of what Dan discussed about the Bible wasn't too shocking as I am an avid student of Dr David R Hawkins work, and he came up with very similar conclusions with his "calibrations" of "truth" of the scriptures. At first, about 15 years ago, it was quite awakening and depressing! So I felt some concern for those hearing that for perhaps the first time. If so, time will help to assimilate those things for one's benefit and a deeper understanding. BTW, John you were amazing with those relentless probing questions in this part 3!
Yes I appreciate the questions. Still in the middle of it but can’t help but get annoyed at the tiptoeing going on. I get it, Dan is in and is active and must hold some leadership position where he goes to the HC, so I have empathy…but on some things, yes you can find meaning, but the church, maybe they’re changing or he hasn’t felt it, is all or nothing. Too many thoughts to just do a little comment, all in all great but I find myself disagreeing with Dan on some things.
@Genesis-xd1id I at first got a little frustrated with the tip toeing too, but I think Dan has a good reason for it. My guess is he has a great family life, and the rest of them love the social aspect of the church. So in essence, they probably begged Dan to do things the way he's doing them, which is understandable. I think we'll find out the real reason fairly soon...
I’m sorry, but his “personal take is beyond the scope of this series” of 13+ hour interviews? (2:25:55) I don’t buy it. What is the point of being this educated, this thoughtful and this articulate if all it leads to is stasis? I’m sure this series of interviews was helpful to someone, but it wasn’t to me especially at this moment in time. I would be very interested in a follow up interview in about 5 years. I would be very surprised if he is able to maintain this (for me) untenably neutral position for long.
I totally agree with you. I don't even understand why he does not want to speak about his own belief system. He's a very smart person and researcher, but to not talk about his own struggle with belief and religion seems dishonest, especially when he makes money on social media with religious content. And so many people would benefit from hearing him speaking honestly about how he makes sense of this material in his own life.
I believe he just wants us to decide for ourselves. The data is the data and the teachings are the teachings. Religion can have value outside of its truthfulness. And data can have value even if it doesn’t tell us EXACTLY what to do and believe. Minimizing harm and maximizing happiness is actually what matters. And that is different for everyone
President Gordon B. Hinckley. “Each of us has to face the matter - either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground." In this case, it is a simple binary.
@SploinkyDH. that’s what you believe but for me he’s an old dead white guy who profited in both money and power from you believing his words with black and white thinking.
I thought it fascinating how Dan does such a great job revealing data over dogma when talking about biblical historicity but fails to live up to that same standard when defending his faith in the LDS religion. The conversation about the different accounts of the 1st vision was especially egregious. It doesn't require an increased spiritual understanding and enlightenment to count on your fingers how many people, divine or otherwise, are present. Talking about atheism (agnostic or otherwise) is not a social identity - atheism is a logical conclusion on the individual level. In fact - one of the major failings of atheism and agnosticism is the difficulties in replacing the social identity and community that come with the loss of religion. Ironically enough - Dan sounded a lot like the apologetics that he tries to push back against in this episode.
I completely disagree with Dan's contention that this is a social club. I went against my own social, political, and prior religious beliefs to join the church, on the basis of thinking it was the only way to secure a good eterntal life. I joined ONLY because I believed the lies, considered them hard truths, and thought I had no choice. Socially, by joining, I LOST friends, lost respect. Then, I had to reverse that whole process once I found I'd been duped.
@@harlanlang6556 It's not the same, because a lot of time (decades) elapsed, but yes. And extended family members were glad at my exit, but again, you can't undo all the damage and lost time. Meanwhile, now I have to try to retain my longtime lds friends who think that I'm currently deceived.
@iamjustsaying1 I am sorry you went thru that experience of believing the BS the church fed you and then subsequently joining because of the lies being offered as truth. It’s a whole lifestyle change and mind bend. Then to find out it’s all made up is more than upsetting to say the least. Not a fan of organized religion- all human constructs anyway. My dad told me years ago- just stay in the church anyway, even if you don’t believe, just for the social aspect and the help of the community if you should need it. I said no way can I stay in an organization I can’t/don’t believe in. Talk about hypocrisy. To pretend to believe to those around me just to belong would have eventually made me physically, mentally and spiritually sick. So for me, Social clubbing was not the answer. I’ve always said- people can believe whatever they need or want to as long as it doesn’t harm and demean those in or outside of their belief bubble. Imo the church has and still does much harm as well as with many other high demand religions/cults. I stay away from any person or institution that insists I have to listen and obey cause they have direct knowledge and authority from god.
Is life really intolerable without an overarching meaning? I think that's a perspective that is handed to us by society. What if we were never taught about purpose? As a bear what the overarching purpose is. Being tied to a grand meaning sucks the joy out of just being and doing and feeling and experiencing. Existence is absurd no matter what you believe. If you really think about it, that there IS an existence is weird.
As an ‘Agnostic Theist’ (though I don’t call myself anything specific) I found this series endlessly fascinating & thought provoking. As an ally 🌈 I was especially interested in the information about homosexuality in the Bible.
@@vermontmike9800 I recently heard Bart Ehrman describe himself as an agnostic atheist. Because agnostic is about not knowing, but being atheist is about not believing in deity, so in the case of Bart it meant he doesn't personally believe there is a god but he wouldn't claim to be able to know for certain that there isn't a god. So in this case Sarah could be saying she believes in God but she knows that her belief could turn out to be wrong because again it's not certain knowledge, just faith. It's being humble enough to admit you can't know for certain, while still admitting your beliefs lie in one direction or the other.
Credibility Enhancing Displays at 20:34. Another example is tithing where members boast they pay tithing on their gross income (before taxes, health insurance and other deductions). It means the member feels they are more loyal to this commandment than a person who pays on net income.
The Podcast was fascinating, and I learned something. My take away from Dan's work is it is indeed possible to be a believing Latter Day Saint while also having moral integrity, a willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads, and also be a person able and willing to acknowledge mistakes and shortcoming within our own faith.
This is so weird. I've been thinking about a memory I have of driving thru my late fiance's neighborhood and how I remember having felt like I did when she was alive. Now I turn on this podcast and he's talking about that very subject. What a trip.
@@vermontmike9800 that's a very infantile way of viewing things. There are lots of different types of Mormons each who negotiate with the religion in various ways. Even if he disagrees with some fundamental claims of Mormonism, saying he is therefore not a Mormon is completely false. If you insist on one interpretation of a "Mormon" worldview, all that serves is boundary maintenance.
@@whenwollf my experience with Mormonism was that you’re either with us or against us. No, this isn’t hyperbole. This is the way it was for my family. A series of questions and seeking valid information one minute, “maybe this isn’t for you” the next. As they say in John Wick, excommunicado. “Infantile” should be directed to the church, not to the former member.
@@vermontmike9800 believe me, I get it. In my opinion, leaders of the church are indistinguishable from politicians and say what they need to in order to keep the support of the members. And yes church leaders often put forward a very infantile understanding of the gospel. I also come from a very orthodox family. I'm not sure how but I came up with the courage to fight back on certain issues such as the cult like mentality that our church has developed. Attitudes toward tithing are very unhealthy too. But those hard liners don't represent everyone and as I have been more vocal in my concerns many members of my ward have said they agree with me. Godspeed.
I identify as an agnostic atheist. I personally don't see compelling evidence to convince me that there is a god, but I'm not so bold as to assert that my personal beliefs represent universal truth.
The great thing is that it doesn't much matter. If there is no God and we just cease, then it doesn't matter what we think. We won't exist to care. And if there IS an afterlife... well, then we have options, according to most of the major faiths. No harm in believing whatever brings you comfort or inspiration, for either stance.
Great episode so far although the idea of a Latter-day Saint who is unwilling to discuss his personal beliefs is novel to me. Other than that, Dan had a wonderful mind and I find his commentary very fascinating.
@@harlanlang6556 that may be true although I feel like for Dan in this particular episode his unwillingness to express his own beliefs actually held him back from explaining the most plausible way a “thoughtful” Mormon stays in the church. The conversation felt very circular and in some instances felt like they were talking around the actual questions being asked because John was trying to respect his stance on sharing his beliefs. I did enjoy the episode though.
There may be a lot at stake for Dan as he navigates the awkward path between his studies and his family's expectations. He may, for example, have made an agreement with his wife / family that he would deal with certain issues but not with others - to avoid conflict or awkward situations with parents / in- laws etc. Dealing with life and Mormonism is probably more intense in Utah than in less central locations. I sympathise with him.
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below: No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth. The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America. The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon. CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence? Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But: THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool. The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25). An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors. Bible: The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC. Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church. The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1 One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon. Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie. Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this. Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)? Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)? If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
@@deebee2603I don’t agree that everyone stays out of fear. Many stay because they find great value in a belief system, community, passing on tradition to future generations. There are a lot of reasons to stay but none of them compelling enough for me. I wish Dan the best!
@marlenemeyer9841 agreed. There are the altruistic and those who truly believe they can effect change by staying in however it is at one's expense; spiritually, physically, emotionally, financially, and cognitively. I choose to be true my own self. I lost my health "serving" and do all assignments demanded of me with no regard to my health and wellbeing. Ppl who think they can change this mlm corporation are delusional. The Corp is a game mortal created entity with a while bunch of crazy oxymoron rules. 100% binary and not based in love. The "community" so many "feel" is simply part of their control by artificially fulfilling maslow's hierarchy but for those who did not lose their working brain cells along the way totally see it for what it is. The "community" is nothing more than assignments, checks in boxes and numbers. Lifers fail to learn how to go out and actually create relationships with others based on mutual GENUINE interests and hobbies. It's pretty simple and how we all made friends in elementary school and beyond. Why ppl hand over their entire life and wellbeing in all areas to the proud, puffed up, lifted up, condescending natural men is beyond me. Now I understand why most exmos become agnostic or athiest after such abuse and fairytales. My first step was getting as far away from UT as possible. It was easy to make my own "inspired" callings in primary as most the parents wanted someone else teaching their kids. There I could show the children love and create safe space for them and me. The women in RS are pretty horrific. Until I was 100% honest and true to myself, I can no longer be a party of this indoctrination. I know my Savior and His intimately and do no not require a 3rd wheel in my relationship with Diety. I have every bit the right to receive and use God's power without having to gift wrap and label it man's own creation called priesthood. Women are not less nor accountable to men who appoint themselves. God does not have favorites. I have yet to meet a truly qualified perfect male as a substitute for Diety. Natural man at his finest smh. Today am grateful for true thoughtful caring friends who do not have to be told what to do or assigned to be "friends". I'm not a number or an assignment. I'm not a hamster running ragged on the hamster wheel with a checklist accomplishing the letter of the law failing the spirit of the law. I do not require commanding in all things. I have tremendous gratitude for our Savior and His great love. No mortal being on this earth; past, present, or future will ever replace what Christ has done for each of us, and continues to do. My own personal relationship with my Savior does not require climbing over homeless people to enter opulent great and spacious buildings for idol worshipping or mortals on their own Rameumptom stands left and right. Praise to my Savior for setting me free to follow Him not natural man.
@@mormonstoriesYeah, but they didn’t grow beards. Beard…coffee…meth…outer darkness. In that exact trajectory 😂 Very much kidding, Dan is THE MAN!! I love this man’s incredible knowledge and really appreciate his nuance. He gives me hope that I might be able to eventually find what works for me.
I enjoyed his scholarship. However, to belong to an organization implies you believe in their values even if you don't believe in the events and history that created those values. I believe it does make you complicit in the discrimination culture which so permeates these religious institutions. You may be preaching that the scriptures are not truth but the churches aren't. Membership may work for you but as soon as someone you love falls into the discriminated minority how will you reconcile your complicity to them? No matter how you dress up your language, the lack of historical truth actually means the churches are telling lies and packaging them as truth.
he is no different than the mother who knows her husband is molesting her daughter but keeps quiet afraid of losing standing friends being judged or her meal ticket. it’s that simple if you play footsie with truth then you are no better than the leaders
@@BeeLala-i5tI understand where you're coming from, and there is a great conversation to be had on the spectrum of group culpability, but that literal of a take isn't helpful. If so, then you would also need to literally view every single person who has bought an article of clothing from China (everyone) as someone who has starved, killed, and exploited children as laborers. It sucks, but it's much more complicated than that.
