Faith-mongers get fact-checked on social media
October 3, 2024 9:01 PM Subscribe
Dan McClellan is a scholar of the Bible and religion and makes videos in response to related misinformation. His goal is to increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion. "Absolutely none of the Bible was written for us today" and as ancient literature it should not be viewed as either univocal or inspired or inerrant, because we are the authority, according to Dan. He has discredited politicized doctrines on abortion, homosexuality, and the rapture, in addition to addressing faith-affirming rumors and fallacies spread by influencers. He has mentioned restrictions placed on scholars employed by religious institutions which prevent them from doing what he does. Wikipedia. A brief interview with Texas Public Radio.
From the TPR interview:
posted by flabdablet at 10:11 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
Everybody has to negotiate with the biblical text. There is no person living today who lives every last thing that's in the Bible. We have reinterpreted so much of the Bible. We've interpreted so many things right out of the Bible. The Bible is 100% pro-slavery from beginning to end. We renegotiated that away.The larger point is well made, but it seems to me that the main outcome of that specific negotiation is the widespread modern agreement to use the term "prisoners" instead.
posted by flabdablet at 10:11 PM on October 3 [6 favorites]
I'm an athiest (raised Lutheran) who went to a Lutheran college, the liberal Protestant kind rather than the evangelical kind, and the only trace of that affiliation remaining in the core curriculum was a three-course religion/philosophy requirement -- one class on any philosophy or religion topic, another class on any religion topic, and a mandatory Intro to the Bible course (or Old Testament or New Testament). The Bible class I took was along the lines of what McClellan or Stavrakopoulou, and it was really interesting to study the Bible as an ancient text and learn about theories for who wrote what, how it was constructed/edited, and how it fit into history. One thing that really sticks out was a question on the final exam that was basically "What can be historically corroborated about Jesus? Justify your arguments," and my answer was a very brief paragraph that got full points.
posted by bassooner at 11:05 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
posted by bassooner at 11:05 PM on October 3 [13 favorites]
I don't see a mention of his excellent Data over Dogma podcast (Youtube) which I think I found via Metafilter.
posted by rjs at 11:10 PM on October 3 [9 favorites]
posted by rjs at 11:10 PM on October 3 [9 favorites]
Came here to post a link to that podcast too,rjs. Recently discovered it and am working my way through all the archives from the beginning. Eye-opening and fascinating to me, someone with generally little interest in religion for myself.
posted by sarble at 11:45 PM on October 3 [3 favorites]
posted by sarble at 11:45 PM on October 3 [3 favorites]
I discovered Dan McClellan through TikTok and would describe myself as a huge fan.
It was shortly after I had discovered the video “Satan’s Guide to the Bible (previously on the blue) so I was fully primed to take a more academic view of what the Bible does and doesn’t contain.
As someone raised Catholic, and today as an atheist (i.e. an ordinary person who thinks the Bible is not my business, and that it in turn should not be in the business of determining the public policy that influences my life), I found it very revealing but also incredibly frustrating to think about all the crap I’d been forced to listen to, and all the crap I continue to have to listen to, that has no foundation in the actual thing that people point to as the authority on the matter.
It seems so much of what is taken to be true about the Bible is considered uncontroversially false in academia.
Even outside religious circles, so much of who “we” as an “Western civilisation” are turns out to have totally mythical, even recent origins.
It’s odd to think that looking at the scholarship about what is actually in a 2000+ year old set of texts could be so, so critical to our world today.
Huge fan of Dan M, and I think of him as a very important public intellectual. (Do we still have those?)
posted by Probabilitics at 12:50 AM on October 4 [15 favorites]
It was shortly after I had discovered the video “Satan’s Guide to the Bible (previously on the blue) so I was fully primed to take a more academic view of what the Bible does and doesn’t contain.
As someone raised Catholic, and today as an atheist (i.e. an ordinary person who thinks the Bible is not my business, and that it in turn should not be in the business of determining the public policy that influences my life), I found it very revealing but also incredibly frustrating to think about all the crap I’d been forced to listen to, and all the crap I continue to have to listen to, that has no foundation in the actual thing that people point to as the authority on the matter.
It seems so much of what is taken to be true about the Bible is considered uncontroversially false in academia.
Even outside religious circles, so much of who “we” as an “Western civilisation” are turns out to have totally mythical, even recent origins.
It’s odd to think that looking at the scholarship about what is actually in a 2000+ year old set of texts could be so, so critical to our world today.
Huge fan of Dan M, and I think of him as a very important public intellectual. (Do we still have those?)
posted by Probabilitics at 12:50 AM on October 4 [15 favorites]
Dan McClellan was interviewed on the Apocrypals podcast a while back which was interesting.
Seconding that Francesca Stavrakopoulou's book "God: An Anatomy" is also good, has all the information you need about God's penis, Moses' horns, and so on.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:34 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
Seconding that Francesca Stavrakopoulou's book "God: An Anatomy" is also good, has all the information you need about God's penis, Moses' horns, and so on.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:34 AM on October 4 [5 favorites]
I follow him on TikTok, always have interesting when his stuff shows up.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:40 AM on October 4 [3 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:40 AM on October 4 [3 favorites]
It seems so much of what is taken to be true about the Bible is considered uncontroversially false in academia.
So many churches across the world are run by people with no meaningful theological education. It's like little kids trying to run a society, it turns into Lord of the Flies.
posted by Dysk at 2:48 AM on October 4 [23 favorites]
So many churches across the world are run by people with no meaningful theological education. It's like little kids trying to run a society, it turns into Lord of the Flies.
posted by Dysk at 2:48 AM on October 4 [23 favorites]
A while ago I was having some kind of religious discussion with a guy. He said, "I believe X is true" and countered that I didn't.
(It's been long enough that I can't remember exactly what X was - a distinctive recent American Evangelical innovation like the Rapture, or something along those lines.)
Anyway, his argument at the time was that X was universally accepted by all Christian denominations and so if you, or your church, didn't happen to also believe that you were all on the high road to hell.
In his case, I am pretty sure that all Christian denominations he was very familiar with (conservative American Evangelical Protestants of a certain strain) were indeed all in agreement about X. But anyone from a different part of the world, anyone living before, say, 1800, and so on had likely never even encountered the concept. And others (say, American Protestant but not Evangelical) had perhaps heard of the concept but didn't necessarily accept it.
But everyone this guy had studied with, talked to, etc, was 100% in agreement with it, so case closed.
In this same vein, I am very sure that American Evangelicals of this strain do not in any way understand how new and invented (or "negotiated" in McClellan's language) so many of their doctrines and practices are. They are basically what happens when you send a bunch of people out into the back of beyond with nothing but a copy of the Bible and whatever wits they may or may not have been blessed with, for a few hundred years.
On a very basic level they don't understand how far their idiosyncratic beliefs have strayed from their point of origin.
At the same time, they see their own beliefs as stemming from a common-sense reading of the Bible, so they are not even aware of the extent to which they have negotiated a whole set of extremely idiosyncratic beliefs out of that text, and how other groups can and do negotiate very, very different answers given the same starting point.
That exact idiosyncratic belief system is having a large and sustained effect on U.S. politics and policy down to this day, so steering people towards a little bit more realistic outlook towards the Bible and their religion is definitely a very worthwhile endeavor right now.
posted by flug at 3:02 AM on October 4 [30 favorites]
(It's been long enough that I can't remember exactly what X was - a distinctive recent American Evangelical innovation like the Rapture, or something along those lines.)
Anyway, his argument at the time was that X was universally accepted by all Christian denominations and so if you, or your church, didn't happen to also believe that you were all on the high road to hell.
In his case, I am pretty sure that all Christian denominations he was very familiar with (conservative American Evangelical Protestants of a certain strain) were indeed all in agreement about X. But anyone from a different part of the world, anyone living before, say, 1800, and so on had likely never even encountered the concept. And others (say, American Protestant but not Evangelical) had perhaps heard of the concept but didn't necessarily accept it.
But everyone this guy had studied with, talked to, etc, was 100% in agreement with it, so case closed.
In this same vein, I am very sure that American Evangelicals of this strain do not in any way understand how new and invented (or "negotiated" in McClellan's language) so many of their doctrines and practices are. They are basically what happens when you send a bunch of people out into the back of beyond with nothing but a copy of the Bible and whatever wits they may or may not have been blessed with, for a few hundred years.
On a very basic level they don't understand how far their idiosyncratic beliefs have strayed from their point of origin.
At the same time, they see their own beliefs as stemming from a common-sense reading of the Bible, so they are not even aware of the extent to which they have negotiated a whole set of extremely idiosyncratic beliefs out of that text, and how other groups can and do negotiate very, very different answers given the same starting point.
That exact idiosyncratic belief system is having a large and sustained effect on U.S. politics and policy down to this day, so steering people towards a little bit more realistic outlook towards the Bible and their religion is definitely a very worthwhile endeavor right now.
posted by flug at 3:02 AM on October 4 [30 favorites]
flug: In this same vein, I am very sure that American Evangelicals of this strain do not in any way understand how new and invented (or "negotiated" in McClellan's language) so many of their doctrines and practices are.
Grew up Evangelical, can confirm. There were 2,000 years of people screwing up Christianity who can be ignored, and then the First Evangelical Free Church of Moose Jaw who finally got it right.
(Or, more accurately, the founders of the Bible college movement who got it right. Charles Spurgeon and Dwight L. Moody were spoken of with a respect that no other figure between Paul the Apostle and 1850 got. Our preachers were educated at Bible colleges, our parents met at Bible colleges, and it would be wonderful if our children felt the calling to go to Bible college.)
posted by clawsoon at 3:28 AM on October 4 [15 favorites]
Grew up Evangelical, can confirm. There were 2,000 years of people screwing up Christianity who can be ignored, and then the First Evangelical Free Church of Moose Jaw who finally got it right.
(Or, more accurately, the founders of the Bible college movement who got it right. Charles Spurgeon and Dwight L. Moody were spoken of with a respect that no other figure between Paul the Apostle and 1850 got. Our preachers were educated at Bible colleges, our parents met at Bible colleges, and it would be wonderful if our children felt the calling to go to Bible college.)
posted by clawsoon at 3:28 AM on October 4 [15 favorites]
His goal is to increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion.
The biggest challenge with the Bible - and what has kept it around so long - is that it has so many effective hooks in it that are designed to turn this kind of thinking off, and turn fear, reverence and the urge to proselytize on.
posted by clawsoon at 3:32 AM on October 4 [7 favorites]
The biggest challenge with the Bible - and what has kept it around so long - is that it has so many effective hooks in it that are designed to turn this kind of thinking off, and turn fear, reverence and the urge to proselytize on.
posted by clawsoon at 3:32 AM on October 4 [7 favorites]
Thanks for the links, I have heard of him before.
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having converted to Mormonism as an adult. The link is to a podcast discussing his faith. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:42 AM on October 4 [10 favorites]
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having converted to Mormonism as an adult. The link is to a podcast discussing his faith. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer.
posted by fortitude25 at 3:42 AM on October 4 [10 favorites]
Some years ago I was acquainted with a dude who'd studied for the priesthood at one point (i know I've told this story before, I'll be brief). When he was in Seminary he had to do some kind of term paper about some topic, and he had to write about how whatever his topic was was supported by the Bible and Catholic scripture. He chose The Rapture - he'd grown up in Florida, heard other people talking about it and was curious to give it a critical review. But - to his great shock, he discovered that there is no Biblical or Scriptural support for The Rapture whatsoever. He picked something else for the term paper, but did some research about The Rapture for his own self to get into "what the hell was this based on then". (I don't remember what he found.)