@@ROB2K88there's absolutely no correlation between the two. He's a member of the church who has held positions of authority. That's like being a high ranking member of the corporation that runs the sweatshop. He's culpable.
It seems that Dan does not believe in the LDS Church in the way the Church intends (promotes itself as the one, single truth), but rather he negotiates the social spheres of the Church for practical reasons, and there are nice things to derive from the experience of being affiliated with the Church. Tha’s nice, but it also means that the Church is not necessary for salvation, just a nice thing to have in this lifetime. I mean, as long as we’re good people and happy and satisfied in life, it didn’t matter if we were LDS or not in this life, all thing being equal (i.e. LDS truth claims are false anyway, so...). Love you Dan, Universe bless!
I liked these interviews, the evolutionary psychology stuff is very useful to think about it this context, very helpful. In looking through the comments, I do see several that are polarized. I get it. I also get that my family is Mormon, parents and wife's parents, lots of people I have to interact with. I also get that my wife for the last 20 years is Mormon, and at least for me not an issue to get divorced over. I know others don't have that luxury or fortune. It is really hard to stay married in such circumstances, sorry. At the very least I am culturally Mormon. I know that in order to go to Mormon weddings, I need to get a temple recommend from time to time. That is the world I live in so I have to deal with it. If I am just 'Mormon' enough, then I can go about my business and my kids can play with everyone in the neighborhood and all that. To me that is more relevant 'truth' then any ideas about history or God or Visions or the like. I have not always felt this way, but I do now. I personally am done with sacrificing myself on ideological mountains, any ideological mountains. I go to church almost purely for social reasons; and that in my book is plenty of justification for going. It is a fine and upstanding reason to go. I do not care one wit about all the "one true church" rhetoric; at my worst I despise it, at my best I shrug and move on. But if someone else goes to church for those reasons, I have zero issue with it. And I know that several stop going to church because abuse of power among other reasons. I still go for my reasons, and you have every right to think ill of my decision to keep going. At this point I am not all that concerned about all that power stuff, since it is way outside my influence. These interviews at the very least give me something to think on rather than the standard yes-no pro-vs-anti rhetoric. So that's really nice to have. I personally go to a Buddhist Sanga as well as sacrament meeting every week. I have to do the Sangha stuff for my sanity. I find the Buddhist ideas to be great. I am not out in the world to find one more reason to suffer. I am more concerned with doing activities that minimizes suffering for both me and those around me. And to be clear I am not hiding my head in the sand with this stance. For example, I will clearly state that I believe the BOM was created in 1820's by Joseph Smith somehow, and this is my belief and I do not personally require anyone else to share it. I will likely never say that the BOM is 'false' or push this view on someone else in such a way to appear threating; I try and use language in such a way to not 'corner' someone. I am not interested in using my missionary 'chops' to push any of my ideologies on anyone pro or anti. I don't go there if it is hurting some, its not worth it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, this applies to me especially. So if you say my attitude is hypocritical and false and bad I would likely agree with you whole-heartedly. I am less interested in the God vs not-God dialectic, I will only really go there if it is fun or enjoyable or helps out in some way. I have been dealing with this long enough to know that when someone loses belief that kindness and respect for the pain they feel will be received and can help them out, so I will give that if I am aware it is needed. Sorry about my long response
So depressing. The big, numb cajones you got that allows you to persist in getting constantly kneed must have been stuffed with the extra fat transferred from your brain.
It's worth listening to Dan's thoughtful and honest reasoning. But I could hear a faithful Catholic defend his belief in his own church using the same logic and arguments: Fallible leaders, questionable history (the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.) but still providing wisdom and community. But he made me think. He is right that religion is, among other things, a country club, especially if you want to be persecuted and ridiculed for belong to the club, which was the experience of the early Christians and the early believers of every religion. But there is one reality of all religions, which is that they all have had a Divine Hero as its founder, as a model for behavior and a symbol of the deity, or God. As Jesus reportedly said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Jesus was the evidence for the existence of God Who exhibited qualities of God and at least some idea as to the nature of God, or God's relationship to the human race. You can make the same argument for all other world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism or Judaism. They all have a Divine Hero, or a Manifestation of God, as the primary evidence of the existence of God. As Dan explains, the expression of religion is influenced by the times, by the general knowledge and beliefs of the people. This is one of the explanations of why religious teachings may differ. People are taught what they need at the time and what they are developmentally ready to understand. Creating community is the underlying reason for religion besides the spiritual growth for people as individuals. Community gives us a capacity to do much bigger things to benefit humanity, but the downside is when communities (nations) see other communities as enemies. The ultimate solution is to educate the human race to see that there is just one community on earth, and we're it. It sounds idealistic to imagine that this could happen, that Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. would put the unity of the human race at a higher priority than that of their own group identity. But at the beginning of Christianity it would have sounded wildly idealistic to imagine that all of Europe would eventually change from their tribal religions and become one religion.
Shintoism doesn't have a "divine hero founder". Neither does Hinduism. Neither does the Anishinabe religion, Visayan religion, etc The "Divine Hero Founder" is a feature of universalizing religions
I couldn't finish this. Dan is quite verbose. I watched all 10-ish? hours of his first two interviews and thought they were interesting (although Yale professor Christine Hayes gives a much more succinct and lively explanation of the Bible on her OYC course). 2.5 hours in, and I still haven't heard a single reason for thoughtful Mormons to stay in the church. What's especially frustrating here is that there is material worth exploring -- "beliefs" vs "creedences," atheism as a social movement, etc. -- but somehow Dan manages to drone on without presenting these ideas in a way that I find convincing or palatable. Finally, refusing to discuss his beliefs is a transparent way of avoiding the loss of subscribers (or church membership, on the other hand). It has nothing to do with maintaining the sanctity of the ideas he presents. Admit your biases and stop pretending you're unbiased.
I’m *more* interested in the eventual follow-up interview when Dan reveals why he finally left the church. I find the academic arguments of the interview interesting really, but Dan’s need to be careful not to *directly* criticize the church is really dissatisfying. It feels like we almost get the the crux of an issue, but never fully arrive. I imagine he was exhausted by the end of this. I wanted the honest answers to JD’s questions too.
He never really seems to defend the church either, tbh. Walking on eggshells about professing your honest personal beliefs isn’t good for either side of the issue.
We’re all “thoughtful” Mormons to some extent. Even the most believing and faithful member will have criteria for what they’ll categorize as “fact” and what concepts require faith and exercise. We all have biases and preferences. We are built to pick and choose, consciously or not, which information/commandments/directives we’ll follow to a tee and which info will exist in our minds as requiring further investigation and testing.
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below: No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth. The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America. The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon. CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence? Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But: THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool. The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25). An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors. Bible: The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC. Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church. The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged) John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1 One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon. Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie. Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this. Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)? Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)? If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
I still love Dan, but the longer this goes the more problems I have. I'm about halfway right now. Dan seems to almost entirely dismiss the relevance of truth claims in a religious context, gesturing at the reformation changing how people view it. He says it's a social club and everyone negotiates with it. That's fine, but what they're negotiating with are the underlying truth claims that shape the entire interaction. Is there a God a soul or an afterlife? Is there revelation, either ongoing or recorded? These institutions draw authority from these propositions and structure themselves around them. They cannot be as irrelevant as Dan makes them out to be. This is compounded when he talks about prophets. What is the value of the prophet, Dan? I'm not talking about requiring inerrancy. They are not professionals in the fields of advice they give and give the advice as raw assertion in the name of God, not backed up by evidence. What's their value? Just to make you feel good about being in an in-group? There are far less harmful ways to accomplish that. Specifically, what is the value? Minor other point that bothered me was the first vision. We can't know if there was a real experience or not, but given how much the narrative shifted to match his rhetorical needs at the time and how little theological consistency there is between them, any real experience might as well have been a pleasant fart on a cool spring morning. It's irrelevant, and the data we have shows he used the story to prop up his needs at the time and he had a pattern of deceitful, self-serving behavior. Love your Bible scholarship, but I still don't understand how you negotiate these things the way you do and as objective as you usually are I think your Mormon is showing here.
100% agree with this. I feel like because he hasn’t dedicated study to particular theological subjects he gracefully bows out of legitimate concerns especially related to Mormon doctrine past and present. Even though his experience being a member of the church is vastly different than 95%+ of current and past members, I feel like he is somewhat dismissive of serious concerns and issues related to Mormonism and specifically harmful doctrine that has been stated to be directly from God. All because his experience has been different from others.
Agreed. He is an impressive scholar of biblical studies and I learned a lot in listening to him - but his ability to accept things that are clearly falsified is baffling. The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
I’m only an 1:12 into this interview and from what I understand, much like the differences between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the New Testament, there is a difference between participating in a religious tradition vs the dogma and power maintenance of the religion. (Sorry for the run on sentence). That absolutely works with older religious traditions where nuance is encouraged or at least tolerated. My concern is with newer traditions which have yet to accommodate nuance. The LDS faith and one could argue it’s faith tradition, does not appear to make those accommodations. In fact the existence of excommunication (no matter how it is worded), nullifies nuance in the faith tradition. It is more than power structure maintenance. It is also removal from faith tradition. Repentance, requires orthodox adherence in order to be re-baptised. While any given member can think and negotiate however they like, when they become vocal about their beliefs it is no longer a case of personal negotiation.
I'd like to comment on Dan's point of saying that when bad things happen many can either lose their beliefs which causes more grief as they think there was this suffering with no accountability or people belive there is a god and thus reckoning after death. On a societal level, I think the second belief leads to a great deal of believers to lack personal responsability (as Dan seems to mention.) I think personally this is a far more harmful to society as a whole. Why worry about those who have not fed the poor and allow them to go hungry because God will make them pay in the afterlife. Why worry about the downtrodden,, the widow when God will take care of it in this imaginative telling of an afterlife. While it may give comfort on a personal level, it seems allow absolution of personal responsibility since someone can tell themselves it isn't their issue to punish these people for their evil actions or if temporal punishment is not inacted or even take preventative steps to limit or control behavior. For so many things (at least in the Hebrew "bible") that appear to be about societal structuring, this seems irreconcilable and dangerous. It makes sense if viewed by a people who felt persecuted or were so and had no means to get satisfaction (not unlike the writings in Revelations.) If God were going to take care of it then good, our job is done. This imaginative thinking gets one off the hook to actually work to change not just one's own behavior but greater society and provides comfort for those directly experiencing bad things. While this seems innocuous enough and even helpful to an individual, on society it can and is detrimental.
"Why worry about those who have not fed the poor and allow them to go hungry because God will make them pay in the afterlife. Why worry about the downtrodden,, the widow when God will take care of it in this imaginative telling of an afterlife." I'm agnostic about the concept of an afterlife, but I would say the easy answer is that there's no good reason to ignore suffering now just because you know it will be alleviated in 10, 20, or 70 years. "Eh, you'll feel better eventually, so for now you can be miserable, and I don't care," is the answer of a psychopath.
@@FabricofTime it is more a, why act to help people, especially to protect them from bad things or people when those bad people will get their comeuppance one day in hell via god. It absolves people from personal responsibility to their fellow man. Must be many, many psychopaths among us. I'm also atheist.
How is "community" as John defines it functionally different from "in-group"? And how can the formation of an in-group avoid necessarily resulting in the formation of an out-group as well? ... and what kind of experience can those in the out-group expect to have in this scenario? Last I heard, monopoles don't exist in nature. I'm not sure why this would be different.
Of the three episodes, this was the most disappointing. He was very concise and direct in answering questions, especially when it came to biblical scholarship and historicity of the BOM. But when it came to answering questions related to the modern day church and the current and past doctrine, it felt like he masqueraded as a Bull fighter side-stepping a lot of legitimate questions asked by Dr. Dehlin. Especially questioning the ethos of supporting an organization that has harmed marginalized groups past and present from a male authoritarian figure who claims he speaks for God. And while I don’t question Dan’s commitment to create change to protect marginalized groups from Dogma, why claim membership in a religious organization that continues to cause harm to marginalized groups based off of Doctrine? Also why excuse past doctrine as fallible men and/or evolving doctrine. It’s clear Mormon doctrine has changed not because God told these men to change it, but because of external pressures from society, opposition from members, etc. Although he won’t share his personal religious/spiritual beliefs, I feel like personally addressing this issue is a reasonable expectation
And Dr. Dehlin did an excellent job interviewing Dan and asking great questions representing believing and former members alike. The first two episodes were in my top 5 all time and appreciate the knowledge perspective and insight Dan provided. Maybe my expectations were too high coming into episode 3. Overall I will say Dan is an intelligent, thoughtful, non-judgmental human
@@robertmildenhall6294 He's incredibly intelligent - Much smarter than me by far and I really dig his podcasts. That being said, I would say he's not being honest with himself in his evaluation of his personal beliefs - to wit - he's not applying the same intellectual rigor here that he does with his academic scholarship. There's a lot of really obvious circular and reductionist arguments that he makes in this episode that - frankly - don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny even if you are sympathetic to his idea of religion being less about truths and more about a communal/cultural touchstones.
Have all the mental gymnastics you want but it makes me even angrier that they are voting people into office who are making legislation based on what they know is bs
About the historical meaning of the term "athiest" ... its a lot like the historical term "satanist" (or even "capitalist"or "witch") in that it was an identity applied to people involuntarily as a way to exclude or denigrate them, a way to justify and give permission for a community to mistreat those so labeled ... rather than being an identity that people chose to inhabit voluntarily, as we see today. This is in contrast to an identity like "jew" for instance, which was voluntarily inhabited, but at certain places and certain times led to people being mistreated. For that reason it seems somewhat wrong headed to resort to the "original" meaning (which was imposed upon others as a kind of "identity prison", to confine them to an identity defined by others), rather than giving preference in the current day to the current meaning which is being crafted by people who have reclaimed the term and are choosing to voluntarily inhabit what was formerly a prison. By all means explore and examine cognative dissonance where ever it occurs, but please lets all let people have soverignty over their own identities, and lets not use historical baggage to derail the current identity projects of others.
Getting upset because someone calls you an agnostic when you don’t claim a belief about the existence of gods is pretty ridiculous. As is getting upset when other people call themselves agnostics because they don’t have such a belief. The only people who really care that agnostics do or don’t self-identify as atheists is other atheists, so your problem is with them, not Dan.
Dan is very interesting for sure. The best analogy of Dan I can think of is this: he’s like a nutritionist claiming veganism is then only diet man was ever meant to eat and eating anything else sends a dangerous message and then he’s caught eating a cheeseburger.
Both those things are true 😂 Veganism is the best but cheeseburgers taste damn good and still offer some nutrition. It’s all about preference and how we are willing to eat. I mean believe. 😉
Convo at my local baptistry: PASTOR: So, why should we read the Bible? HE: Because it's the perfect book! ME: You've read it? All of it? HE: ... No, but I hope to one day. ME: Then how would you know? HE: Because it was written by God. ME: Ok. Do you know how many contradictions, historical and scientific errors it contains? HE: I think you didn't read it with an open heart. (It's the same conversation I had some decades ago.)
Dan, you speak of the binary or dialectic as if it is organic. Indeed at times it may be in certain cases. On the other hand, in Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he describes the political binary of the two party Green and Blue parties as a process engineered by the ruling class to keep the masses in a closed system of mental construct controlled by them. Suppose a thesis. Is said thesis true or is it false? Is said thesis reality or is it misconstrued reality or myth? Consider that absolute truth can exist; that there actually is a right or wrong to a teaching or doctrine or worldview overall. If those who want to engineer society introduce an antithesis, then they can use propaganda and fallacious thinking patterns in order to maintain the people in fear and divided amongst themselves. The thesis and the new antithesis plays upon the masses until a compromise position is achieved. If the thesis is not true, this is a step in the right direction if reality and truth is the goal. If the thesis is true, now it has been diluted with fable and the quest for that which is real and valid is watered down. Is it possible that religion could be a tool to control the masses in order to advantage the few just like politics could be? I read a book that put forth the proposition that Jesus was a narrative put forth by the Roman ruling elite in an attempt to control the unruly Jews by giving them their Messiah and having them pay tribute to Caesar along with turning the other cheek. His evidence is more than thought provoking. Finally, I would recommend the book Jesus Never Existed by Kenneth Humphreys regarding the existence of Jesus. Another compelling argument. Bread and circus keeps the masses battling amongst themselves in the dialectic within their Platonic cave watching shadows on the wall. This scenario must be understood for what it is. Judgements regarding the truth and validity of a worldview can be made definitively overall. To suggest that there is no 100% right or wrong; rather a continuum of shades of gray seems fatalistic and diminishes the capacity of the individual as well as the group from logically being able to compile evidence to find a moral landscape that reduces suffering and produces inner sovereignty and peace as opposed to allowing outer inputs to claim our ego and identity most often to perpetuate toxic thoughts, feelings and subsequent behavior patterns. We ;must find a path past a man believing what he/she wants to believe and claim our capacity to be able to come to a final judgement and move forward rather than retrenching within the myth and fallacy. One man's view. I could be wrong.
There's a part three? I'm really interested in this but I've only just started part one, looks like I've got fourteen hours to listen to if i want to more about Dan 😂
Read about cognitive dissonance in When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger et al. '"a man a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and the he questions your sources. Appeal to logic: and he fails to see your point" p. 3.
Interesting but I think I prefer Jaynes theory on the origins of religion, as presented in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Yup, we are hard wired to see agency in the universe which doesn't suggest that our ideas about that agency are true. The study of religion gives us insight into what our human ideas have been over history and illustrates how we have defined the boundaries of our desired social connection (in group/out group). It is a fascinating aspect of our human nature. Religion has often defined hierarchy and power. It has not, by history, resulted in more peaceful relations with those who are different than ourselves, though this ethic is often taught. The exclusivity supported by many (perhaps primarily Abrahamic religions) seems particularly problematic. Religious affiliation often enough leads to judgmental exclusion of scape goat groups -- right now LGBTQ. Or to support exploitation (The doctrine of Discovery, slavery). Or as a political tool (Christian nationalists). Some pro social community is certainly helpful to human psychology, but it doesn't have to be driven by beliefs about deity -- especially when those participating feel the need to say that they believe things that they do not believe in order to be welcomed. I go to numerous Christian churches to understand what is being taught after a 30 year hiatus. There are many ethical teachings I find meaningful. Not all Christian churches follow the teachings of Christ that I find helpful for human community as a whole. I prefer to be a person of ethical practice rather than of doctrinal belief. Your differentiation between atheist and agnostic is spot on.
@mormonstories John, as I listen to you and Dan discuss your former church and his current church, it reminds me so much of a good friend I have who is super religious and how we respectively see the world. Presumably, you were raised in a stable Mormon home and you saw modeled in front of you mostly stability which allows you the luxury of being a very outspoken critic. Dan and my good friend were raised by parents who were not stable -- my assumption -- or possibly not modeling good values. Dan may have seen a lot of dysfunction and instability in his pre-conversion life. The church provided a stable and seemingly functional environment for Dan in which to raise a family and build a life. On the surface, this is a debate about Mormon historicity and doctrinal truth, but underneath it strikes me more as a debate over values and morals. Dan is fine for the church to be premised on a lie because that lie built a house he could thrive in. You are horribly bothered by that notion because you haven't seen a life where religious stability wasn't modeled in front of you. For you (and me), the lies and deception and even abuse in the church are corrosive and detrimental but Dan is attracted to the stability and is willing to pay that price in order to be happy. I suppose I am not the first to have said these words, but I just feel that those who grew up in a church like us have to give some thought to how converts get tremendous peace from religion even if it might be premised on untenable teachings. And perhaps is a relatively benign sort of self-deception.
The sad thing is that we of western and Northern European descent know more about a god born of Middle Eastern people who existed in an ecosystem very different from ours and we are left to try to piece together some small understanding of the gods organic to our ancestors’ experience.
Something that's an interesting pattern I've noticed as an outsider to all this is the frequency with which "never once in my life" comes up from different people with regard to .......kinda irrelevant questions. I get the impression that "never once in [one's] life" rejecting a call, or being disciplined, or being talked to, or breaking some rule, or whatever, ESPECIALLY in response to comments that are not actually accusations or insinuations of the above is a specific pattern of speech that functions as a group identity marker within Mormonism. To my outsider ear, it always comes across as defensive, but the sheer frequency with which it comes up makes me think that it's just a go-to response to anything and everything within Mormon culture. Almost a reflexive, performative defensiveness as a marker of in-group status. "How would you handle X call" being met with "I have never once in my life rejected a call" is wild when you think about it, but that sort of pattern is so, so, so consistent in these interviews.
Mormonism is a fascinating sociological study. I enjoy learning about this faith. As a fellow restorationist we do have common historical roots. However, as an Adventist we rest our authority on the orthodox canon, are Trinitarian, and our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. In reality the Adventists did not move that far from Methodism. Adventists have had the benefits of defending the ministry of a modern day prophet. However, we do not believe EGW was canonical, infallible, nor inerrant. Her writings helped to inform the church. I have not had issue with Adventist apologetics in this regard. I have to be honest and say that I would really struggle with Mormon history, especially the unsavory behavior of the early church leaders. However, everyone must be fully convinced in their own mind. I do appreciate Dr McClellan’s work and presentations. I get the feeling that at times he seems to pick apart the Bible in order to support his Mormon leanings. However, I think the Bible survives quite well in a critical world.
Have a lot of respect for Dan. At first I wasn't sure I bought into the line he seems to be walking... though the more he delved I think it makes a lot of sense. Just because you think some aspects of a system, culture, or group you don't necessarily just exit it and swear it off completely. You can and that's fine (that's what I did with evangelical Christianity) but I can see his side a bit better after listening to him dig into it. Religion has always been about cherry picking things you care about... likewise there have always been people of a religious or cultural group that probably didn't really care or maybe even believe in their Gods, but stuck with that group. In a fundamentalist religious world it's hard to leave religion and still feel there's some value in it when you leave it, when core aspects are wrong how can it still persist? Well if those core values and aspects are different for different people than maybe not. Now it feels like there's a bit of oddity still though, mostly if all this implies is the case, if the data is correct, then why even keep the book of Mormon or even pretend there's something more to it etc. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament I kind of get, collected over decades and centuries by various writers etc. There's some solid literary aspects to it and some wisdom and philosophy work extracting... the Book of Mormon was the very weak fan fiction written by a conman. Now the group of people that exist now and as they are, sure maybe some value to keep that around if it fits for people.
A short comment only 20 minutes in. I absolutely love Dan’s videos about the Bible and Data over Dogma. But in this interview so far I wonder something I have also wondered at other times when he speak about topics more related to evolution psychology, and that is if this really is Data over dogma, it is not easy to do when not ones one research, and evolution psychology is very little data, and much more dogma in itself, so it is so very easy to say something that might not be right at all. I do think it would be important to stress what is just theories and assumptions in a field of study where most things are just that, theories and assumptions.
Each question is set up to have almost two parts. The first question is easily and readily answered. The second question is what do we do with that information or what does that mean for us. Dan really does not like those questions and does not respond to them. He really seems all for questioning everything, then he stops when he gets to this part. Maybe this is just a private issue for him.
“My personal take is beyond the scope of this interview”. I don’t like the games Dan is playing to try and stay professionally relevant in the scholarly world. It’s hard to trust someone who won’t let you see who they really are.
@@mormonstories Thanks for the clarification. Although I think Dan would be liked by many BYU students for his contemporary ideas about scripture and Christian history. His LinkedIn page does show he was employed by the church until Jan. 2023. These views would not be in line with church teachings.
@@BunnyWatson-k1wHe was employed by the church, but not BYU Edit: in the 1st episode, Dan made clear that he never experienced any criticism or friction of any kind during his employment with the church regarding his views.