...
Something's been happening recently that I'd be curious to hear McClellan's views about - a sort of real-time current shift in The Bible amongst some Evangelical parishioners now. An Evangelical leader named Russell Moore apparently reported in an interview that some of his pastors had been telling him about churchgoers being upset whenever the pastors read from the Sermon On The Mount (a.k.a. - the "blessed are the peacemakers" sermon). These pastors were telling Moore that they were getting parishioners come to them after church to complain about the pastor being "woke" or using "liberal talking points". And when the Pastor told them that he had been quoting Jesus Christ directly, the parishioners would say "okay, but that's weak, and that doesn't work any more."
Moore was alarmed about this in this interview, which seems good. But it's got me wondering what kind of new and aggressive schism might be coming up amongst the evangelical church soon.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:51 AM on October 4 [19 favorites]
...
Something's been happening recently that I'd be curious to hear McClellan's views about - a sort of real-time current shift in The Bible amongst some Evangelical parishioners now. An Evangelical leader named Russell Moore apparently reported in an interview that some of his pastors had been telling him about churchgoers being upset whenever the pastors read from the Sermon On The Mount (a.k.a. - the "blessed are the peacemakers" sermon). These pastors were telling Moore that they were getting parishioners come to them after church to complain about the pastor being "woke" or using "liberal talking points". And when the Pastor told them that he had been quoting Jesus Christ directly, the parishioners would say "okay, but that's weak, and that doesn't work any more."
Moore was alarmed about this in this interview, which seems good. But it's got me wondering what kind of new and aggressive schism might be coming up amongst the evangelical church soon.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:51 AM on October 4 [19 favorites]
When he was in Seminary he had to do some kind of term paper about some topic, and he had to write about how whatever his topic was was supported by the Bible and Catholic scripture. He chose The Rapture - he'd grown up in Florida, heard other people talking about it and was curious to give it a critical review.
Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglicans, and just about anybody else who isn't Evangelical) don:t believe in the Rapture, which was invented in the early 19th century by John Darby.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:23 AM on October 4 [18 favorites]
Catholics (and Orthodox, Anglicans, and just about anybody else who isn't Evangelical) don:t believe in the Rapture, which was invented in the early 19th century by John Darby.
posted by pattern juggler at 4:23 AM on October 4 [18 favorites]
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...
Oof. That’s a bit concerning. Can anyone familiar with the LDS tell if the church’s particular flavor of dogma seeps into/colors any of McClellan’s posts?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:37 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
Oof. That’s a bit concerning. Can anyone familiar with the LDS tell if the church’s particular flavor of dogma seeps into/colors any of McClellan’s posts?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:37 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
I'm sure this will convince no one who doesn't believe this to be so already. But hey, you never know.
posted by tommasz at 4:50 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 4:50 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
we are the authority,
That pronoun's carrying an awful lot of weight here.
posted by BWA at 5:27 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
That pronoun's carrying an awful lot of weight here.
posted by BWA at 5:27 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
I never would have clicked on the No Eyewitness Accounts of Jesus video because it just sounds like a clickbait headline. I'm surprised that contemporary cultural biblical interpretation could be so at odds with a scholarly consensus, but how could I have ever expected differently? I've always been a fan of the Of Miracles argument when it comes to balancing testimony of miracles against evidence for normal scientific laws, but now that just seems to give too much credit to the biblical accounts of miracles.
posted by Hume at 5:35 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
posted by Hume at 5:35 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having converted to Mormonism as an adult. The link is to a podcast discussing his faith. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer.
While unusual for a Mormon, it's not at all uncommon for a sincere religious believer to also be a liberal scholar of the bible. There are for example, many Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran theologians that definitely fall into this category. It would be interesting to understand his take on the Book of Mormon, but that has a very different origin story.
posted by plonkee at 5:59 AM on October 4 [18 favorites]
While unusual for a Mormon, it's not at all uncommon for a sincere religious believer to also be a liberal scholar of the bible. There are for example, many Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran theologians that definitely fall into this category. It would be interesting to understand his take on the Book of Mormon, but that has a very different origin story.
posted by plonkee at 5:59 AM on October 4 [18 favorites]
tommasz: I'm sure this will convince no one who doesn't believe this to be so already. But hey, you never know.
It tends to be most important for people in their late teens and early twenties who were raised in the church. That's often when a few small questions are first asked. Having these resources can be the difference between, "I guess nobody else thinks like me, I'm probably wrong," versus, "There's a whole different way of looking at the stuff I've been taught all my life, and it makes a lot more sense!"
Take a look at the ex-christian subreddit, for example, and you'll see mentions of New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman popping up a lot. (Funny thing... looking at his bio on Wikipedia, turns out he first studied at the Moody Bible Institute, founded by the very same Dwight L. Moody I mentioned above.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:06 AM on October 4 [10 favorites]
It tends to be most important for people in their late teens and early twenties who were raised in the church. That's often when a few small questions are first asked. Having these resources can be the difference between, "I guess nobody else thinks like me, I'm probably wrong," versus, "There's a whole different way of looking at the stuff I've been taught all my life, and it makes a lot more sense!"
Take a look at the ex-christian subreddit, for example, and you'll see mentions of New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman popping up a lot. (Funny thing... looking at his bio on Wikipedia, turns out he first studied at the Moody Bible Institute, founded by the very same Dwight L. Moody I mentioned above.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:06 AM on October 4 [10 favorites]
One of the annoying things about how I was taught early Christian history was how they tell you all about Paul preaching in the hostile Roman empire but never mention Constantine, who a) started the turn toward Christianity as the state religion (later formalized by Theodosius), and b) called the Council of Nicaea to purge the many variant versions of Christianity to a single "pure" form.
Theodosius went even further, of course, calling the Council of Rome to determine which of the many circulating books and letters would become the biblical canon, and allowing (if not supporting) persecution of both "pagan" and non-orthodox Christians.
And they never really mention that Europe converted to Christianity top down, by conquering or converting local rulers, rather than by covering the population.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:38 AM on October 4 [11 favorites]
Theodosius went even further, of course, calling the Council of Rome to determine which of the many circulating books and letters would become the biblical canon, and allowing (if not supporting) persecution of both "pagan" and non-orthodox Christians.
And they never really mention that Europe converted to Christianity top down, by conquering or converting local rulers, rather than by covering the population.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:38 AM on October 4 [11 favorites]
[Constantine] called the Council of Nicaea to purge the many variant versions of Christianity to a single "pure" form.
That gets overstated. There were doctrinal distinctions between orthodox Christianity and heretical strains going back to the Docetists condemned in Second John. Irenaeus wrote his Against Heresies long before Nicaea.
And Nicaea was close to unanimous is its decisions. Christianity wasn't an ecstatic free for all before the fourth century.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:55 AM on October 4 [8 favorites]
That gets overstated. There were doctrinal distinctions between orthodox Christianity and heretical strains going back to the Docetists condemned in Second John. Irenaeus wrote his Against Heresies long before Nicaea.
And Nicaea was close to unanimous is its decisions. Christianity wasn't an ecstatic free for all before the fourth century.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:55 AM on October 4 [8 favorites]
The causes and consequences of the Roman Empire's acceptance of Christianity as a state religion, the pre-Schism ecumenical Councils, the teachings of the Church Doctors and major heretics and heterodoxists which animated the Councils, and the Great Schism itself, are covered pretty exhaustively in any standard theology or history of Christianity program.
The western Protestant denominations that take the position that the Church went badly awry before the Great Schism leaving both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in grave error, still have to -- and excepting the denominations that are expressly anti-scholarly - pay attention to this because of course they produced the canon of texts which (with a couple of exceptions) comprise the King James Version or equivalent early-print-era vulgar Protestant Bibles, as well as formulated key doctrines which those denominations either accept or advisedly reject: the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, the Eucharist, and the Ascension).
posted by MattD at 7:03 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
The western Protestant denominations that take the position that the Church went badly awry before the Great Schism leaving both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in grave error, still have to -- and excepting the denominations that are expressly anti-scholarly - pay attention to this because of course they produced the canon of texts which (with a couple of exceptions) comprise the King James Version or equivalent early-print-era vulgar Protestant Bibles, as well as formulated key doctrines which those denominations either accept or advisedly reject: the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, the Eucharist, and the Ascension).
posted by MattD at 7:03 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
Oof. That’s a bit concerning. Can anyone familiar with the LDS tell if the church’s particular flavor of dogma seeps into/colors any of McClellan’s posts?
It does in many weird ways. First, Dan in a convert and has no childhood fears of being cut off from his family, so he can speak freely having never been taught otherwise from his youth. (On that note he has his own family and without his wife's consent there wouldn't be any videos by the same danger.) Second, Mormonism has always viewed the Bible as errant and requiring divine insight, personally or by prophetic decree. They formed around a theological rejection of the Trinity and the anti-validity of Catholicism. And they have always assumed that evangelical types want to exterminate them and have cultivated verbal trench warfare through competition for converts. Third, they never signed on to being anti-science because they think they have have a living mouthpiece for God, so there is no need to pretend to be ancient and modernly ignorant. Intellectuals can be viewed as team assets, even as secret advisors to leaders who are typically very old and need it explained to them, in a mysterious lay clergy way. But they can never cross the line into questioning Mormon origins of authority.
posted by Brian B. at 8:33 AM on October 4 [13 favorites]
It does in many weird ways. First, Dan in a convert and has no childhood fears of being cut off from his family, so he can speak freely having never been taught otherwise from his youth. (On that note he has his own family and without his wife's consent there wouldn't be any videos by the same danger.) Second, Mormonism has always viewed the Bible as errant and requiring divine insight, personally or by prophetic decree. They formed around a theological rejection of the Trinity and the anti-validity of Catholicism. And they have always assumed that evangelical types want to exterminate them and have cultivated verbal trench warfare through competition for converts. Third, they never signed on to being anti-science because they think they have have a living mouthpiece for God, so there is no need to pretend to be ancient and modernly ignorant. Intellectuals can be viewed as team assets, even as secret advisors to leaders who are typically very old and need it explained to them, in a mysterious lay clergy way. But they can never cross the line into questioning Mormon origins of authority.
posted by Brian B. at 8:33 AM on October 4 [13 favorites]
Unless he applies the same rigor to all the sacred texts of his religion, he’s a hypocrite. The trinity, immaculate conception, etc are not doctrines of the Mormon church, so no threat to his beliefs. He seems to like to point out how slavery isn’t condemned in the Bible, though does he also talk about how his church taught for most of its existence, that people with darker skin were condemned by god?
posted by njohnson23 at 8:34 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 8:34 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
Unless he applies the same rigor to all the sacred texts of his religion, he’s a hypocrite.