It’s very frustrating that this person doesn’t just come out & say what he believes. I’m not that familiar with him, he says that’s “what he does” not say his view & that’s his right, although it just seems like a bit of a slight of hand in a way. He obviously doesn’t believe, but stays & doesn’t want to get booted so won’t be honest online. On some level I get that, there’s tons of things I’d never say online cause they’re considered “bad” but I’m also not going on a show to talk about said opinions.
I’m so confused as to what this man believes? He’s a Mormon, but he has all these issues with the Bible and Mormonism. How does church authority view conversations like these? Why remain in the faith? at one point he said that the idea that we could get rid of faith and religion is laughable. But then he spends these 4 hours tearing down and explaining away both. Is he a naturalist? Does he even believe in God? So confused by this man.
I respect Dan refusing to comment on his personal beliefs, but I have to wonder why. It's like demonstrating how unicorns are a myth created by humans and then still believing in unicorns. It does make me, and I assume many other people, respect him a little less due to the perceived cognitive dissonance going on.
Bingo. I equate his opinions as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. As a Mormon, he’s a Unitarian therefore his “bias” may lean his findings in that direction.
John I really appreciate how you can host this kind of show on your podcast. I also appreciate how Dan came on and talked with you for this many hours, for all of us to consume and digest.
I appreciate the lengthy unedited videos because it allows us all to see the human-ness of yourself and your guests.
I wish religious leaders and politicians would surrender themselves to such things.
Anyhow, thank you both and all the behind the scenes help.
Thanks Adam!!!
Enjoyed the discussion very much. However, I came away with the sense that Dan spent 4 hours carefully explaining that his beliefs are irrational. I'm a bit confused about what he actually thinks at this point.
Same. It's disappointing since I was so interested to hear what he had to say.
I think he's conflicted and just doesn't want to admit he was taken in like everyone else. His ego just wont allow it.
I don’t think Dan was taken in, I would guess he has new priorities.
I was just annoyed at his insistence that everyone else is just as irrational and doing just as much mental gymnastics as he does.
There’s probably a financial incentive or penalty for him if he leaves, dollars to donuts. Why would you upset a future, very wealthy employer?
My impression is that Dan wants to be a force for good and change within the church, and how he justifies it isn't really up to anyone else.
I can see that. I couldn't do it, but i understand the impulse.
I didn't expect to get so emotional at the end of this and John and Dan mutually thanking and supporting each other. Religion has been a sore spot for me for many years. It warms my heart to hear people speak honestly and kindly to one another on such difficult issues.
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none
Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below:
No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth.
The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America.
The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon.
CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence?
Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But:
THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool.
The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon
The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors.
Bible:
The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC.
Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church.
The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ
I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1
One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon.
Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie.
Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this.
Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened.
Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?
Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)?
If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
I’m sorry Religion, has put a bad light on Jesus’s teachings. If you seek joy in Jesus’s teachings you will find it.
@@charlesfinn-z4d I'm sorry, but I tried for thirty years and never found it. Life is short and I'm not giving more of my time and effort to "give it another shot"
This Dan McLellan series has been a, umm, "revelatory" experience for me. Thanks for uncovering this gem.
The sad part of this 'part three ' presentation, to me, is the obvious tip-toeing that both Dan and John felt they had to do - neither felt free to say, in straight terms, what he really thought, personally ; Dan, for his own personal reasons .... and John, so as not to make things awkward for Dan. This highlights the ever-present elephant in the room - that if they ( particularly Dan ) do express their real opinions in straight terms, they risk reaping the wrath of the LDS church, with all the possible repercussions in their personal and family lives. Very few statements were made by either Dan or John without taking time and great thought before speaking. It's difficult for those of us who live well away from Utah to fully grasp how careful LDS members / ex members in ' Zion ' have to be.
Well, if I had cameras and knew literal hundreds of thousands of people are looking, I'd be reluctant to say much at all, but particularly about that which I believe. If it was a one-on-one, no problem.
But Dan was there voluntarily to explain how / why thoughtful members stay in the church. It's not as if he was being pressured to do or say ANYthing. Most guests on John's podcast are happy to say what they really think but I noticed that Dan was only willing to explain why he thought OTHERS remained in the church ....and kept his personal views to himself ....which indicated to me that he had something to lose by stating his personal opinions.
@@allanjeffrey6666 not necessarily. He said it at the beginning that it was very personal to him and that’s why he doesn’t just go out there proclaiming it to the world.
I think you're right ....and if you listen carefully to what he said in this podcast, it's not difficult to figure out why he wants to keep his real views private. Thanks for replying, BTW.
@@javiervargas5940
Dan’s heart and desires, are well known to God, right?
I'm revisting MSP after having taken a long break. I took an intro to world religions class at my secular community college, and now I'm really fascinated with academic religious studies. I listened to all the David Bocavoy (sorry if that's not spelled correctly), and now I'm working through Dan's interviews. Next semester, I'm taking ancient religion, and we'll be covering ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, Norse, Celtic, and Aztec pantheons and belief systems within those civilizations in ancient times. I asked my intro to world religion teacher, "Where is the cut off of ancient? We covered Hinduism, and that's the oldest religion right now." She said, "We consider it ancient if it isn't practiced today. " It should be an awesome class.
John, as an active member of the church trying to hold on to her faith, I appreciate you facilitating this conversation and asking hard questions. Many of the questions you asked were my own. I actually feel very satisfied with many of Dan’s answers to these questions and I feel at peace continuing in a church that I must accept is not wholly perfect but slowly moving towards changing for the better. Thank you for this interview.
@@heaoakley8560 so your god is not perfect?
One of the best Mormon stories episodes that I've seen! I see that it's not to the taste of my fellow commenters but I thought the discussion on what constitutes religion and the ways communities operate was interesting
When I was a young man an elder in my ward told me that the stars are celestialized planets and that gods live on them. I remember being awed by the idea, but a thought then quickly entered my mind and I innocently asked him, "What about our sun?"
He replied that our sun is indeed a celestialized planet but that whether or not a god lives on it is a mystery we're not meant to know.
I thought about this as I learned about astronomy, learned about the sun and what it's made of and how it operates, learned about what we know of the actual life cycles of stars. I learned about what the actual surface of our sun is like. It wasn't long before I realized that what my elder friend told me was an absurdity, impossible to believe. People will be quick to say things like, "That was never doctrine!" but the church--all churches in fact that I'm aware of--are chock full of such absurdities. Like the Catholic priest who holds up a cracker, rings a bell, and declares it to be the body of Christ, a thoughtful person is left looking at it and thinking, "It's still a cracker."
I think it's hard for a "thoughtful" person to stay in the church without engaging in some serious mental compartmentalization gymnastics, and I think that's the only way to do it.
That really is something never taught...smh
I have absolutely never heard that "doctrine" and if that is the reason some people are leaving the church then our problems are not the ones ex mormons say they are.
Very very apologetic response to many of the later questions. I wonder what’s holding him back from opening up about his beliefs. The beautiful people in the live chat have helped me not get too frustrated with this one
He’s expressed numerous times and ways, that his personal belief is not the bases of his work, and he wants to continue to stay data focused (ie: data over dogma podcast, etc.). His work is public, his personal belief and faith is not.
@@AdreeSoxy I think I was hoping for an answer that would help me understand why my parents stay. I definitely should’ve had more of an open mind in hindsight.
@elispiller2686 that's a question for your parents. Unless one of them is Dan, you're looking in the wrong place.
@@danielkirienko1701 since I made this comment I’ve actually had a chat with my parents. I see now why Dan wouldn’t express his own beliefs. The same reason my parents couldn’t all those years ago.
There shouldn’t be shame in having questions and doubts about the church; openly. Pretending everything is AOK fixes nothing and helps no one
Basically he's dishonest with himself.
Through these 3 episodes Dan has very clearly made the case that there is no logic or reason to believe the church is true. However he finds value himself in the community.
There are many communities that don’t require 10% of your gross…👍🏽
@@pattykake7195thank you.
It's funny that in my decades in the LDS church, they kept harping on that *considering the church a mere social club would be a waste of time* ... One needed a "testimony", and had to be there with one's whole heart and soul, sacrificing everything for the "truth". Besides, they kept saying that, if the BOM was not true, the entire church would collapse -- a fraud. I took their own word for it.
A community that excludes my lgbt friends and family, limits women, relies on shame and protects child abuse is not a community. It is dangerous.
@@mah244 Exactly - there is a lot more value in an inclusive, egalitarian, uplifting community, and such a community really can't be found in Abrahamic religion.
Seeing this on the upturn of a couple years existential and faith crisis. I feel like it may have given me a couple of the missing pieces i needed. Thank you Dan :)
I've never heard a defense of religion that begins with evolutionary psychology. This guy is a gem.
A lot of things that people do and why we do them seem to make more sense when you consider an evolutionary perspective
Because it doesn’t defend religion. It reduces it to mere social communities, and a reduction of the LDS church to a mere community can be reasonably countered with the argument that there probably are better communities out there than the majority of active Mormons.
I don't really agree with a lot of his points but I find his perspective very unique and interesting and was really happy to hear it.
Evolutionary psychology is what made me leave religion. I don’t get his point at all. “We made it up” is not a defense.
@@alexanderschofield3728I agree that it doesn't defend religion, but it also doesn't reduce religion in any way -- it's a set of ideas that can be equally used to explain religion from an atheistic worldview or that can be used to describe one of the ways that a creator deity purposefully designed humans in order that humans could have a relationship with said deity.
I enjoyed this episode as others.
Everybody is different. Some people can cut the church off and be ok and some are not able to without going into a depression. If you do decide to leave the church, wean off. Don’t just cut it off and leave.
There are many who attend the Christian churches and they do not believe all the teachings being taught. But they enjoy the community.
I say, stay or stay until you have a replacement. Don’t cut it off and don’t have another community or place to fellowship.
Don’t give up!
Be blessed!
The guy is a coward and a hypocrite. It's really easy to be these things so he embraces it.
For me, the LDS community was frustrating and overwhelming. I cut off all contact as fast as I could and have never been happier or more at peace.
@@brycebarker1582your a liar...you are not at peace ..your here following around LDS topics ..cuz you miss it....get back to church...find peace again
@@brycebarker1582
I am happy that way worked best for you.
Be blessed!
Dan is awesome. Love hearing from him. Thanks, John, for bringing him on again!
What a frustrating episode. Thanks for all of the hard work, John.
I listened for about 1.5 hours and heard him acknowledge that the concerns are valid but didn’t hear any answers to the question posed in the title. Not sure how the title isn’t misleading.
Frustrating how?
The dichotomy that’s the church (Jesus and god appearing, B of M , priesthood restored, the church being only True one) has been established by the Church. We didn’t. I understand what Dan is saying. It makes sense. But we are faced with black and white issues as a badge of faith and membership.
Exactly. That's the point. We skeptics aren't the ones that defined the issue. The church defined itself as "literally, absolutely, true (i.e., real)" and the fact that that is decidedly and verifiably false is the reason there is a problem. And you can't rationalize that away because it is specifically how the church differentiates itself from all the others.
@@Fatfinger4378Yes! I didn't find Dan's defense of this as an attempt by critics to do 'boundary maintenance' and his attempt to downplay the importance of this as odd. Just because The Reformation redefined religion as being an appeal to truth and historicity as a good excuse for the lack therefore when the Mormon church themselves outlined their own belief that they are truthful.
I love the views Dan put forth in this. I do understand this is not necessarily his personal beliefs, however, I wonder if he has ever tried to argue any of these positions with his church leadership. From my experience, if he seriously tried to argue these things he would be seriously "put in his place," so to say. That was my experience. The last bishop I seriously spoke with made it clear that not toeing the line with the official positions of the church was absolutely required. When I said, "I think they [the apostles and prophets] are wrong," he sent me to the stake president to see if I should be excommunicated.
Indeed
Were you exed?
@@joshuachaffin1858 I wasn't, but that was only because I quit attending church. I later requested my records to be removed.
Dan is indeed the man
Dan is really smart. Book smart and street smart. He’s playing the long game of CYA and I can’t begrudge him that. I wish he could be honest about that…at least. He doesn’t have to talk about his personal beliefs to say, “Hey…this religion is serving me and all the “problematic stuff” is none of my business”.
For me now, I am having a trust crisis. Do I trust his work on the Bible if I do not trust his core values?