It can also be fairy assumed that his psychological motives are to save his own from being assimilated by an ever-increasing and politicized viral enthusiasm for evangelical theocracy. At no time would he ever be ethically required to be in their service. He also ran as a Democrat for Utah state office according to his bio, knowing he would probably lose, so he's likely not theocratic.
posted by Brian B. at 9:23 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
It can also be fairy assumed that his psychological motives are to save his own from being assimilated by an ever-increasing and politicized viral enthusiasm for evangelical theocracy. At no time would he ever be ethically required to be in their service. He also ran as a Democrat for Utah state office according to his bio, knowing he would probably lose, so he's likely not theocratic.
posted by Brian B. at 9:23 AM on October 4 [6 favorites]
But I am always suspicious of anyone who says, “Your religion is false and my religion is true.”
posted by njohnson23 at 10:58 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 10:58 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
But I am always suspicious of anyone who says, “Your religion is false and my religion is true.”
Agreed. And at least one reply in his comment section quoted him answering the question as to the historicity 0f the Book of Mormon, McClellan allegedly saying that the evidence pretty much points the other way. I assume they heard it in a podcast.
posted by Brian B. at 11:24 AM on October 4 [1 favorite]
Agreed. And at least one reply in his comment section quoted him answering the question as to the historicity 0f the Book of Mormon, McClellan allegedly saying that the evidence pretty much points the other way. I assume they heard it in a podcast.
posted by Brian B. at 11:24 AM on October 4 [1 favorite]
Unless he applies the same rigor to all the sacred texts of his religion, he’s a hypocrite. The trinity, immaculate conception, etc are not doctrines of the Mormon church, so no threat to his beliefs.
Ah, but how do you know that he isn't?
Brian B said that "Mormonism has always viewed the Bible as errant and requiring divine insight, personally or by prophetic decree." That could mean an outright rejection of the Trinity and Etc., or it could mean he's accepting that such concepts were not meant to be literal in the first place; and he could be thinking the same thing about concepts taught in the Book of Mormon as well.
Very, very many people who belong to a given faith have the same thinking around their own sacred texts - that they were never meant to be "factual" in the first place. Religious texts work in a very different arena and deal with a very different part of the brain than scientific fact, and that's how it's supposed to be anyway. Trying to validate the immaculate conception by going down a rabbit hole about "well, there are some creatures that experience parthonogenesis, so..." is missing the whole point. You don't talk about science the same way that you talk about poetry, or love, or humor, or morality - they are different disciplines.
Most people actually do get that. Hell, even The Pope said that if you're talking about science, the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution have it right.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:24 AM on October 4 [9 favorites]
Ah, but how do you know that he isn't?
Brian B said that "Mormonism has always viewed the Bible as errant and requiring divine insight, personally or by prophetic decree." That could mean an outright rejection of the Trinity and Etc., or it could mean he's accepting that such concepts were not meant to be literal in the first place; and he could be thinking the same thing about concepts taught in the Book of Mormon as well.
Very, very many people who belong to a given faith have the same thinking around their own sacred texts - that they were never meant to be "factual" in the first place. Religious texts work in a very different arena and deal with a very different part of the brain than scientific fact, and that's how it's supposed to be anyway. Trying to validate the immaculate conception by going down a rabbit hole about "well, there are some creatures that experience parthonogenesis, so..." is missing the whole point. You don't talk about science the same way that you talk about poetry, or love, or humor, or morality - they are different disciplines.
Most people actually do get that. Hell, even The Pope said that if you're talking about science, the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution have it right.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:24 AM on October 4 [9 favorites]
His religion built a chapel in Washington DC because there were few Mormons on the East Coast even at the turn of the century when senators from Utah Nevada Arizona started showing up in the neighborhood.
The primary doctrine of the LDS Church is inscribed in stone above the entrance to this chapel , the inscription reads
" the glory of God is intelligence "
posted by hortense at 11:27 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
The primary doctrine of the LDS Church is inscribed in stone above the entrance to this chapel , the inscription reads
" the glory of God is intelligence "
posted by hortense at 11:27 AM on October 4 [2 favorites]
Irenaeus wrote his Against Heresies long before Nicaea.
I think we can agree that if you've got two guys calling each other heretics, things change radically when one of them has the power of the state behind them.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:32 AM on October 4 [8 favorites]
I think we can agree that if you've got two guys calling each other heretics, things change radically when one of them has the power of the state behind them.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 11:32 AM on October 4 [8 favorites]
> Or, more accurately, the founders of the Bible college movement who got it right. Charles Spurgeon and Dwight L. Moody
Yes, this was exactly where this guy was coming from. I was deep in the woods of another completely different solution to the same set of problems, from a different source with very similar origins (ie, backwoods white American dudes figure out Life the Universe and Everything, happily sell it to everyone at $3.95 a pop) but who had come to diametrically opposite theological conclusions.
Anyway, it's possible to be well in the woods of even these groups and yet still be self-aware enough to realize that not everyone in the world believes exactly as you do.
posted by flug at 12:03 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
Yes, this was exactly where this guy was coming from. I was deep in the woods of another completely different solution to the same set of problems, from a different source with very similar origins (ie, backwoods white American dudes figure out Life the Universe and Everything, happily sell it to everyone at $3.95 a pop) but who had come to diametrically opposite theological conclusions.
Anyway, it's possible to be well in the woods of even these groups and yet still be self-aware enough to realize that not everyone in the world believes exactly as you do.
posted by flug at 12:03 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
I think we can agree that if you've got two guys calling each other heretics, things change radically when one of them has the power of the state behind them.
The political situation changes, certainly. But the idea that Christianity was an inchoate mush of half developed ideas until Constantine showed up to force adoption of an orthodoxy is no longer historically supportable.
Nor is the idea that these were roughly equivalent groups, won of whom one out because of imperial favor. Orthodox Christian doctrine was the same far outside the Roman Empire and Constantine's power. Secondly, the council was largely unanimous in its decisions. The big controversy was Arianism versus the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, which was affirmed by a vote of 318 to five. And the gnostic strains of Christianity Irenaeus argues against are demonstrably different in origin than orthodoxy, rather than merely competing strains developed from the same teachings.
The gnostic movement existed before the birth of Christ and was very influenced by Neoplatonism. The gnostics gospels did not come into being until Christianity was significant enough for gnostic leaders bother attempting to incorporate Christian ideas into their teachings. And the gnostic gospels generally date to the mid second century at earliest with some being much more recent, whereas the canonical gospels can mostly be plausibly dated to the first century, or very early second century in the case of John.
There were doctrines that didn't develop until relatively late, like the Trinity, but even those were not dreamed up whole cloth by later theologians. They developed out of the doctrines that existed earlier. The letters of Paul date to the middle of the first century and already show a very "high Christology" that declares Christ a pre-existent, divine figure, and the Gospel of John which dates to the late first or early second century explicitly identifies Christ with the Logos which was God and was with God.
There is a pretty strong argument for the existence of an early Christian orthodoxy, well before Constantine showed up. (And he wasn't even the first to establish Chsristianity as a state religion. That honor falls to Tridates the Great of Armenia.)
Sorry for the discursion, but the pop-history picture of the Council of Nicaea from the Da Vinci code, where there is no consistent Christian teaching until a Roman emperor decides to impose one is a pet peeve of mine. We have so much evidence of concern over doctrinal purity, and what the doctrines that were disagreed over were from the historical record, and it gets ignored.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:17 PM on October 4 [10 favorites]
The political situation changes, certainly. But the idea that Christianity was an inchoate mush of half developed ideas until Constantine showed up to force adoption of an orthodoxy is no longer historically supportable.
Nor is the idea that these were roughly equivalent groups, won of whom one out because of imperial favor. Orthodox Christian doctrine was the same far outside the Roman Empire and Constantine's power. Secondly, the council was largely unanimous in its decisions. The big controversy was Arianism versus the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, which was affirmed by a vote of 318 to five. And the gnostic strains of Christianity Irenaeus argues against are demonstrably different in origin than orthodoxy, rather than merely competing strains developed from the same teachings.
The gnostic movement existed before the birth of Christ and was very influenced by Neoplatonism. The gnostics gospels did not come into being until Christianity was significant enough for gnostic leaders bother attempting to incorporate Christian ideas into their teachings. And the gnostic gospels generally date to the mid second century at earliest with some being much more recent, whereas the canonical gospels can mostly be plausibly dated to the first century, or very early second century in the case of John.
There were doctrines that didn't develop until relatively late, like the Trinity, but even those were not dreamed up whole cloth by later theologians. They developed out of the doctrines that existed earlier. The letters of Paul date to the middle of the first century and already show a very "high Christology" that declares Christ a pre-existent, divine figure, and the Gospel of John which dates to the late first or early second century explicitly identifies Christ with the Logos which was God and was with God.
There is a pretty strong argument for the existence of an early Christian orthodoxy, well before Constantine showed up. (And he wasn't even the first to establish Chsristianity as a state religion. That honor falls to Tridates the Great of Armenia.)
Sorry for the discursion, but the pop-history picture of the Council of Nicaea from the Da Vinci code, where there is no consistent Christian teaching until a Roman emperor decides to impose one is a pet peeve of mine. We have so much evidence of concern over doctrinal purity, and what the doctrines that were disagreed over were from the historical record, and it gets ignored.
posted by pattern juggler at 12:17 PM on October 4 [10 favorites]
> Unless he applies the same rigor to all the sacred texts of his religion, he’s a hypocrite. The trinity, immaculate conception, etc are not doctrines of the Mormon church, so no threat to his beliefs.
> I am always suspicious of anyone who says, “Your religion is false and my religion is true.”
Take a look at this video where he discusses a listener question about the Book of Mormon
What you see there is that he approaches the distinctive Mormon scripture exactly the same way he discusses the Bible. He explains what the text says about the issue but then quickly segues to, "But this is a 19th Century text written by a 19th Century American man, and so must be understood in light of that origin - and not as the eternal scientific truth about Subject X." (paraphrasing, not nearly an exact quote)
The sort of narrow minded nitwit Mormons you all are imagining McClellan to be, would never, ever under any circumstances allow any such thought to escape their lips - or even to form as a coherent thought in their brains.
Many of the points he makes about the Bible are going to be as gasp-inducing to the average Sunday Mormon as they are to an Evangelical or whatever. He's not pushing any Mormon-tinged Bible view out onto the world, believe you me.
Anyway it will be interesting to see how McClellan fairs as a Mormon going forward. The Church doesn't tend tolerate folks publicly talking about things like Joseph Smith's writings being a product of the 19th Century - they're Divine Scripture, by all that is holy.
But by the same token they'll take what he says about the Bible as "denying the divinity of Christ" and all that - just as bad if not worse.
It will be surprising to me if the narrow-minded and public relations-aware Mormon leadership allows such talk to go on indefinitely. Such things are threatening to them in a pretty existential way, and within the Church structure they wield essentially complete and unrestrained power. How they will act becomes pretty predictable.
On the other hand: You would think that people on Metafilter, of all places, would possibly be able to realize that people are able to develop a real and authentic faith practice that is very meaningful to them and their loved ones, without believing, in an extremely literal sense, every little (or big) thing that particular brand of religion happens to espouse.
We've been down on Evangelicals in this thread, and now Mormons - but from where I stand you can take essentially the same view of any religion or creed. Or belief system.
There's a very crazy-making way you can take all those belief systems, and a more sane and productive way.
It's a lot less "There's the BAD GUYS OVER THERE, let's get'em!!!!1!!!!2@!@!" and a lot more "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
(Which, by the by, is a saying that one assuredly does not need to believe the literal truth of, nor accept the divinity of the reported speaker of, in order to glean from it some degree of spiritual enlightenment.)
posted by flug at 12:54 PM on October 4 [16 favorites]
> I am always suspicious of anyone who says, “Your religion is false and my religion is true.”
Take a look at this video where he discusses a listener question about the Book of Mormon
What you see there is that he approaches the distinctive Mormon scripture exactly the same way he discusses the Bible. He explains what the text says about the issue but then quickly segues to, "But this is a 19th Century text written by a 19th Century American man, and so must be understood in light of that origin - and not as the eternal scientific truth about Subject X." (paraphrasing, not nearly an exact quote)
The sort of narrow minded nitwit Mormons you all are imagining McClellan to be, would never, ever under any circumstances allow any such thought to escape their lips - or even to form as a coherent thought in their brains.
Many of the points he makes about the Bible are going to be as gasp-inducing to the average Sunday Mormon as they are to an Evangelical or whatever. He's not pushing any Mormon-tinged Bible view out onto the world, believe you me.
Anyway it will be interesting to see how McClellan fairs as a Mormon going forward. The Church doesn't tend tolerate folks publicly talking about things like Joseph Smith's writings being a product of the 19th Century - they're Divine Scripture, by all that is holy.
But by the same token they'll take what he says about the Bible as "denying the divinity of Christ" and all that - just as bad if not worse.
It will be surprising to me if the narrow-minded and public relations-aware Mormon leadership allows such talk to go on indefinitely. Such things are threatening to them in a pretty existential way, and within the Church structure they wield essentially complete and unrestrained power. How they will act becomes pretty predictable.
On the other hand: You would think that people on Metafilter, of all places, would possibly be able to realize that people are able to develop a real and authentic faith practice that is very meaningful to them and their loved ones, without believing, in an extremely literal sense, every little (or big) thing that particular brand of religion happens to espouse.
We've been down on Evangelicals in this thread, and now Mormons - but from where I stand you can take essentially the same view of any religion or creed. Or belief system.
There's a very crazy-making way you can take all those belief systems, and a more sane and productive way.
It's a lot less "There's the BAD GUYS OVER THERE, let's get'em!!!!1!!!!2@!@!" and a lot more "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
(Which, by the by, is a saying that one assuredly does not need to believe the literal truth of, nor accept the divinity of the reported speaker of, in order to glean from it some degree of spiritual enlightenment.)
posted by flug at 12:54 PM on October 4 [16 favorites]
I had a fairly eclectic religious upbringing, thankfully. My mother was a non-religious Jew and my dad was a non-practicing Roman Catholic who still held onto some of the aspects of the faith from his childhood, but largely ignored them. For quite secular purposes they had me baptized as an infant in the Church of England and thereafter ignored my religious education (over 60 years ago), telling me that if I thought it was important, I'd figure it out for myself.
When I was about 10 I developed an interest in world mythologies and bought books from a series, written for adults, on world mythologies (of the Americas, of Scandinavia, of Greece, etc.) As a 10-year-old I believed that the world mythologies were quaint folk and fairytales while the religions I knew about—Judaism and Christianity—differed somewhat in ritual but were essentially True. And then I picked up a book in the series titled "Mythology of the Near East" where the stories I knew about, e.g., King David, Jesus' birth, etc., were treated in precisely the same way as the stories, archeological depictions, and academic investigation, as Aphrodite and Sedna.
It was nothing less than an epiphany that a) ancient people imbued these folk and fairytales with the same reverence and authority that modern people did the faiths with which I had at least a passing familiarity, and b) that what I thought of as True had no more substance to it than all those other stories, and could be subjected to the same examination and argument.
I'm fascinated by Biblical scholarship, but very much in the camp that no matter the deity, faith and religion are profoundly human endeavours and always reflect the sense and sensibilities of their times. Thanks for introducing me to this scholar, Francesca Stravrakopoulou, and the entire field of cognitive science of religion.
posted by angiep at 1:38 PM on October 4 [13 favorites]
When I was about 10 I developed an interest in world mythologies and bought books from a series, written for adults, on world mythologies (of the Americas, of Scandinavia, of Greece, etc.) As a 10-year-old I believed that the world mythologies were quaint folk and fairytales while the religions I knew about—Judaism and Christianity—differed somewhat in ritual but were essentially True. And then I picked up a book in the series titled "Mythology of the Near East" where the stories I knew about, e.g., King David, Jesus' birth, etc., were treated in precisely the same way as the stories, archeological depictions, and academic investigation, as Aphrodite and Sedna.
It was nothing less than an epiphany that a) ancient people imbued these folk and fairytales with the same reverence and authority that modern people did the faiths with which I had at least a passing familiarity, and b) that what I thought of as True had no more substance to it than all those other stories, and could be subjected to the same examination and argument.
I'm fascinated by Biblical scholarship, but very much in the camp that no matter the deity, faith and religion are profoundly human endeavours and always reflect the sense and sensibilities of their times. Thanks for introducing me to this scholar, Francesca Stravrakopoulou, and the entire field of cognitive science of religion.
posted by angiep at 1:38 PM on October 4 [13 favorites]
EmpressC. Great points. IMO I think a not inconsequential amount will move to an explicit church of trump layered with evangelicalism.
After Trumps death (if the fucker ever dies) he’ll be se sort of super saint. At a minimum.
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:56 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
After Trumps death (if the fucker ever dies) he’ll be se sort of super saint. At a minimum.
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:56 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
But everyone this guy had studied with, talked to, etc, was 100% in agreement with it, so case closed.
In this same vein, I am very sure that American Evangelicals of this strain do not in any way understand how new and invented (or "negotiated" in McClellan's language) so many of their doctrines and practices are
...
On a very basic level they don't understand how far their idiosyncratic beliefs have strayed from their point of origin.
Yeah. It just... doesn't matter. I get the academic angle. I do. With everybody being in their own Internet Echo Chamber I'm not even sure about the outliers anymore.
One church I went to ran a K-12 school, which I also went to for a couple years. And they policed everything from the Correct version of The Bible (KJV), to the Incorrect version of The Bible (NIV or also Everything Else), to haircuts, to dress codes, to... you name it. This academic analysis is simply going to be met with "you are wrong, and you are going to hell because of it." End of discussion. Truth is what we say it is.
The Rapture is basically made up from whole cloth? Cool. It's still true. Because we'll just make the same hand-wavey motions we make when we explain why Leviticus says you can't eat or wear whatever but the gays are still somehow going to hell. Cherry pick and choose. Interpret as needed. "This is what it actually means." Your liberal academic bullshit is wrong. The end.
These pastors were telling Moore that they were getting parishioners come to them after church to complain about the pastor being "woke" or using "liberal talking points". And when the Pastor told them that he had been quoting Jesus Christ directly, the parishioners would say "okay, but that's weak, and that doesn't work any more."
They're just going to create a new, better version of The Bible where the KJV is as deprecated as the NIV. It will unironically be called the DJT version, and it'll say what they want it to say because they've been doing exactly that for two thousand years now. Why on earth would they do anything else?
What matters is The Result. Does it enshrine the dominance of the right social hierarchy? Does it establish The Right People being in charge (without question) and everyone else being in varying positions of subservience? Does that just so happen to look like White Supremacist Patriarchy? What a crazy random happenstance. Anyway. Done. We'll iron out the details and fine print later.
If there were a wroth God out there striking down nonbelievers and punishing the wicked this would have been a solved problem by now.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:04 PM on October 4 [4 favorites]
In this same vein, I am very sure that American Evangelicals of this strain do not in any way understand how new and invented (or "negotiated" in McClellan's language) so many of their doctrines and practices are
...
On a very basic level they don't understand how far their idiosyncratic beliefs have strayed from their point of origin.
Yeah. It just... doesn't matter. I get the academic angle. I do. With everybody being in their own Internet Echo Chamber I'm not even sure about the outliers anymore.
One church I went to ran a K-12 school, which I also went to for a couple years. And they policed everything from the Correct version of The Bible (KJV), to the Incorrect version of The Bible (NIV or also Everything Else), to haircuts, to dress codes, to... you name it. This academic analysis is simply going to be met with "you are wrong, and you are going to hell because of it." End of discussion. Truth is what we say it is.
The Rapture is basically made up from whole cloth? Cool. It's still true. Because we'll just make the same hand-wavey motions we make when we explain why Leviticus says you can't eat or wear whatever but the gays are still somehow going to hell. Cherry pick and choose. Interpret as needed. "This is what it actually means." Your liberal academic bullshit is wrong. The end.
These pastors were telling Moore that they were getting parishioners come to them after church to complain about the pastor being "woke" or using "liberal talking points". And when the Pastor told them that he had been quoting Jesus Christ directly, the parishioners would say "okay, but that's weak, and that doesn't work any more."
They're just going to create a new, better version of The Bible where the KJV is as deprecated as the NIV. It will unironically be called the DJT version, and it'll say what they want it to say because they've been doing exactly that for two thousand years now. Why on earth would they do anything else?
What matters is The Result. Does it enshrine the dominance of the right social hierarchy? Does it establish The Right People being in charge (without question) and everyone else being in varying positions of subservience? Does that just so happen to look like White Supremacist Patriarchy? What a crazy random happenstance. Anyway. Done. We'll iron out the details and fine print later.
If there were a wroth God out there striking down nonbelievers and punishing the wicked this would have been a solved problem by now.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:04 PM on October 4 [4 favorites]
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having converted to Mormonism as an adult. The link is to a podcast discussing his faith. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer.
Oof. Yeah, belonging to a heteropatriarchal white supremacist hate group definitely should discredit anything someone has to say on the subject of religion, no matter how superficially reasonable.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:07 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
Oof. Yeah, belonging to a heteropatriarchal white supremacist hate group definitely should discredit anything someone has to say on the subject of religion, no matter how superficially reasonable.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:07 PM on October 4 [2 favorites]
If there were a wroth God out there striking down nonbelievers and punishing the wicked this would have been a solved problem by now.
And I guess to round out the thought...
They're writing Bible fanfic. Sooner or later they're just going to find someone "divinely inspired" to re-write the DJT version of The Bible in its entirety. Maybe even "written" by TFG himself. And it'll just so happen to be in line with their current beliefs. So now they don't even have to make hand-wavey justifications.
This is exactly what their congregations want them to do.
They're tired of the cognitive dissonance. They proactively want to simplify the game and have The Book just straight up say "And Jesus said, go thou and own the libs because they are wrong, and bad people, and your horrendous impulses are given by Me, The God In Heaven, and your violence is totally justified. Amen."
Kinda like that whole divorce thing and Henry VIII and the Church of England or whatever. This isn't even newly-trod ground.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:20 PM on October 4 [4 favorites]
And I guess to round out the thought...
They're writing Bible fanfic. Sooner or later they're just going to find someone "divinely inspired" to re-write the DJT version of The Bible in its entirety. Maybe even "written" by TFG himself. And it'll just so happen to be in line with their current beliefs. So now they don't even have to make hand-wavey justifications.
This is exactly what their congregations want them to do.
They're tired of the cognitive dissonance. They proactively want to simplify the game and have The Book just straight up say "And Jesus said, go thou and own the libs because they are wrong, and bad people, and your horrendous impulses are given by Me, The God In Heaven, and your violence is totally justified. Amen."