This is my problem. Mormons are Unitarians so does this make his Unitarian findings about the Bible “fruit of the poisonous tree”?
You don't need to "trust" his work on the Bible. Dan is a scholar. He is, or at least should be, open about his sources and methods. Trust, but verify. When you do, you'll find out whether his beliefs are coloring his work. If they are, then you have an answer. If they aren't, then you have an answer.
I personally stopped listening to him because I cannot resolve the conflict that you describe. I go one step further and call him cowardly for dunking on other religions (keep in mind he went into academia to study the old testament) while keeping his own nonsensical, hateful faith safe from any criticism. It's pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
@@sohu86x I feel similar to you. I don't understand how he can keep his "data over dogma" slogan and remain an LDS member...
Dog gone! I only started watching part one on my laptop and here's part 3 on my phone. Each part is more than 4 hours long. The fortitude alone to create this. . . . !
I'm very late on this, but I'm struck by how carefully Dan moderates much of his speech with reference to its fundamental or necessary sociality or picking/choosingness, but consistently appeals to "the data" as though "the data" is objective and self-evident.
The couplet from Snow was a summation of a doctrine taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse.
Thank you Dan and John for this thought provoking 3 part series! As one who has studied scriptures for all of my adult life, and still do, although I have increasingly been studying the principles of Buddhism more so over the past decade or so, this 3 part series was absolutely wonderful. As I believe "striving" for a so called "objective truth" is what could be the thing of most worth in aiming for, it does require great patience, which I am not very good at...😮
Much of what Dan discussed about the Bible wasn't too shocking as I am an avid student of Dr David R Hawkins work, and he came up with very similar conclusions with his "calibrations" of "truth" of the scriptures. At first, about 15 years ago, it was quite awakening and depressing! So I felt some concern for those hearing that for perhaps the first time. If so, time will help to assimilate those things for one's benefit and a deeper understanding.
BTW, John you were amazing with those relentless probing questions in this part 3!
🙏❤️
Yes I appreciate the questions. Still in the middle of it but can’t help but get annoyed at the tiptoeing going on. I get it, Dan is in and is active and must hold some leadership position where he goes to the HC, so I have empathy…but on some things, yes you can find meaning, but the church, maybe they’re changing or he hasn’t felt it, is all or nothing. Too many thoughts to just do a little comment, all in all great but I find myself disagreeing with Dan on some things.
@Genesis-xd1id I at first got a little frustrated with the tip toeing too, but I think Dan has a good reason for it. My guess is he has a great family life, and the rest of them love the social aspect of the church. So in essence, they probably begged Dan to do things the way he's doing them, which is understandable. I think we'll find out the real reason fairly soon...
I’m sorry, but his “personal take is beyond the scope of this series” of 13+ hour interviews? (2:25:55)
I don’t buy it.
What is the point of being this educated, this thoughtful and this articulate if all it leads to is stasis?
I’m sure this series of interviews was helpful to someone, but it wasn’t to me especially at this moment in time.
I would be very interested in a follow up interview in about 5 years. I would be very surprised if he is able to maintain this (for me) untenably neutral position for long.
I totally agree with you. I don't even understand why he does not want to speak about his own belief system. He's a very smart person and researcher, but to not talk about his own struggle with belief and religion seems dishonest, especially when he makes money on social media with religious content. And so many people would benefit from hearing him speaking honestly about how he makes sense of this material in his own life.
I believe he just wants us to decide for ourselves. The data is the data and the teachings are the teachings.
Religion can have value outside of its truthfulness. And data can have value even if it doesn’t tell us EXACTLY what to do and believe.
Minimizing harm and maximizing happiness is actually what matters. And that is different for everyone
Dan is such an intelligent and remarkable human. Such a great interview.
I wonder how Dan passes the temple recommend interview. There are questions that may conflict with his views of religion.
I agree ..and probably why he won't put it out there on the internet
Yes I agree and was wondering too. They’re black and white unless he’s saying within the church the restoration happened and the leaders are “true”…
President Gordon B. Hinckley. “Each of us has to face the matter - either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground." In this case, it is a simple binary.
It’s a fraud….👍🏽
This take lacks so much nuance that is required to understand the middle ground.
@SploinkyDH. that’s what you believe but for me he’s an old dead white guy who profited in both money and power from you believing his words with black and white thinking.
@SploinkyDH. A fraud, one of many, who fleeced their followers of their money.
President Hinckley sounds rather ignorant and simple minded.
Hope he was smarter in other subjects.
I have such a deep respect for both of you. Thank you.
I thought it fascinating how Dan does such a great job revealing data over dogma when talking about biblical historicity but fails to live up to that same standard when defending his faith in the LDS religion. The conversation about the different accounts of the 1st vision was especially egregious. It doesn't require an increased spiritual understanding and enlightenment to count on your fingers how many people, divine or otherwise, are present.
Talking about atheism (agnostic or otherwise) is not a social identity - atheism is a logical conclusion on the individual level. In fact - one of the major failings of atheism and agnosticism is the difficulties in replacing the social identity and community that come with the loss of religion.
Ironically enough - Dan sounded a lot like the apologetics that he tries to push back against in this episode.
I completely disagree with Dan's contention that this is a social club. I went against my own social, political, and prior religious beliefs to join the church, on the basis of thinking it was the only way to secure a good eterntal life. I joined ONLY because I believed the lies, considered them hard truths, and thought I had no choice. Socially, by joining, I LOST friends, lost respect. Then, I had to reverse that whole process once I found I'd been duped.
Did your original friends come back?
@@harlanlang6556 It's not the same, because a lot of time (decades) elapsed, but yes. And extended family members were glad at my exit, but again, you can't undo all the damage and lost time. Meanwhile, now I have to try to retain my longtime lds friends who think that I'm currently deceived.
How old were you when you joined the LDS Church?@@iamjustsaying1
@@harlanlang6556 Early 20's.
@iamjustsaying1
I am sorry you went thru that experience of believing the BS the church fed you and then subsequently joining because of the lies being offered as truth. It’s a whole lifestyle change and mind bend. Then to find out it’s all made up is more than upsetting to say the least.
Not a fan of organized religion- all human constructs anyway.
My dad told me years ago- just stay in the church anyway, even if you don’t believe, just for the social aspect and the help of the community if you should need it.
I said no way can I stay in an organization I can’t/don’t believe in. Talk about hypocrisy. To pretend to believe to those around me just to belong would have eventually made me physically, mentally and spiritually sick. So for me,
Social clubbing was not the answer. I’ve always said- people can believe whatever they need or want to as long as it doesn’t harm and demean those in or outside of their belief bubble. Imo the church has and still does much harm as well as with many other high demand religions/cults. I stay away from any person or institution that insists I have to listen and obey cause they have direct knowledge and authority from god.
Is life really intolerable without an overarching meaning? I think that's a perspective that is handed to us by society. What if we were never taught about purpose? As a bear what the overarching purpose is. Being tied to a grand meaning sucks the joy out of just being and doing and feeling and experiencing.
Existence is absurd no matter what you believe. If you really think about it, that there IS an existence is weird.
As an ‘Agnostic Theist’ (though I don’t call myself anything specific) I found this series endlessly fascinating & thought provoking. As an ally 🌈 I was especially interested in the information about homosexuality in the Bible.
What is an agnostic theist?
@@vermontmike9800 I recently heard Bart Ehrman describe himself as an agnostic atheist.
Because agnostic is about not knowing, but being atheist is about not believing in deity, so in the case of Bart it meant he doesn't personally believe there is a god but he wouldn't claim to be able to know for certain that there isn't a god.
So in this case Sarah could be saying she believes in God but she knows that her belief could turn out to be wrong because again it's not certain knowledge, just faith.
It's being humble enough to admit you can't know for certain, while still admitting your beliefs lie in one direction or the other.
Credibility Enhancing Displays at 20:34. Another example is tithing where members boast they pay tithing on their gross income (before taxes, health insurance and other deductions). It means the member feels they are more loyal to this commandment than a person who pays on net income.
i paid gross and sometimes on my credit card since i wasn’t making enough at that time. the monster deity demanded it
The Podcast was fascinating, and I learned something. My take away from Dan's work is it is indeed possible to be a believing Latter Day Saint while also having moral integrity, a willingness to follow the truth wherever it leads, and also be a person able and willing to acknowledge mistakes and shortcoming within our own faith.
This is so weird. I've been thinking about a memory I have of driving thru my late fiance's neighborhood and how I remember having felt like I did when she was alive. Now I turn on this podcast and he's talking about that very subject. What a trip.
Dan, tell me you don't believe in the LDS church in a hundred ways OTHER than "I don't believe in the church."
I didn't get this impression from him at all. He stated it clearly at the beginning: he is an academic not a theologian.
@@whenwollfthat contradicts his Mormonism. You can’t be both.
@@vermontmike9800 that's a very infantile way of viewing things. There are lots of different types of Mormons each who negotiate with the religion in various ways.
Even if he disagrees with some fundamental claims of Mormonism, saying he is therefore not a Mormon is completely false.
If you insist on one interpretation of a "Mormon" worldview, all that serves is boundary maintenance.
@@whenwollf my experience with Mormonism was that you’re either with us or against us. No, this isn’t hyperbole. This is the way it was for my family. A series of questions and seeking valid information one minute, “maybe this isn’t for you” the next. As they say in John Wick, excommunicado. “Infantile” should be directed to the church, not to the former member.
@@vermontmike9800 believe me, I get it. In my opinion, leaders of the church are indistinguishable from politicians and say what they need to in order to keep the support of the members. And yes church leaders often put forward a very infantile understanding of the gospel.
I also come from a very orthodox family. I'm not sure how but I came up with the courage to fight back on certain issues such as the cult like mentality that our church has developed. Attitudes toward tithing are very unhealthy too.
But those hard liners don't represent everyone and as I have been more vocal in my concerns many members of my ward have said they agree with me.
Godspeed.
I identify as an agnostic atheist. I personally don't see compelling evidence to convince me that there is a god, but I'm not so bold as to assert that my personal beliefs represent universal truth.
The great thing is that it doesn't much matter. If there is no God and we just cease, then it doesn't matter what we think. We won't exist to care. And if there IS an afterlife... well, then we have options, according to most of the major faiths. No harm in believing whatever brings you comfort or inspiration, for either stance.
Hey John, how about interviewing people with near death experiences, and see how they differ? That would be interesting.
The problem is, no one who lives to tell about it actually died.
Great episode so far although the idea of a Latter-day Saint who is unwilling to discuss his personal beliefs is novel to me. Other than that, Dan had a wonderful mind and I find his commentary very fascinating.
It's easier to communicate ideas if they're not seen as connected to your own ego.
@@harlanlang6556 that may be true although I feel like for Dan in this particular episode his unwillingness to express his own beliefs actually held him back from explaining the most plausible way a “thoughtful” Mormon stays in the church. The conversation felt very circular and in some instances felt like they were talking around the actual questions being asked because John was trying to respect his stance on sharing his beliefs. I did enjoy the episode though.
There may be a lot at stake for Dan as he navigates the awkward path between his studies and his family's expectations. He may, for example, have made an agreement with his wife / family that he would deal with certain issues but not with others - to avoid conflict or awkward situations with parents / in- laws etc. Dealing with life and Mormonism is probably more intense in Utah than in less central locations. I sympathise with him.
@@allanjeffrey6666 so true!
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none
Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below:
No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth.
The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America.
The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon.
CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence?
Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But:
THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool.
The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon
The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors.
Bible:
The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC.
Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church.
The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ
I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1
One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon.
Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie.
Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this.
Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened.
Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?
Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)?
If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
Anyone want the over under on how long until he walks away from the church ? I say less than 3 years.
Bushman and the Givenses and many many others have lasted decades.
@@deebee2603I don’t agree that everyone stays out of fear. Many stay because they find great value in a belief system, community, passing on tradition to future generations. There are a lot of reasons to stay but none of them compelling enough for me. I wish Dan the best!
@marlenemeyer9841 agreed. There are the altruistic and those who truly believe they can effect change by staying in however it is at one's expense; spiritually, physically, emotionally, financially, and cognitively. I choose to be true my own self. I lost my health "serving" and do all assignments demanded of me with no regard to my health and wellbeing. Ppl who think they can change this mlm corporation are delusional. The Corp is a game mortal created entity with a while bunch of crazy oxymoron rules. 100% binary and not based in love. The "community" so many "feel" is simply part of their control by artificially fulfilling maslow's hierarchy but for those who did not lose their working brain cells along the way totally see it for what it is. The "community" is nothing more than assignments, checks in boxes and numbers. Lifers fail to learn how to go out and actually create relationships with others based on mutual GENUINE interests and hobbies. It's pretty simple and how we all made friends in elementary school and beyond. Why ppl hand over their entire life and wellbeing in all areas to the proud, puffed up, lifted up, condescending natural men is beyond me. Now I understand why most exmos become agnostic or athiest after such abuse and fairytales. My first step was getting as far away from UT as possible. It was easy to make my own "inspired" callings in primary as most the parents wanted someone else teaching their kids. There I could show the children love and create safe space for them and me. The women in RS are pretty horrific. Until I was 100% honest and true to myself, I can no longer be a party of this indoctrination. I know my Savior and His intimately and do no not require a 3rd wheel in my relationship with Diety. I have every bit the right to receive and use God's power without having to gift wrap and label it man's own creation called priesthood. Women are not less nor accountable to men who appoint themselves. God does not have favorites. I have yet to meet a truly qualified perfect male as a substitute for Diety. Natural man at his finest smh. Today am grateful for true thoughtful caring friends who do not have to be told what to do or assigned to be "friends". I'm not a number or an assignment. I'm not a hamster running ragged on the hamster wheel with a checklist accomplishing the letter of the law failing the spirit of the law. I do not require commanding in all things. I have tremendous gratitude for our Savior and His great love. No mortal being on this earth; past, present, or future will ever replace what Christ has done for each of us, and continues to do. My own personal relationship with my Savior does not require climbing over homeless people to enter opulent great and spacious buildings for idol worshipping or mortals on their own Rameumptom stands left and right. Praise to my Savior for setting me free to follow Him not natural man.
@@mormonstoriesYeah, but they didn’t grow beards. Beard…coffee…meth…outer darkness. In that exact trajectory 😂 Very much kidding, Dan is THE MAN!! I love this man’s incredible knowledge and really appreciate his nuance. He gives me hope that I might be able to eventually find what works for me.
I'll go 60 years
I enjoyed his scholarship. However, to belong to an organization implies you believe in their values even if you don't believe in the events and history that created those values. I believe it does make you complicit in the discrimination culture which so permeates these religious institutions. You may be preaching that the scriptures are not truth but the churches aren't. Membership may work for you but as soon as someone you love falls into the discriminated minority how will you reconcile your complicity to them? No matter how you dress up your language, the lack of historical truth actually means the churches are telling lies and packaging them as truth.
he is no different than the mother who knows her husband is molesting her daughter but keeps quiet afraid of losing standing friends being judged or her meal ticket. it’s that simple if you play footsie with truth then you are no better than the leaders
@@BeeLala-i5tI understand where you're coming from, and there is a great conversation to be had on the spectrum of group culpability, but that literal of a take isn't helpful. If so, then you would also need to literally view every single person who has bought an article of clothing from China (everyone) as someone who has starved, killed, and exploited children as laborers. It sucks, but it's much more complicated than that.
@@ROB2K88there's absolutely no correlation between the two. He's a member of the church who has held positions of authority. That's like being a high ranking member of the corporation that runs the sweatshop. He's culpable.
So he’s basically saying he believes in Mormonism but doesn’t believe in any of the church’s teachings
It seems that Dan does not believe in the LDS Church in the way the Church intends (promotes itself as the one, single truth), but rather he negotiates the social spheres of the Church for practical reasons, and there are nice things to derive from the experience of being affiliated with the Church. Tha’s nice, but it also means that the Church is not necessary for salvation, just a nice thing to have in this lifetime. I mean, as long as we’re good people and happy and satisfied in life, it didn’t matter if we were LDS or not in this life, all thing being equal (i.e. LDS truth claims are false anyway, so...). Love you Dan, Universe bless!
I liked these interviews, the evolutionary psychology stuff is very useful to think about it this context, very helpful. In looking through the comments, I do see several that are polarized. I get it. I also get that my family is Mormon, parents and wife's parents, lots of people I have to interact with. I also get that my wife for the last 20 years is Mormon, and at least for me not an issue to get divorced over. I know others don't have that luxury or fortune. It is really hard to stay married in such circumstances, sorry. At the very least I am culturally Mormon. I know that in order to go to Mormon weddings, I need to get a temple recommend from time to time. That is the world I live in so I have to deal with it. If I am just 'Mormon' enough, then I can go about my business and my kids can play with everyone in the neighborhood and all that. To me that is more relevant 'truth' then any ideas about history or God or Visions or the like. I have not always felt this way, but I do now.
I personally am done with sacrificing myself on ideological mountains, any ideological mountains. I go to church almost purely for social reasons; and that in my book is plenty of justification for going. It is a fine and upstanding reason to go. I do not care one wit about all the "one true church" rhetoric; at my worst I despise it, at my best I shrug and move on. But if someone else goes to church for those reasons, I have zero issue with it. And I know that several stop going to church because abuse of power among other reasons. I still go for my reasons, and you have every right to think ill of my decision to keep going. At this point I am not all that concerned about all that power stuff, since it is way outside my influence.
These interviews at the very least give me something to think on rather than the standard yes-no pro-vs-anti rhetoric. So that's really nice to have. I personally go to a Buddhist Sanga as well as sacrament meeting every week. I have to do the Sangha stuff for my sanity. I find the Buddhist ideas to be great. I am not out in the world to find one more reason to suffer. I am more concerned with doing activities that minimizes suffering for both me and those around me. And to be clear I am not hiding my head in the sand with this stance. For example, I will clearly state that I believe the BOM was created in 1820's by Joseph Smith somehow, and this is my belief and I do not personally require anyone else to share it. I will likely never say that the BOM is 'false' or push this view on someone else in such a way to appear threating; I try and use language in such a way to not 'corner' someone. I am not interested in using my missionary 'chops' to push any of my ideologies on anyone pro or anti. I don't go there if it is hurting some, its not worth it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, this applies to me especially. So if you say my attitude is hypocritical and false and bad I would likely agree with you whole-heartedly. I am less interested in the God vs not-God dialectic, I will only really go there if it is fun or enjoyable or helps out in some way.
I have been dealing with this long enough to know that when someone loses belief that kindness and respect for the pain they feel will be received and can help them out, so I will give that if I am aware it is needed.
Sorry about my long response
While I’m currently a believing member, I could see myself ending up in a similar position someday. Thank you for sharing your experience
So depressing. The big, numb cajones you got that allows you to persist in getting constantly kneed must have been stuffed with the extra fat transferred from your brain.
It's worth listening to Dan's thoughtful and honest reasoning. But I could hear a faithful Catholic defend his belief in his own church using the same logic and arguments: Fallible leaders, questionable history (the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.) but still providing wisdom and community. But he made me think. He is right that religion is, among other things, a country club, especially if you want to be persecuted and ridiculed for belong to the club, which was the experience of the early Christians and the early believers of every religion. But there is one reality of all religions, which is that they all have had a Divine Hero as its founder, as a model for behavior and a symbol of the deity, or God. As Jesus reportedly said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." Jesus was the evidence for the existence of God Who exhibited qualities of God and at least some idea as to the nature of God, or God's relationship to the human race. You can make the same argument for all other world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism or Judaism. They all have a Divine Hero, or a Manifestation of God, as the primary evidence of the existence of God.
As Dan explains, the expression of religion is influenced by the times, by the general knowledge and beliefs of the people. This is one of the explanations of why religious teachings may differ. People are taught what they need at the time and what they are developmentally ready to understand.
Creating community is the underlying reason for religion besides the spiritual growth for people as individuals. Community gives us a capacity to do much bigger things to benefit humanity, but the downside is when communities (nations) see other communities as enemies. The ultimate solution is to educate the human race to see that there is just one community on earth, and we're it. It sounds idealistic to imagine that this could happen, that Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. would put the unity of the human race at a higher priority than that of their own group identity. But at the beginning of Christianity it would have sounded wildly idealistic to imagine that all of Europe would eventually change from their tribal religions and become one religion.
Shintoism doesn't have a "divine hero founder". Neither does Hinduism. Neither does the Anishinabe religion, Visayan religion, etc
The "Divine Hero Founder" is a feature of universalizing religions
I’ll echo I found a number of intriguing parallels between how Mormonism and Catholicism operate.
I couldn't finish this. Dan is quite verbose. I watched all 10-ish? hours of his first two interviews and thought they were interesting (although Yale professor Christine Hayes gives a much more succinct and lively explanation of the Bible on her OYC course).
2.5 hours in, and I still haven't heard a single reason for thoughtful Mormons to stay in the church.
What's especially frustrating here is that there is material worth exploring -- "beliefs" vs "creedences," atheism as a social movement, etc. -- but somehow Dan manages to drone on without presenting these ideas in a way that I find convincing or palatable.
Finally, refusing to discuss his beliefs is a transparent way of avoiding the loss of subscribers (or church membership, on the other hand). It has nothing to do with maintaining the sanctity of the ideas he presents. Admit your biases and stop pretending you're unbiased.
i cant wait till Dan McClellan is my bishop 🥰
I’m *more* interested in the eventual follow-up interview when Dan reveals why he finally left the church. I find the academic arguments of the interview interesting really, but Dan’s need to be careful not to *directly* criticize the church is really dissatisfying. It feels like we almost get the the crux of an issue, but never fully arrive. I imagine he was exhausted by the end of this. I wanted the honest answers to JD’s questions too.
He never really seems to defend the church either, tbh. Walking on eggshells about professing your honest personal beliefs isn’t good for either side of the issue.
he won’t as a mother who knows her husband is molesting her daughter but keeps quiet so as not to lose her meal ticket. no difference at all
We’re all “thoughtful” Mormons to some extent. Even the most believing and faithful member will have criteria for what they’ll categorize as “fact” and what concepts require faith and exercise. We all have biases and preferences. We are built to pick and choose, consciously or not, which information/commandments/directives we’ll follow to a tee and which info will exist in our minds as requiring further investigation and testing.
Evidence for Book of Mormon in ancient America- none
Evidence showing Book of Mormon is a 19th century religious fiction below:
No wheat, no barley, no goats, no steel found in the Americas, no metal smelting furnaces, no metal armor, no temples, no steel swords, no skeletons of these warriors, no graves, no cities (it would be impossible for a city the size of Zarahemla to leave no trace), no cattle, no chariot parts, no Nephite coins (listed in book of Alma as being used for a thousand years), no Jewish relics from supposed jews, no metal plates like Nephites supposedly had, no artifacts whatsoever, no Nephite "reformed Egyptian" writings; and no evidence the book of Mormon "prophets" ever existed. There is zero archaeological, anthropological, topological, linguistic, or DNA evidence to support the Book of Mormon. It would be impossible for highly advanced civilizations (Jaredites, Nephites) with millions of people to have vanished off the face of the earth.
The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7) “Two million Jaredites slain” (Ether 15:2) 38 cities are catalogued in the Book of Mormon, along with iron, steel, brass, metal swords, breast-plates, shields, armor, or chariots. Yet, not one item mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in America.
The Book of Mormon speaks of sheep, swine, goats, wheat, barley, silk, and elephants-even though they weren’t brought to America until centuries later by Europeans in post-Columbian times. Again we see that Joseph Smith was thinking about things in his current day as he was fabricating the Book of Mormon.
CAN WE TRUST OUR HEARTS as to book of Mormon since there is no evidence?
Maroni chapter 10:4 says: "he will manifest the truth of it unto you" But:
THE BIBLE WARNS YOU about trusting your own heart. Jeremiah 17:9 "the heart is deceitful above all things". Proverbs 28:26 "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Please don't be a fool.