Kinda like that whole divorce thing and Henry VIII and the Church of England or whatever. This isn't even newly-trod ground.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:20 PM on October 4 [4 favorites]
I was reading the introduction to the David Luke translation of Goethe's Faust: Part One and this passage really resonated as I was thinking about McClellan and other bible scholars:
"ever since his own lifetime the history of Faust criticism has been that of a controversy between two methods. One is the historical or genetic approach which emphasizes the discrepancies, inconsistencies, or incongruities in the text and is content to explain them in terms of the long and complicated process of composition and Goethe’s changes of plan or sheer forgetfulness in the course of it. The other is the ‘unitarian’ insistence that the work must be assumed to be an integrated dramatic whole, sprung from a single and unvarying conception, and that any apparent contradictions may be resolved by sufficiently ingenious argument, or shown to be unimportant matters of detail. The controversy has a certain similarity to the disputes that have arisen in the last century or two from the application of historical scholarship to the Bible. At its most extreme, geneticism tears Faust to pieces and leaves the reader wondering why this is accounted a masterpiece of world dramatic literature at all; at its worst, the unitarian special pleading becomes an exercise in perverse piety and blindness to textual and biographical fact. A balanced approach will wish to credit the poem with at least a profound human and personal unity and to see its creation as a kind of organic growth’"
I've been slowly nibbling at the Oxford Annotated NRSV, on the recommendation of McClellan, and it is fascinating. Great footnotes, especially the parts where they are all, "It's pretty obvious here that two different stories were pasted together."
posted by mecran01 at 2:29 PM on October 4 [5 favorites]
"ever since his own lifetime the history of Faust criticism has been that of a controversy between two methods. One is the historical or genetic approach which emphasizes the discrepancies, inconsistencies, or incongruities in the text and is content to explain them in terms of the long and complicated process of composition and Goethe’s changes of plan or sheer forgetfulness in the course of it. The other is the ‘unitarian’ insistence that the work must be assumed to be an integrated dramatic whole, sprung from a single and unvarying conception, and that any apparent contradictions may be resolved by sufficiently ingenious argument, or shown to be unimportant matters of detail. The controversy has a certain similarity to the disputes that have arisen in the last century or two from the application of historical scholarship to the Bible. At its most extreme, geneticism tears Faust to pieces and leaves the reader wondering why this is accounted a masterpiece of world dramatic literature at all; at its worst, the unitarian special pleading becomes an exercise in perverse piety and blindness to textual and biographical fact. A balanced approach will wish to credit the poem with at least a profound human and personal unity and to see its creation as a kind of organic growth’"
I've been slowly nibbling at the Oxford Annotated NRSV, on the recommendation of McClellan, and it is fascinating. Great footnotes, especially the parts where they are all, "It's pretty obvious here that two different stories were pasted together."
posted by mecran01 at 2:29 PM on October 4 [5 favorites]
Sarah Pascoe reads a letter asking for clarity on God's Law.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:30 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:30 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
It's relevant to point out given the subject matter he discusses that McClellan is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, having converted to Mormonism as an adult. The link is to a podcast discussing his faith. He is, so far as I can tell, a sincere believer.
Well, I'm sure he applies the same rigorous logic to the Book of Mormon.
hahahahahahahhahaha
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:31 PM on October 4
Well, I'm sure he applies the same rigorous logic to the Book of Mormon.
hahahahahahahhahaha
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:31 PM on October 4
Well, I'm sure he applies the same rigorous logic to the Book of Mormon.
hahahahahahahhahaha
He pretty much does apply the same standards to the Book of Mormon: The data pretty firmly points in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon. "I've always been critical of apologetics."
posted by mecran01 at 2:38 PM on October 4 [5 favorites]
hahahahahahahhahaha
He pretty much does apply the same standards to the Book of Mormon: The data pretty firmly points in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon. "I've always been critical of apologetics."
posted by mecran01 at 2:38 PM on October 4 [5 favorites]
He pretty much does apply the same standards to the Book of Mormon
Okay, cool, but does he tithe? Because if he's materially contributing to global white supremacy and misogyny, i don't care how good his theology is.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:55 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
Okay, cool, but does he tithe? Because if he's materially contributing to global white supremacy and misogyny, i don't care how good his theology is.
posted by adrienneleigh at 2:55 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
mecran01: I was reading the introduction to the David Luke translation of Goethe's Faust: Part One and this passage really resonated as I was thinking about McClellan and other bible scholars:
Now you've made me curious about what sorts of policy platforms a party would have which was dedicated to the cause of running the world according to the principles of Goethe's Faust.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on October 4 [3 favorites]
Now you've made me curious about what sorts of policy platforms a party would have which was dedicated to the cause of running the world according to the principles of Goethe's Faust.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on October 4 [3 favorites]
Sooner or later they're just going to find someone "divinely inspired" to re-write the DJT version of The Bible in its entirety.
There's already the Conservative Bible Project of course.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:09 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
There's already the Conservative Bible Project of course.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:09 PM on October 4 [1 favorite]
I totally fail to grasp how a guy converts to an obviously false and (recently!) made up religion and then claims he’s rigorously analyzing it and pointing out all the errors and falsehoods, but still … is a member of that religion? What is religion if not belief in some sort of divine writings and teachings handed down by supernatural beings? Without that belief it’s just plain old culture with a bit of philosophy and law thrown in. Very weird.
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:01 PM on October 4 [3 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 11:01 PM on October 4 [3 favorites]
I totally fail to grasp how a guy converts to an obviously false and (recently!) made up religion and then claims he’s rigorously analyzing it and pointing out all the errors and falsehoods
Academic biblical scholarship is definitely rigorous and analytical but it's not about pointing out errors and falsehoods in some kind of judgemental fashion. What McLellan is doing is just fairly ordinary academic biblical scholarship, which is independent of faith and carried out by people of various Christian denominations, other religions and no religion at all. It isn't any more or less valid because he also belongs to the Mormons and finds something good in it for him.
What people get from religious and spiritual practice varies enormously. Suggesting that someones views mean they can't find value in a particular faith when they clearly do find value in it, is just a lack of imagination.
posted by plonkee at 12:33 AM on October 5 [12 favorites]
Academic biblical scholarship is definitely rigorous and analytical but it's not about pointing out errors and falsehoods in some kind of judgemental fashion. What McLellan is doing is just fairly ordinary academic biblical scholarship, which is independent of faith and carried out by people of various Christian denominations, other religions and no religion at all. It isn't any more or less valid because he also belongs to the Mormons and finds something good in it for him.
What people get from religious and spiritual practice varies enormously. Suggesting that someones views mean they can't find value in a particular faith when they clearly do find value in it, is just a lack of imagination.
posted by plonkee at 12:33 AM on October 5 [12 favorites]
Because if he's materially contributing to global white supremacy and misogyny, i don't care how good his theology is.
I've contributed materially to an institution that regularly employed drone strikes that frequently killed civilians. I hope one day I can live an ideologically and economically pure life, and become clean from the blood and sins of this generation, but until then I'm living with a lot of unpleasant compromises.
posted by mecran01 at 8:02 AM on October 5 [4 favorites]
I've contributed materially to an institution that regularly employed drone strikes that frequently killed civilians. I hope one day I can live an ideologically and economically pure life, and become clean from the blood and sins of this generation, but until then I'm living with a lot of unpleasant compromises.
posted by mecran01 at 8:02 AM on October 5 [4 favorites]
Well does he or doesn’t he believe that the magic tablets were divinely written? If so, he’s failing to use his scholarship to self-examine. If not, then why is he a Mormon? If the answer this that none of this is real and everyone knows it, but he gets comfort from a familiar culture and the social camaraderie, he should just say that. I grew up Christian ( Catholic and Southern Baptist) and once I figured out how much of those sects were bunk, I did not feel comfortable presenting myself as, say, a Catholic who doesn’t believe the Bible or that the randomly chosen Pope is God’s delegate on earth. Those things make me … not Catholic.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:24 AM on October 5 [1 favorite]
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:24 AM on October 5 [1 favorite]
Those inclined to pronounce McClellan guilty by association in order to read his mind need to consider his role as an independent educator who is highly trained and competent in a suppressed field of research, taking all the risks. Assuming he preaches ignores the fact that he is silent about any theology, and says more about the worldview of the assumption. You may want to revisit the allegory of Plato's cave, which tells of the dangers of leaving the confines of the trogs who have assigned too much cultural meaning to the random shadows on the wall, and punish those who can make most sense of their predicament. We don't need to agree with Plato on anything to appreciate that Socrates died for our sins, which is to shoot the messenger. (I wish I could say the same about Jesus but it feeds into his non-death and then bitter revenge.} I look forward to Dan's journey and can plainly see his inner conflict and noble goal, the signs of a protagonist, which we all become when we begin to recover from indoctrination.
posted by Brian B. at 9:44 AM on October 5
posted by Brian B. at 9:44 AM on October 5
Well does he or doesn’t he believe that the magic tablets were divinely written? If so, he’s failing to use his scholarship to self-examine. If not, then why is he a Mormon?
Who cares?
When it comes to materially or socially supporting the LDS church there are grounds to condemn the material influence that would have on the world.
But in terms of his personal beliefs and worship, why should anybody give a damn? Either his belief negatively impacts his work, in which case criticise that impact, or it doesn't in which case it shouldn't reflect on him as a scholar.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:50 AM on October 5 [9 favorites]
Who cares?
When it comes to materially or socially supporting the LDS church there are grounds to condemn the material influence that would have on the world.
But in terms of his personal beliefs and worship, why should anybody give a damn? Either his belief negatively impacts his work, in which case criticise that impact, or it doesn't in which case it shouldn't reflect on him as a scholar.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:50 AM on October 5 [9 favorites]
Well does he or doesn’t he believe that the magic tablets were divinely written?
Apparently not very much if we go by his comments. But the founding myth of Mormonism is not related directly to the fake history of the tablets. Mormonism claims a restoration of authority by appointment selection and blessings from those who have it in order to pass it along. The sacred rituals of commitment are Masonic, the detailed afterlife is Swedenborg's, and the rest is early Christian ethics, salvation, and persecution complex, which has a unity function.
posted by Brian B. at 10:00 AM on October 5 [4 favorites]
Apparently not very much if we go by his comments. But the founding myth of Mormonism is not related directly to the fake history of the tablets. Mormonism claims a restoration of authority by appointment selection and blessings from those who have it in order to pass it along. The sacred rituals of commitment are Masonic, the detailed afterlife is Swedenborg's, and the rest is early Christian ethics, salvation, and persecution complex, which has a unity function.
posted by Brian B. at 10:00 AM on October 5 [4 favorites]
For some reason I keep thinking of this scene from Firefly.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:40 PM on October 5 [2 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:40 PM on October 5 [2 favorites]
Yeah, i don't care what he believes in his heart, either about the Book of Mormon or the Bible. I do care that he enthusiastically joined, as an adult, a white supremacist heteropatriarchal hate group which is also one of the richest private landowners in the US, and that he almost certainly gives them 10% of his pre-tax income.
There are lots of other solid scholars about the historicity and sociology of Christianity who don't do those things.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:33 PM on October 5 [1 favorite]
There are lots of other solid scholars about the historicity and sociology of Christianity who don't do those things.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:33 PM on October 5 [1 favorite]
If he’s a fully tithed up, card (bishop’s ticket to get into temple rituals) carrying Mormon male, then upon death, he will be a god himself, with his own corner of the universe, where through sex with his wives or maybe just wife, he make souls to populate their own planet. Just like the god the Mormons worship now, who was just a guy who became a god. This is the fundamental theological teaching in this church. This is what both supports and demands the patriarchical position of the church. Only men become gods. Note, gods, as Mormonism posits multiple gods.
This guy was involved with translations? All the Mormon texts are in English, so maybe translations of those texts into other languages, for preaching to the others. The translations that Joseph Smith made from texts he said was reformed Egyptian, are either of texts never revealed to anyone but Smith, or they were actual Egyptian papyruses, in actual Egyptian that actually were just Pyramid texts about the ancient Egyptian afterlife. Smith’s “translations” of these texts laid the foundation for denying people of color of holding positions of authority in the church. Smith could not read the hieroglyphic writing. It was all magically revealed through seer stones.
Religious converts tend to be more ardent supporters of orthodoxy in their religion. I just have a real serious problem accepting this guy’s academic objectivity. Especially when it comes to his own religion.
posted by njohnson23 at 2:46 PM on October 5 [1 favorite]
This guy was involved with translations? All the Mormon texts are in English, so maybe translations of those texts into other languages, for preaching to the others. The translations that Joseph Smith made from texts he said was reformed Egyptian, are either of texts never revealed to anyone but Smith, or they were actual Egyptian papyruses, in actual Egyptian that actually were just Pyramid texts about the ancient Egyptian afterlife. Smith’s “translations” of these texts laid the foundation for denying people of color of holding positions of authority in the church. Smith could not read the hieroglyphic writing. It was all magically revealed through seer stones.
Religious converts tend to be more ardent supporters of orthodoxy in their religion. I just have a real serious problem accepting this guy’s academic objectivity. Especially when it comes to his own religion.
posted by njohnson23 at 2:46 PM on October 5 [1 favorite]
Religious converts tend to be more ardent supporters of orthodoxy in their religion. I just have a real serious problem accepting this guy’s academic objectivity. Especially when it comes to his own religion.
I mean, you do know that he's got a TON of written and recorded material out there right? If you want to claim he's not objective based on his statements, go to town. But man oh man, is it not a great look to just be like "He's LDS? He can't be trusted!"
I listen to his podcast, it's co-hosted by an atheist, they also frequently have on other scholars as guests, some religious some not. I can remember one that whose research was explicitly from a feminist point of view, and another that brought in disability studies, and one that had a popular Jewish theology tic-tok channel.
Also, and not in direct response to you, there seems to be an undercurrent of the LDS Church isn't Christian to some comments here. They consider themselves to be Christian. I got enough of being told "oh, those aren't real Christians" about various faiths in my youth growing up in an Evangelical church to last a life time.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:15 PM on October 5 [9 favorites]
I mean, you do know that he's got a TON of written and recorded material out there right? If you want to claim he's not objective based on his statements, go to town. But man oh man, is it not a great look to just be like "He's LDS? He can't be trusted!"
I listen to his podcast, it's co-hosted by an atheist, they also frequently have on other scholars as guests, some religious some not. I can remember one that whose research was explicitly from a feminist point of view, and another that brought in disability studies, and one that had a popular Jewish theology tic-tok channel.
Also, and not in direct response to you, there seems to be an undercurrent of the LDS Church isn't Christian to some comments here. They consider themselves to be Christian. I got enough of being told "oh, those aren't real Christians" about various faiths in my youth growing up in an Evangelical church to last a life time.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:15 PM on October 5 [9 favorites]
So Mormons have Jesuits now?
If so, it makes so much sense that they would have a tik tok channel. The "I explain stuff to you dummies" approach to life, combined with the Mormon dedication to visual appearances, I mean, the scripts write themselves
posted by eustatic at 9:23 PM on October 5 [2 favorites]
If so, it makes so much sense that they would have a tik tok channel. The "I explain stuff to you dummies" approach to life, combined with the Mormon dedication to visual appearances, I mean, the scripts write themselves
posted by eustatic at 9:23 PM on October 5 [2 favorites]
Also, and not in direct response to you, there seems to be an undercurrent of the LDS Church isn't Christian to some comments here. They consider themselves to be Christian.
What it means to "be Christian"(or a member of other faiths) has at least two different meanings. One is the sociological definition. In general it is a question of self identification and history. Mormon's call themselves Christians and they derive from movements within a Christian population, so they are Christians, albeit of a stripe that rejects most of traditional Christianity. (Generally self odentification is sufficient, but cultural appropriation by groups like "Messianic Jews" who are largely "converts" grom Evangelical Chtistianity and so-called "Pretendians" with no actual connection to historical Indigeneous religious practice complicate things.)
But if one believes their faith offers a genuine connection to a deeper reality, then the question of whether a particular group is participating in that same reality isn't reducible to sociological questions. Whether a member of the Nation of Islam is a "real Muslim" means something different to me than it does to someone who believes Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet.
Mormons differ from orthodox Christian teaching on a great number of core points. Who and what God is. The nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The nature of salvation and baptism. Whether that makes them "not Christian" is not something I am remotely prepared to judge, but I don't think the question of whether what they are doing is what we are doing is unreasonable.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:35 AM on October 6 [3 favorites]
What it means to "be Christian"(or a member of other faiths) has at least two different meanings. One is the sociological definition. In general it is a question of self identification and history. Mormon's call themselves Christians and they derive from movements within a Christian population, so they are Christians, albeit of a stripe that rejects most of traditional Christianity. (Generally self odentification is sufficient, but cultural appropriation by groups like "Messianic Jews" who are largely "converts" grom Evangelical Chtistianity and so-called "Pretendians" with no actual connection to historical Indigeneous religious practice complicate things.)
But if one believes their faith offers a genuine connection to a deeper reality, then the question of whether a particular group is participating in that same reality isn't reducible to sociological questions. Whether a member of the Nation of Islam is a "real Muslim" means something different to me than it does to someone who believes Muhammad was the last and greatest prophet.
Mormons differ from orthodox Christian teaching on a great number of core points. Who and what God is. The nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The nature of salvation and baptism. Whether that makes them "not Christian" is not something I am remotely prepared to judge, but I don't think the question of whether what they are doing is what we are doing is unreasonable.
posted by pattern juggler at 6:35 AM on October 6 [3 favorites]
Also, and not in direct response to you, there seems to be an undercurrent of the LDS Church isn't Christian to some comments here. They consider themselves to be Christian. I got enough of being told "oh, those aren't real Christians" about various faiths in my youth growing up in an Evangelical church to last a life time.
I also notice a lot of the "oh, he's LDS and can't be trusted" people are insisting that McClellan must somehow not be subjecting his own faith's scripture to the same rigorous testing that he is applying to other texts. It's made me wonder whether they themselves are applying the same rigor to examining their own selves, to see if they have unfounded preconceptions of theists.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:39 AM on October 6 [5 favorites]
I also notice a lot of the "oh, he's LDS and can't be trusted" people are insisting that McClellan must somehow not be subjecting his own faith's scripture to the same rigorous testing that he is applying to other texts. It's made me wonder whether they themselves are applying the same rigor to examining their own selves, to see if they have unfounded preconceptions of theists.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:39 AM on October 6 [5 favorites]
What it means to "be Christian"(or a member of other faiths) has at least two different meanings...
I mean, that's all well and good, but there's a much larger variety of Christian beliefs than the average American thinks. Like, go take a look at what texts the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church considers canon. Or, even just talk to clergy from a couple of different denominations that have origins outside of the US or England. It's like if I insisted that I had a great definition of what a rainbow trout is, but because I'd only fished in mountain lakes and streams, I said that Steelhead couldn't possibly be the same species because they lived in the ocean for part of their lives.
Also, and this is more important and why I brought up my Evangelical upbringing: There's no way to bring up "not a real Christian" in an American context and not have it echo all the times it's been weaponized to attack out-groups. Like, the phrase that often followed that in my church was "so is doing the devil's work". That idea of "not a real Christian" is why it was a BIG DEAL that Kennedy was Catholic, was a big driving force to Nativism and the Know Nothing Party, and was also big part of the KKK's platform. It's why the Puritans left England in the first place, and what they then turned around and used as the reason why they hung several Quakers in Boston, and was also part of why some folks were targeted during the Salem Witch trials. And those are just a couple of the more famous examples. Implying someone is "not a Christian" in America is not, and has never been, some neutral distinction of theological philogyny and taxonomy.
I don't know, and I don't really care what should be considered 'real' Christianity. But, I do know and recognize a poison phrases from my youth that was used to program me not to consider outside points of views and to prime me to accept and justify bigotry.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:52 AM on October 6 [9 favorites]
I mean, that's all well and good, but there's a much larger variety of Christian beliefs than the average American thinks. Like, go take a look at what texts the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church considers canon. Or, even just talk to clergy from a couple of different denominations that have origins outside of the US or England. It's like if I insisted that I had a great definition of what a rainbow trout is, but because I'd only fished in mountain lakes and streams, I said that Steelhead couldn't possibly be the same species because they lived in the ocean for part of their lives.
Also, and this is more important and why I brought up my Evangelical upbringing: There's no way to bring up "not a real Christian" in an American context and not have it echo all the times it's been weaponized to attack out-groups. Like, the phrase that often followed that in my church was "so is doing the devil's work". That idea of "not a real Christian" is why it was a BIG DEAL that Kennedy was Catholic, was a big driving force to Nativism and the Know Nothing Party, and was also big part of the KKK's platform. It's why the Puritans left England in the first place, and what they then turned around and used as the reason why they hung several Quakers in Boston, and was also part of why some folks were targeted during the Salem Witch trials. And those are just a couple of the more famous examples. Implying someone is "not a Christian" in America is not, and has never been, some neutral distinction of theological philogyny and taxonomy.
I don't know, and I don't really care what should be considered 'real' Christianity. But, I do know and recognize a poison phrases from my youth that was used to program me not to consider outside points of views and to prime me to accept and justify bigotry.
posted by Gygesringtone at 8:52 AM on October 6 [9 favorites]
I also notice a lot of the "oh, he's LDS and can't be trusted" people are insisting that McClellan must somehow not be subjecting his own faith's scripture to the same rigorous testing that he is applying to other texts. It's made me wonder whether they themselves are applying the same rigor to examining their own selves, to see if they have unfounded preconceptions of theists.
Agreed. And any critiques of objectivity should take extra precaution to live up to their standard.
There are lots of other solid scholars about the historicity and sociology of Christianity who don't do those things.
First, his target audience all does those things, they don't differ except in small details that are the subject of the videos. Second, to demand an anonymous or unknown teacher who erases or hides their alliances is not consistent with intellectual honesty or objectivity. To ideally demand an overtly atheistic teacher to address the proles is a form of orthodoxy itself and not a real thing unless forced to attend a re-education camp. The subject at hand is not sociology but usually obscure snippets of scripture that cause people to get murdered or books to get burned.
posted by Brian B. at 9:04 AM on October 6 [1 favorite]
Agreed. And any critiques of objectivity should take extra precaution to live up to their standard.
There are lots of other solid scholars about the historicity and sociology of Christianity who don't do those things.