The entire belief system and premise of Mormonism is based on a false claim the Bible was corrupted and "plain and precious parts" were removed by early Christian translators sometime after the apostles had all died. This is a very dangerous claim to make against the word of God, especially since God promised us his word would never pass away and would be with us forever (Isaiah 40:8; Psalms 100:5; Matthew 16:18, 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23-25).
An Objective Test of the Bible and Book of Mormon
The Claim: In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi has a vision the Bible was corrupted after the 12 apostles preached it and after the formation of the “great and abominable church” (1 Nephi 13:26-29). Most Mormons believe this to be the Catholic Church which was formed early in the 4th century. Nephi claims this church was founded by the Devil to lead souls to hell (1 Nephi 14:3). So let’s objectively examine both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be fair and test if any have errors.
Bible:
The earliest Dead Sea Scrolls have been historically dated by three different dating techniques to as early as 350 BC. Included in this discovery was the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is the oldest known complete copy of the Book of Isaiah and is dated to approximately 200 BC.
Study the dead sea scrolls which are over 2,000 years old and see if they have Joseph Smith's uncorrupted version. They should if Joseph Smith was correct and the bible had been corrupted over time but, no they do not. They are the same today as they were over 2,100 years ago with only minor spelling or punctuation differences. Joseph Smith was wrong. The bible had not been corrupted. “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) If Mormonism is true, then God could not make the claim that there were no gods before him, for he was just a man at one point; nor could he claim that no gods would come after him, for that is the goal of every member of the LDS church.
The new testament has not been corrupted either. Take for example John 1:1 a very important verse than Smith changed to make Jesus a created being. A papyri known as the Bodmer Papyri which is almost 1900 years old of the book of John. (this papyri was written not long after the apostle John would have died and it shows joseph smith changed the book of John, not that it got corrupted later as he alleged)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΗΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΣ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ
I post this in love. The manuscript and archeological evidence for the bible is the greatest of anything in antiquity. I pray that you know the real Jesus, real peace, love and true salvation.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1
One is a Jesus who is not eternal and was the spirit brother of lucifer in pre-existence & a God the Farther who was once a man - an exulted man. The other is the eternal Word, the Alpha and Omega- Jesus, by whom created all things, seen and unseen. And a God the Father who says the He alone is God, nor any god before, not any god after. There is no way for the Biblical account of Jesus to arrive at the account of the Book of Mormon.
Mormons have been taught that the bible was corrupted. I hope to open eyes that God is much greater than the humanoid that you have been told about. He is the creator of all creation not just this solar system. Jesus said all scripture shall not fade away but many wolves and false prophets will come and try to add to the word. It pains my heart to see mormons fall for the lie that Satan first told Adam and Eve that we can be like the most high. Genesis 3 Joseph Smith sold the same lie.
Another lie, a Temple like Solomon's Temple built in America does not exist. 100% impossibility as we would have some remains and there were no Levites in the Americas to serve in the temple so it would have been against Jewish law which book of mormon says were kept. If you study the bible you know this.
Mormon's own the Hill Cumorah yet they do not excavate it because they know there is nothing there from previous digs. An excavation would be a grand embarrassment and would prove the religion is a lie. It did not happen. Look at Mormon Chapter 8 the evidence for it does not exist and evidence would exist if it happened.
Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?
Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God (Journal of Discourses, Apr. 9, 1852, vol.1, p.50)?
If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses, Dec. 12, 1854, 2:142-143)?
You are an excellent and thoughful interviewer, John. Thank you.
I still love Dan, but the longer this goes the more problems I have. I'm about halfway right now.
Dan seems to almost entirely dismiss the relevance of truth claims in a religious context, gesturing at the reformation changing how people view it. He says it's a social club and everyone negotiates with it. That's fine, but what they're negotiating with are the underlying truth claims that shape the entire interaction. Is there a God a soul or an afterlife? Is there revelation, either ongoing or recorded? These institutions draw authority from these propositions and structure themselves around them. They cannot be as irrelevant as Dan makes them out to be.
This is compounded when he talks about prophets. What is the value of the prophet, Dan? I'm not talking about requiring inerrancy. They are not professionals in the fields of advice they give and give the advice as raw assertion in the name of God, not backed up by evidence. What's their value? Just to make you feel good about being in an in-group? There are far less harmful ways to accomplish that. Specifically, what is the value?
Minor other point that bothered me was the first vision. We can't know if there was a real experience or not, but given how much the narrative shifted to match his rhetorical needs at the time and how little theological consistency there is between them, any real experience might as well have been a pleasant fart on a cool spring morning. It's irrelevant, and the data we have shows he used the story to prop up his needs at the time and he had a pattern of deceitful, self-serving behavior.
Love your Bible scholarship, but I still don't understand how you negotiate these things the way you do and as objective as you usually are I think your Mormon is showing here.
100% agree with this. I feel like because he hasn’t dedicated study to particular theological subjects he gracefully bows out of legitimate concerns especially related to Mormon doctrine past and present. Even though his experience being a member of the church is vastly different than 95%+ of current and past members, I feel like he is somewhat dismissive of serious concerns and issues related to Mormonism and specifically harmful doctrine that has been stated to be directly from God. All because his experience has been different from others.
Agreed. He is an impressive scholar of biblical studies and I learned a lot in listening to him - but his ability to accept things that are clearly falsified is baffling. The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
I’m only an 1:12 into this interview and from what I understand, much like the differences between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the New Testament, there is a difference between participating in a religious tradition vs the dogma and power maintenance of the religion. (Sorry for the run on sentence).
That absolutely works with older religious traditions where nuance is encouraged or at least tolerated. My concern is with newer traditions which have yet to accommodate nuance. The LDS faith and one could argue it’s faith tradition, does not appear to make those accommodations. In fact the existence of excommunication (no matter how it is worded), nullifies nuance in the faith tradition. It is more than power structure maintenance. It is also removal from faith tradition. Repentance, requires orthodox adherence in order to be re-baptised.
While any given member can think and negotiate however they like, when they become vocal about their beliefs it is no longer a case of personal negotiation.
Have to wonder what he says when he gives his testimony in church.
I guess he shares what he shared on this video
That religion has been a very powerful positive force in his life.
Is that not a good testimony?
@@langreeves6419what about the part when you're suppose to say, "I know the church is true" 🤷♂️
@@Spirit_to_seekare Mormons supposed to say that?
I'm Lutheran.
@@langreeves6419 Yes. I am an ex-mormon and that phraseology is standard for bearing testimonies in church.
I'd like to comment on Dan's point of saying that when bad things happen many can either lose their beliefs which causes more grief as they think there was this suffering with no accountability or people belive there is a god and thus reckoning after death. On a societal level, I think the second belief leads to a great deal of believers to lack personal responsability (as Dan seems to mention.) I think personally this is a far more harmful to society as a whole. Why worry about those who have not fed the poor and allow them to go hungry because God will make them pay in the afterlife. Why worry about the downtrodden,, the widow when God will take care of it in this imaginative telling of an afterlife. While it may give comfort on a personal level, it seems allow absolution of personal responsibility since someone can tell themselves it isn't their issue to punish these people for their evil actions or if temporal punishment is not inacted or even take preventative steps to limit or control behavior.
For so many things (at least in the Hebrew "bible") that appear to be about societal structuring, this seems irreconcilable and dangerous. It makes sense if viewed by a people who felt persecuted or were so and had no means to get satisfaction (not unlike the writings in Revelations.) If God were going to take care of it then good, our job is done. This imaginative thinking gets one off the hook to actually work to change not just one's own behavior but greater society and provides comfort for those directly experiencing bad things.
While this seems innocuous enough and even helpful to an individual, on society it can and is detrimental.
"Why worry about those who have not fed the poor and allow them to go hungry because God will make them pay in the afterlife. Why worry about the downtrodden,, the widow when God will take care of it in this imaginative telling of an afterlife."
I'm agnostic about the concept of an afterlife, but I would say the easy answer is that there's no good reason to ignore suffering now just because you know it will be alleviated in 10, 20, or 70 years. "Eh, you'll feel better eventually, so for now you can be miserable, and I don't care," is the answer of a psychopath.
@@FabricofTime it is more a, why act to help people, especially to protect them from bad things or people when those bad people will get their comeuppance one day in hell via god. It absolves people from personal responsibility to their fellow man. Must be many, many psychopaths among us. I'm also atheist.
How is "community" as John defines it functionally different from "in-group"? And how can the formation of an in-group avoid necessarily resulting in the formation of an out-group as well? ... and what kind of experience can those in the out-group expect to have in this scenario?
Last I heard, monopoles don't exist in nature. I'm not sure why this would be different.
Of the three episodes, this was the most disappointing. He was very concise and direct in answering questions, especially when it came to biblical scholarship and historicity of the BOM. But when it came to answering questions related to the modern day church and the current and past doctrine, it felt like he masqueraded as a Bull fighter side-stepping a lot of legitimate questions asked by Dr. Dehlin. Especially questioning the ethos of supporting an organization that has harmed marginalized groups past and present from a male authoritarian figure who claims he speaks for God.
And while I don’t question Dan’s commitment to create change to protect marginalized groups from Dogma, why claim membership in a religious organization that continues to cause harm to marginalized groups based off of Doctrine? Also why excuse past doctrine as fallible men and/or evolving doctrine. It’s clear Mormon doctrine has changed not because God told these men to change it, but because of external pressures from society, opposition from members, etc. Although he won’t share his personal religious/spiritual beliefs, I feel like personally addressing this issue is a reasonable expectation
And Dr. Dehlin did an excellent job interviewing Dan and asking great questions representing believing and former members alike. The first two episodes were in my top 5 all time and appreciate the knowledge perspective and insight Dan provided. Maybe my expectations were too high coming into episode 3. Overall I will say Dan is an intelligent, thoughtful, non-judgmental human
@@robertmildenhall6294 He's incredibly intelligent - Much smarter than me by far and I really dig his podcasts.
That being said, I would say he's not being honest with himself in his evaluation of his personal beliefs - to wit - he's not applying the same intellectual rigor here that he does with his academic scholarship.
There's a lot of really obvious circular and reductionist arguments that he makes in this episode that - frankly - don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny even if you are sympathetic to his idea of religion being less about truths and more about a communal/cultural touchstones.
Not discounting his extensive scholarly work, but the mental gymnastics in this episode are absolutely ridiculous.
🤸🏼♂🤸🏿♀🤸🏻
One man's gymnastics is anothers answers...run along exmo troll
@@wellsjdan criticizing a philosophical scholarly view = troll. ok.
@@ryanward8007biased uncritical name calling ie "gymnastics" =troll
@@wellsjdan I didn’t call anyone a name. Mental gymnastics is a legitimate term.
Have all the mental gymnastics you want but it makes me even angrier that they are voting people into office who are making legislation based on what they know is bs
About the historical meaning of the term "athiest" ... its a lot like the historical term "satanist" (or even "capitalist"or "witch") in that it was an identity applied to people involuntarily as a way to exclude or denigrate them, a way to justify and give permission for a community to mistreat those so labeled ... rather than being an identity that people chose to inhabit voluntarily, as we see today.
This is in contrast to an identity like "jew" for instance, which was voluntarily inhabited, but at certain places and certain times led to people being mistreated.
For that reason it seems somewhat wrong headed to resort to the "original" meaning (which was imposed upon others as a kind of "identity prison", to confine them to an identity defined by others), rather than giving preference in the current day to the current meaning which is being crafted by people who have reclaimed the term and are choosing to voluntarily inhabit what was formerly a prison.
By all means explore and examine cognative dissonance where ever it occurs, but please lets all let people have soverignty over their own identities, and lets not use historical baggage to derail the current identity projects of others.
Getting upset because someone calls you an agnostic when you don’t claim a belief about the existence of gods is pretty ridiculous. As is getting upset when other people call themselves agnostics because they don’t have such a belief.
The only people who really care that agnostics do or don’t self-identify as atheists is other atheists, so your problem is with them, not Dan.
Excellent. Brilliant. Needed. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Dan is very interesting for sure. The best analogy of Dan I can think of is this: he’s like a nutritionist claiming veganism is then only diet man was ever meant to eat and eating anything else sends a dangerous message and then he’s caught eating a cheeseburger.