First, his target audience all does those things, they don't differ except in small details that are the subject of the videos. Second, to demand an anonymous or unknown teacher who erases or hides their alliances is not consistent with intellectual honesty or objectivity. To ideally demand an overtly atheistic teacher to address the proles is a form of orthodoxy itself and not a real thing unless forced to attend a re-education camp. The subject at hand is not sociology but usually obscure snippets of scripture that cause people to get murdered or books to get burned.
posted by Brian B. at 9:04 AM on October 6 [1 favorite]
I feel like I started the derail (or is it?) about LDS so here's my attempt at a more nuanced comment. Given that Christianity is a very popular religion that seems to bring meaning to a lot of people and that isn't going away any time soon, understanding its interpretations is an interesting sociological exercise. How good are the translations to English? How did the biases of past leaders influence how it's interpreted? And so on.
However, as a humanist and philosophical materialist, I personally feel that the continued "analysis" of the Bible or the Koran or similar book as a way to find insights into a useful system of modern ethics and morality is barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest. And obviously I don't feel that "what does God want" or "what did God cause to happen in the past" are very interesting questions, not to mention that I can casually observe the world and see that these religions often have a negative impact by setting up wild shit like "I must kill you because you made a cartoon of Mohammed" or "I saw on social media you disrespected the Prophet so its lynching time" or "we must invade the Middle East because it's a war of cultures" or "America is a Christian nation", etc. I judge religions on how well they adhere to my personal moral code and not vice versa.
So to me the guy comes off like a bit of a pedantic "you're doing Christianity" wrong sort of person, and because I was a young "rational" cis white American male full of self-importance back in the eighties, I have learned to look askance at stuff like this coming from people that remind me of young me. Also, from my outsider's viewpoint (though I was raised Christian and exposed to many, many flavors full of good people), *everybody* is doing it wrong because the base assumptions are factually wrong.
Again, not to poop on academic scholars of religion at all - it's a very interesting and rich space. But since this guy ended up as (from my view) just a slightly different type of Christian, old man me thinks he's still early in his journey and trying to use his rational mind to chip away at the cognitive dissonance I found when doing this sort of thing long ago. Hey - I read CS Lewis too! The thinking person's faith!
Here's an example: He has a video called "Does the Bible teach a flat earth?" as if that's a way to get religious flat-earthers to accept that the Earth is a sphere. But IMHO the *correct* question should be, "Who gives a shit whether the Bible teaches a flat earth?" Or extrapolate: whether it's ok to kill people, whether God really gave Israel to the Jews, whether heaven and hell are real, whether heaven is restricted to a set number of people, whether good works or being "saved" get you there ... I don't find ANY of those questions helpful or interesting in the least.
I fully support his right to do what he's doing - if he uses the Bible to convince people to follow the Bible in a slightly more progressive way, that's a net good in this world. I often think that "convince people with facts" is doomed to fail and that we really need a new religion that just, er, happens to demand we all be anti-capitalist ecological stewards who agree with me completely in all ways because of course I'm always right *g*. But I sort of wish I lived in a world less focused on ancient writings and what they tell us about how to live today.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:41 AM on October 6 [3 favorites]
However, as a humanist and philosophical materialist, I personally feel that the continued "analysis" of the Bible or the Koran or similar book as a way to find insights into a useful system of modern ethics and morality is barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest. And obviously I don't feel that "what does God want" or "what did God cause to happen in the past" are very interesting questions, not to mention that I can casually observe the world and see that these religions often have a negative impact by setting up wild shit like "I must kill you because you made a cartoon of Mohammed" or "I saw on social media you disrespected the Prophet so its lynching time" or "we must invade the Middle East because it's a war of cultures" or "America is a Christian nation", etc. I judge religions on how well they adhere to my personal moral code and not vice versa.
So to me the guy comes off like a bit of a pedantic "you're doing Christianity" wrong sort of person, and because I was a young "rational" cis white American male full of self-importance back in the eighties, I have learned to look askance at stuff like this coming from people that remind me of young me. Also, from my outsider's viewpoint (though I was raised Christian and exposed to many, many flavors full of good people), *everybody* is doing it wrong because the base assumptions are factually wrong.
Again, not to poop on academic scholars of religion at all - it's a very interesting and rich space. But since this guy ended up as (from my view) just a slightly different type of Christian, old man me thinks he's still early in his journey and trying to use his rational mind to chip away at the cognitive dissonance I found when doing this sort of thing long ago. Hey - I read CS Lewis too! The thinking person's faith!
Here's an example: He has a video called "Does the Bible teach a flat earth?" as if that's a way to get religious flat-earthers to accept that the Earth is a sphere. But IMHO the *correct* question should be, "Who gives a shit whether the Bible teaches a flat earth?" Or extrapolate: whether it's ok to kill people, whether God really gave Israel to the Jews, whether heaven and hell are real, whether heaven is restricted to a set number of people, whether good works or being "saved" get you there ... I don't find ANY of those questions helpful or interesting in the least.
I fully support his right to do what he's doing - if he uses the Bible to convince people to follow the Bible in a slightly more progressive way, that's a net good in this world. I often think that "convince people with facts" is doomed to fail and that we really need a new religion that just, er, happens to demand we all be anti-capitalist ecological stewards who agree with me completely in all ways because of course I'm always right *g*. But I sort of wish I lived in a world less focused on ancient writings and what they tell us about how to live today.
posted by caviar2d2 at 9:41 AM on October 6 [3 favorites]
Given that Christianity is a very popular religion that seems to bring meaning to a lot of people and that isn't going away any time soon, understanding its interpretations is an interesting sociological exercise. How good are the translations to English? How did the biases of past leaders influence how it's interpreted? And so on.
I mean, that is a big part of what they talk about in their podcasts. He's got a whole episode on the history of the King James Version, and frequently gives the text in its original language and gives context and history around the words used in that language, and he often frames his discussion around "what power structure is served by THIS particular claim about what the text says?" The Flat earth episode of the podcast at least actually does get a little bit into the actual question of "Who gives a shit whether the Bible teaches a flat earth?".
There are things I think are totally fair to criticize him for, I really do. I feel uncomfortable about his sponsor choices, and I don't agree with 100% of his conclusions, and he's definitely influenced by the same crappy culture we all are. And look, if you don't find the topic interesting, that's also fine, I'm not about to try and talk you into liking something you don't like. But, I do find it frustrating that you're going to ascribe attitudes and motivations to him without at least a cursory glance at what he says. Frankly, that rush to judgement is all about you, not him.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:15 AM on October 6 [4 favorites]
I mean, that is a big part of what they talk about in their podcasts. He's got a whole episode on the history of the King James Version, and frequently gives the text in its original language and gives context and history around the words used in that language, and he often frames his discussion around "what power structure is served by THIS particular claim about what the text says?" The Flat earth episode of the podcast at least actually does get a little bit into the actual question of "Who gives a shit whether the Bible teaches a flat earth?".
There are things I think are totally fair to criticize him for, I really do. I feel uncomfortable about his sponsor choices, and I don't agree with 100% of his conclusions, and he's definitely influenced by the same crappy culture we all are. And look, if you don't find the topic interesting, that's also fine, I'm not about to try and talk you into liking something you don't like. But, I do find it frustrating that you're going to ascribe attitudes and motivations to him without at least a cursory glance at what he says. Frankly, that rush to judgement is all about you, not him.
posted by Gygesringtone at 10:15 AM on October 6 [4 favorites]
I mean, that's all well and good, but there's a much larger variety of Christian beliefs than the average American thinks. Like, go take a look at what texts the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church considers canon.
My own branch of Christianity is very close kin to the Tewahedo Church, so I am well aware.
Despite the variety of Christian canon and belief, a Southern Baptist and a Malankara Orthodox Christian hold more doctrinal points in common than the Baptist and a Mormon would. For that matter, the Malankara Orthodox Christian might well have more doctrine in common with his Muslim and Jewish neighbors than the Mormon. (And is certainly more closely related to them in terms of historical development.)
Mormonism clearly has its roots in American protestantism, the way Baha'i has its roots in Shia Islam, but both differ in dramatic ways from their predecessors. Acknowledging that doesn't need to be in any way condemnatory.
I don't know, and I don't really care what should be considered 'real' Christianity.
Entirely reasonable. But it does make sense for Christians to care, and not all distinctions are about fostering bigotry. I don't need to believe someone is a Christian, or to agree with their religious traditions to treat them or their beliefs with respect or to understand that there is value in the traditions and community they have.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:06 AM on October 6 [1 favorite]
My own branch of Christianity is very close kin to the Tewahedo Church, so I am well aware.
Despite the variety of Christian canon and belief, a Southern Baptist and a Malankara Orthodox Christian hold more doctrinal points in common than the Baptist and a Mormon would. For that matter, the Malankara Orthodox Christian might well have more doctrine in common with his Muslim and Jewish neighbors than the Mormon. (And is certainly more closely related to them in terms of historical development.)
Mormonism clearly has its roots in American protestantism, the way Baha'i has its roots in Shia Islam, but both differ in dramatic ways from their predecessors. Acknowledging that doesn't need to be in any way condemnatory.
I don't know, and I don't really care what should be considered 'real' Christianity.
Entirely reasonable. But it does make sense for Christians to care, and not all distinctions are about fostering bigotry. I don't need to believe someone is a Christian, or to agree with their religious traditions to treat them or their beliefs with respect or to understand that there is value in the traditions and community they have.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:06 AM on October 6 [1 favorite]
I was going to respond as well, but instead I'll just point at Gygesringtone and say "seconded".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:32 AM on October 6
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:32 AM on October 6
To ideally demand an overtly atheistic teacher to address the proles is a form of orthodoxy itself and not a real thing unless forced to attend a re-education camp.
I mean, i'm not demanding anything, and i'm not an atheist myself. I'm not rejecting all theistic scholars of religion; i am rejecting a guy who, as an adult, voluntarily joined a multinational hate group that wants me and all my friends dead or removed from society.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:02 PM on October 6 [3 favorites]
I mean, i'm not demanding anything, and i'm not an atheist myself. I'm not rejecting all theistic scholars of religion; i am rejecting a guy who, as an adult, voluntarily joined a multinational hate group that wants me and all my friends dead or removed from society.
posted by adrienneleigh at 6:02 PM on October 6 [3 favorites]
i am rejecting a guy who, as an adult, voluntarily joined a multinational hate group that wants me and all my friends dead or removed from society.
He's probably in more immediate danger from the same people you fear.
posted by Brian B. at 6:34 PM on October 6 [1 favorite]
He's probably in more immediate danger from the same people you fear.
posted by Brian B. at 6:34 PM on October 6 [1 favorite]
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to pal around with them.
posted by Reverend John at 9:11 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 9:11 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to pal around with them.
It's been okay with me who people pal with since middle-school. But you may want to join those who call him to repentance in his comment sections, Reverend John.
posted by Brian B. at 9:35 AM on October 7
It's been okay with me who people pal with since middle-school. But you may want to join those who call him to repentance in his comment sections, Reverend John.
posted by Brian B. at 9:35 AM on October 7
I should hope we all have our bright lines. There are academics whose work I admire that I would nonetheless condemn for their association with and advocacy for the far right.