Both those things are true 😂 Veganism is the best but cheeseburgers taste damn good and still offer some nutrition. It’s all about preference and how we are willing to eat. I mean believe. 😉
I fucking love alcohol. And I know it's bad.
Doesnt seem like contradiction.
unrelated but great shirt john!
Convo at my local baptistry:
PASTOR: So, why should we read the Bible?
HE: Because it's the perfect book!
ME: You've read it? All of it?
HE: ... No, but I hope to one day.
ME: Then how would you know?
HE: Because it was written by God.
ME: Ok. Do you know how many contradictions, historical and scientific errors it contains?
HE: I think you didn't read it with an open heart.
(It's the same conversation I had some decades ago.)
John (and others) walked so Dan could run! No way he doesn’t get Ex’d in the early 2000’s church
I'd love to see a video on the changing conceptualization of the figure of melchizedek
Dan, you speak of the binary or dialectic as if it is organic. Indeed at times it may be in certain cases. On the other hand, in Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he describes the political binary of the two party Green and Blue parties as a process engineered by the ruling class to keep the masses in a closed system of mental construct controlled by them. Suppose a thesis. Is said thesis true or is it false? Is said thesis reality or is it misconstrued reality or myth? Consider that absolute truth can exist; that there actually is a right or wrong to a teaching or doctrine or worldview overall. If those who want to engineer society introduce an antithesis, then they can use propaganda and fallacious thinking patterns in order to maintain the people in fear and divided amongst themselves. The thesis and the new antithesis plays upon the masses until a compromise position is achieved. If the thesis is not true, this is a step in the right direction if reality and truth is the goal. If the thesis is true, now it has been diluted with fable and the quest for that which is real and valid is watered down. Is it possible that religion could be a tool to control the masses in order to advantage the few just like politics could be? I read a book that put forth the proposition that Jesus was a narrative put forth by the Roman ruling elite in an attempt to control the unruly Jews by giving them their Messiah and having them pay tribute to Caesar along with turning the other cheek. His evidence is more than thought provoking. Finally, I would recommend the book Jesus Never Existed by Kenneth Humphreys regarding the existence of Jesus. Another compelling argument. Bread and circus keeps the masses battling amongst themselves in the dialectic within their Platonic cave watching shadows on the wall. This scenario must be understood for what it is. Judgements regarding the truth and validity of a worldview can be made definitively overall. To suggest that there is no 100% right or wrong; rather a continuum of shades of gray seems fatalistic and diminishes the capacity of the individual as well as the group from logically being able to compile evidence to find a moral landscape that reduces suffering and produces inner sovereignty and peace as opposed to allowing outer inputs to claim our ego and identity most often to perpetuate toxic thoughts, feelings and subsequent behavior patterns. We ;must find a path past a man believing what he/she wants to believe and claim our capacity to be able to come to a final judgement and move forward rather than retrenching within the myth and fallacy. One man's view. I could be wrong.
There's a part three? I'm really interested in this but I've only just started part one, looks like I've got fourteen hours to listen to if i want to more about Dan 😂
I've been trying to find a way to contact Dan McClellan by email, but can't find one.
Anybody got any help?
Read about cognitive dissonance in When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger et al. '"a man a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and the he questions your sources. Appeal to logic: and he fails to see your point" p. 3.
You can lead a horse to water...
Interesting but I think I prefer Jaynes theory on the origins of religion, as presented in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Yup, we are hard wired to see agency in the universe which doesn't suggest that our ideas about that agency are true. The study of religion gives us insight into what our human ideas have been over history and illustrates how we have defined the boundaries of our desired social connection (in group/out group). It is a fascinating aspect of our human nature. Religion has often defined hierarchy and power. It has not, by history, resulted in more peaceful relations with those who are different than ourselves, though this ethic is often taught. The exclusivity supported by many (perhaps primarily Abrahamic religions) seems particularly problematic. Religious affiliation often enough leads to judgmental exclusion of scape goat groups -- right now LGBTQ. Or to support exploitation (The doctrine of Discovery, slavery). Or as a political tool (Christian nationalists). Some pro social community is certainly helpful to human psychology, but it doesn't have to be driven by beliefs about deity -- especially when those participating feel the need to say that they believe things that they do not believe in order to be welcomed. I go to numerous Christian churches to understand what is being taught after a 30 year hiatus. There are many ethical teachings I find meaningful. Not all Christian churches follow the teachings of Christ that I find helpful for human community as a whole. I prefer to be a person of ethical practice rather than of doctrinal belief. Your differentiation between atheist and agnostic is spot on.
Excellent discussion!!!
@mormonstories John, as I listen to you and Dan discuss your former church and his current church, it reminds me so much of a good friend I have who is super religious and how we respectively see the world. Presumably, you were raised in a stable Mormon home and you saw modeled in front of you mostly stability which allows you the luxury of being a very outspoken critic. Dan and my good friend were raised by parents who were not stable -- my assumption -- or possibly not modeling good values. Dan may have seen a lot of dysfunction and instability in his pre-conversion life. The church provided a stable and seemingly functional environment for Dan in which to raise a family and build a life. On the surface, this is a debate about Mormon historicity and doctrinal truth, but underneath it strikes me more as a debate over values and morals. Dan is fine for the church to be premised on a lie because that lie built a house he could thrive in. You are horribly bothered by that notion because you haven't seen a life where religious stability wasn't modeled in front of you. For you (and me), the lies and deception and even abuse in the church are corrosive and detrimental but Dan is attracted to the stability and is willing to pay that price in order to be happy. I suppose I am not the first to have said these words, but I just feel that those who grew up in a church like us have to give some thought to how converts get tremendous peace from religion even if it might be premised on untenable teachings. And perhaps is a relatively benign sort of self-deception.
- Interesting podcast, - I’d love it if you’d have both Dan and Gad Saad as guests, would make an interesting conversation for sure! 😊
The sad thing is that we of western and Northern European descent know more about a god born of Middle Eastern people who existed in an ecosystem very different from ours and we are left to try to piece together some small understanding of the gods organic to our ancestors’ experience.
Something that's an interesting pattern I've noticed as an outsider to all this is the frequency with which "never once in my life" comes up from different people with regard to .......kinda irrelevant questions. I get the impression that "never once in [one's] life" rejecting a call, or being disciplined, or being talked to, or breaking some rule, or whatever, ESPECIALLY in response to comments that are not actually accusations or insinuations of the above is a specific pattern of speech that functions as a group identity marker within Mormonism. To my outsider ear, it always comes across as defensive, but the sheer frequency with which it comes up makes me think that it's just a go-to response to anything and everything within Mormon culture. Almost a reflexive, performative defensiveness as a marker of in-group status.
"How would you handle X call" being met with "I have never once in my life rejected a call" is wild when you think about it, but that sort of pattern is so, so, so consistent in these interviews.
Anyone remember the title of the book Dan recommended on the "evolution" of religion?
Absolutely SUPERB !!!
His watch is a interesting statement
Mormonism is a fascinating sociological study. I enjoy learning about this faith. As a fellow restorationist we do have common historical roots. However, as an Adventist we rest our authority on the orthodox canon, are Trinitarian, and our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. In reality the Adventists did not move that far from Methodism. Adventists have had the benefits of defending the ministry of a modern day prophet. However, we do not believe EGW was canonical, infallible, nor inerrant. Her writings helped to inform the church. I have not had issue with Adventist apologetics in this regard. I have to be honest and say that I would really struggle with Mormon history, especially the unsavory behavior of the early church leaders. However, everyone must be fully convinced in their own mind.
I do appreciate Dr McClellan’s work and presentations. I get the feeling that at times he seems to pick apart the Bible in order to support his Mormon leanings. However, I think the Bible survives quite well in a critical world.
Er, no. The Bible utterly fails in a critical world; it thrives in worlds that are uncritical, cozy in ignorance. Bundle up!
Have a lot of respect for Dan. At first I wasn't sure I bought into the line he seems to be walking... though the more he delved I think it makes a lot of sense. Just because you think some aspects of a system, culture, or group you don't necessarily just exit it and swear it off completely. You can and that's fine (that's what I did with evangelical Christianity) but I can see his side a bit better after listening to him dig into it. Religion has always been about cherry picking things you care about... likewise there have always been people of a religious or cultural group that probably didn't really care or maybe even believe in their Gods, but stuck with that group. In a fundamentalist religious world it's hard to leave religion and still feel there's some value in it when you leave it, when core aspects are wrong how can it still persist? Well if those core values and aspects are different for different people than maybe not. Now it feels like there's a bit of oddity still though, mostly if all this implies is the case, if the data is correct, then why even keep the book of Mormon or even pretend there's something more to it etc. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament I kind of get, collected over decades and centuries by various writers etc. There's some solid literary aspects to it and some wisdom and philosophy work extracting... the Book of Mormon was the very weak fan fiction written by a conman. Now the group of people that exist now and as they are, sure maybe some value to keep that around if it fits for people.
A short comment only 20 minutes in. I absolutely love Dan’s videos about the Bible and Data over Dogma. But in this interview so far I wonder something I have also wondered at other times when he speak about topics more related to evolution psychology, and that is if this really is Data over dogma, it is not easy to do when not ones one research, and evolution psychology is very little data, and much more dogma in itself, so it is so very easy to say something that might not be right at all. I do think it would be important to stress what is just theories and assumptions in a field of study where most things are just that, theories and assumptions.
Credo in latin can mean to believe and or to trust depending
thank you for this awesome episode
Each question is set up to have almost two parts. The first question is easily and readily answered. The second question is what do we do with that information or what does that mean for us. Dan really does not like those questions and does not respond to them. He really seems all for questioning everything, then he stops when he gets to this part. Maybe this is just a private issue for him.
“My personal take is beyond the scope of this interview”. I don’t like the games Dan is playing to try and stay professionally relevant in the scholarly world. It’s hard to trust someone who won’t let you see who they really are.
I gotta say…John tried. I liken his efforts to trying to hold onto a wet snake when your hands are covered in Vaseline.
2:27:10 no, word study on pistis is that it can also mean the faithfulness of someone else, usually jesus.
Love Dan’s response / teaching to ex-mo/ anti/ baiting and frustrated host.
I wonder how Dan's views of religion go over with students at BYU?
Dan doesn’t teach at BYU.
@@mormonstories Thanks for the clarification. Although I think Dan would be liked by many BYU students for his contemporary ideas about scripture and Christian history. His LinkedIn page does show he was employed by the church until Jan. 2023. These views would not be in line with church teachings.
@@BunnyWatson-k1wHe was employed by the church, but not BYU
Edit: in the 1st episode, Dan made clear that he never experienced any criticism or friction of any kind during his employment with the church regarding his views.
It’s very frustrating that this person doesn’t just come out & say what he believes. I’m not that familiar with him, he says that’s “what he does” not say his view & that’s his right, although it just seems like a bit of a slight of hand in a way. He obviously doesn’t believe, but stays & doesn’t want to get booted so won’t be honest online. On some level I get that, there’s tons of things I’d never say online cause they’re considered “bad” but I’m also not going on a show to talk about said opinions.
I'm tracking. Keep going Dan!
Enjoyed this content, thank you
I’m so confused as to what this man believes? He’s a Mormon, but he has all these issues with the Bible and Mormonism. How does church authority view conversations like these? Why remain in the faith? at one point he said that the idea that we could get rid of faith and religion is laughable. But then he spends these 4 hours tearing down and explaining away both. Is he a naturalist? Does he even believe in God? So confused by this man.
I don’t think you understood what he said
John D can the mocking of sacred things bring joy into a person’s life?
I respect Dan refusing to comment on his personal beliefs, but I have to wonder why. It's like demonstrating how unicorns are a myth created by humans and then still believing in unicorns. It does make me, and I assume many other people, respect him a little less due to the perceived cognitive dissonance going on.
Bingo. I equate his opinions as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. As a Mormon, he’s a Unitarian therefore his “bias” may lean his findings in that direction.
Can someone spell for me the comic book allusion about agnostics at 1:30:45? Sounds like "GOAF", maybe.
The book of Enoch is still considered authoritative in the Ethiopian Tewahedo church