Whether McClellan's association with or support for the Mormon hierarchy reaches the level where je should receive disapproval is something people can disagree about, but surely their is some level of "palling around" that anyone decent should object to.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:55 AM on October 7 [1 favorite]
Whether McClellan's association with or support for the Mormon hierarchy reaches the level where je should receive disapproval is something people can disagree about, but surely their is some level of "palling around" that anyone decent should object to.
posted by pattern juggler at 9:55 AM on October 7 [1 favorite]
but surely their is some level of "palling around" that anyone decent should object to.
Decent people don't justify their dislike of someone by imagining their pals. That's the point of not judging.
posted by Brian B. at 10:07 AM on October 7
Decent people don't justify their dislike of someone by imagining their pals. That's the point of not judging.
posted by Brian B. at 10:07 AM on October 7
Who is talking about "imagining" or "justifying" ?
You said:
It's been okay with me who people pal with since middle-school.
I don't think that is reasonable. If someone is an associate of Neo-Nazis, for example, that should not be "okay" with anybody.
Whether McClellan's associations or behavior are worthy of criticism is a separate question. But the idea that no one's associates are ever grounds for criticism is not viable.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:13 AM on October 7 [3 favorites]
You said:
It's been okay with me who people pal with since middle-school.
I don't think that is reasonable. If someone is an associate of Neo-Nazis, for example, that should not be "okay" with anybody.
Whether McClellan's associations or behavior are worthy of criticism is a separate question. But the idea that no one's associates are ever grounds for criticism is not viable.
posted by pattern juggler at 10:13 AM on October 7 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry, perhaps I was a bit too flippant. I should have repeated adrienneleigh's words directly instead of foolishly shortening them to "pal around":
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to, as an adult, voluntarily join a multinational hate group that wants our lgbtq+ friends and family dead or removed from society, since he is apparently not deterred by the danger they pose to him.
I regret the error.
posted by Reverend John at 10:18 AM on October 7 [3 favorites]
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to, as an adult, voluntarily join a multinational hate group that wants our lgbtq+ friends and family dead or removed from society, since he is apparently not deterred by the danger they pose to him.
I regret the error.
posted by Reverend John at 10:18 AM on October 7 [3 favorites]
I don't think that is reasonable.
It is, and there is no personal call to action beyond friending someone you may know away from a bad group, which ironically puts oneself in the association gossip crosshairs, so your exception proves the rule because Nazis preach this idea of who is allowed to pal with who.
posted by Brian B. at 11:27 AM on October 7
It is, and there is no personal call to action beyond friending someone you may know away from a bad group, which ironically puts oneself in the association gossip crosshairs, so your exception proves the rule because Nazis preach this idea of who is allowed to pal with who.
posted by Brian B. at 11:27 AM on October 7
If your position is actually that it is fine to associate with hate groups I think we'll just have to disagree.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:32 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
posted by pattern juggler at 11:32 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
If your position is actually that it is fine to associate with hate groups I think we'll just have to disagree.
You are explicitly condemning all Mormons as individuals, by their association, which is hate.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
You are explicitly condemning all Mormons as individuals, by their association, which is hate.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
You are explicitly condemning all Mormons as individuals, by their association, which is hate.
I said nothing about "all Mormons" nor did I "explicitly condemn" anyone. I do think it is entirely reasonable to condemn belonging to certain groups. If someone is a Three Percenter, a Proud Boy, or a member of ISIS, then I don't think it is beyond the pale to say they shouldn't be. If it is "hate" to condemn all Nazis, then I'll be a hater.
McClellan isn't one of those. He is a Mormon. You might think being a Mormon is a good thing. Or that belonging to and tithing in support of the Mormon church is not morally problematic. Or that if it is, it isn't so to any significant degree. If so, then say that. I don't think that is even all that difficult a position to defend.
But don't argue that there is never grounds to criticize people for belonging to a particular organization, because that is obviously absurd.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:45 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
I said nothing about "all Mormons" nor did I "explicitly condemn" anyone. I do think it is entirely reasonable to condemn belonging to certain groups. If someone is a Three Percenter, a Proud Boy, or a member of ISIS, then I don't think it is beyond the pale to say they shouldn't be. If it is "hate" to condemn all Nazis, then I'll be a hater.
McClellan isn't one of those. He is a Mormon. You might think being a Mormon is a good thing. Or that belonging to and tithing in support of the Mormon church is not morally problematic. Or that if it is, it isn't so to any significant degree. If so, then say that. I don't think that is even all that difficult a position to defend.
But don't argue that there is never grounds to criticize people for belonging to a particular organization, because that is obviously absurd.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:45 AM on October 7 [2 favorites]
But don't argue that there is never grounds to criticize people for belonging to a particular organization, because that is obviously absurd.
We were talking about hypothetical pals, which is now a church organization itself in the switch. And criticizing is always fine, best to start with the information they are presenting since it is very clear and detailed. To jump the gun in that regard implies disagreement in theme, which dismisses inherent or absolute meaning of ancient religious texts. McClellan is bringing something to the table in these politically trying times.
posted by Brian B. at 12:00 PM on October 7
We were talking about hypothetical pals, which is now a church organization itself in the switch. And criticizing is always fine, best to start with the information they are presenting since it is very clear and detailed. To jump the gun in that regard implies disagreement in theme, which dismisses inherent or absolute meaning of ancient religious texts. McClellan is bringing something to the table in these politically trying times.
posted by Brian B. at 12:00 PM on October 7
He's probably in more immediate danger from the same people you fear.
If the hate group he voluntarily joined is no longer to his liking, he's free to leave it at any time. Their targets don't have that option.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:07 PM on October 7 [4 favorites]
If the hate group he voluntarily joined is no longer to his liking, he's free to leave it at any time. Their targets don't have that option.
posted by adrienneleigh at 3:07 PM on October 7 [4 favorites]
Some other sources I've found useful for interpreting the bible through a historical lens:
- RLST 152 from Yale. New Testament and related literature, and the cultural contexts thereof.
- PBS The First Christians. It's been a long time since I've seen this documentary, but as I recall it went quite in depth for the cultural contexts relevant to the New Testament.
- @TheEsotericaChannel. Dr. Justin Sledge has a fairly wide-ranging channel but occasionally gets into the earliest strata of Yahweh worship. Some of the same sort of topics as Satan's Guide to the Bible, but different in tone and much more in depth.
Mod note: A couple deleted; Brian B., this is becoming a you-focused thread at this point. Please dial it back and let other people discuss.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:46 AM on October 8 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:46 AM on October 8 [1 favorite]
But it does make sense for Christians to care, and not all distinctions are about fostering bigotry.
So interestingly enough, this week's podcast episode was them interviewing a scholar who wrote a book about the history of questioning who is a real Christian. What's fun is that episode touches on some of the same discussion points in this thread, CS Lewis gets mentioned, and Dan's work for the LDS church even gets mentioned briefly.
The book covered the history of this from the Reformation on, so the roots of modern religious thoughts and on. And you know what the scholar's take away from his research was? The people with the biggest vested interest in asking that question have been the ones who are currently in power and seeking to retain that, or those hoping to claim power for themselves. Right now, the people asking that question the loudest and insisting that only they get to answer are the ones who are ignoring matters of Doctrine, Orthodoxy, and traditional Christian values and seeking to enforce their own narrow readings and cultural limitations on what it means to be a Christian. They are 100% using it to foster bigotry.
I mean, look, you say "Christians should get to decide who's Christian" which... o.k.. My wife's family is partially descended from a group of folks chased out of German because Martin Luther didn't particularly like their brand of Protestantism. Were they Christian? Ask them, they would have said yes. Ask Luther, he would have said no. Ask the Catholic Church and they would have said Luther wasn't a Christian either. So who gets to decide? There's no way to answer the question of "who is a real Christian" without establishing yourself, or some other group as a religious authority, and giving them the a tremendous amount of power to enforce their views. Because they then get to define the in-group and the out-group, and because being defined as "not Christian" comes with a boat load of stigma and social isolation in American society.
So you'll have to excuse me if having grown up around those who blow that particular dog whistle, I hear it and start side-eying whoever comes a-running. It's not just an academic question, it's a weapon used to enforce or gain power, and it always has been. The unspoken bit of that question is the assumption that some group has the authority to answer it.
posted by Gygesringtone at 9:20 AM on October 8 [3 favorites]
So interestingly enough, this week's podcast episode was them interviewing a scholar who wrote a book about the history of questioning who is a real Christian. What's fun is that episode touches on some of the same discussion points in this thread, CS Lewis gets mentioned, and Dan's work for the LDS church even gets mentioned briefly.
The book covered the history of this from the Reformation on, so the roots of modern religious thoughts and on. And you know what the scholar's take away from his research was? The people with the biggest vested interest in asking that question have been the ones who are currently in power and seeking to retain that, or those hoping to claim power for themselves. Right now, the people asking that question the loudest and insisting that only they get to answer are the ones who are ignoring matters of Doctrine, Orthodoxy, and traditional Christian values and seeking to enforce their own narrow readings and cultural limitations on what it means to be a Christian. They are 100% using it to foster bigotry.
I mean, look, you say "Christians should get to decide who's Christian" which... o.k.. My wife's family is partially descended from a group of folks chased out of German because Martin Luther didn't particularly like their brand of Protestantism. Were they Christian? Ask them, they would have said yes. Ask Luther, he would have said no. Ask the Catholic Church and they would have said Luther wasn't a Christian either. So who gets to decide? There's no way to answer the question of "who is a real Christian" without establishing yourself, or some other group as a religious authority, and giving them the a tremendous amount of power to enforce their views. Because they then get to define the in-group and the out-group, and because being defined as "not Christian" comes with a boat load of stigma and social isolation in American society.
So you'll have to excuse me if having grown up around those who blow that particular dog whistle, I hear it and start side-eying whoever comes a-running. It's not just an academic question, it's a weapon used to enforce or gain power, and it always has been. The unspoken bit of that question is the assumption that some group has the authority to answer it.
posted by Gygesringtone at 9:20 AM on October 8 [3 favorites]
So you'll have to excuse me if having grown up around those who blow that particular dog whistle, I hear it and start side-eying whoever comes a-running. It's not just an academic question, it's a weapon used to enforce or gain power, and it always has been. The unspoken bit of that question is the assumption that some group has the authority to answer it.
You are welcome to side eye. It seems you've had a lot of bad experiences, and a degree of suspicion is unsurprising.
I have no authority to grant or deny any status or stigma, but it still matters to me whether a religious body is Christian. Not because I am going to purge or excoriate those who aren't, but because it matters to me that I know if, for example, a prayer I am being asked to join in is directed to the God I worship or not, or whether I can accept communion there, or invite a member to share my church's communion. Because part of living in a multi-faith society where religion is not an entirely secret, personal affair is that we do need to have and respect boundaries. If you think these are just social clubs, maybe that does seem bigoted or irrational, but it is important if these are matters of spiritual communion and identity.
I intend no condemnation of Mormons for not considering them to be a part of the same faith as (my) Christianity. Plenty of people are not Christians and that is none of my business. I live with a non-Christian friend. I take care of non-Christian clients and work with non-Christian coworkers. We get along just fine and I love some of them very much. But I am not going to pretend we are correligionists out of some vague fear that someone else may make the distinction with malice.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:18 AM on October 8 [2 favorites]
You are welcome to side eye. It seems you've had a lot of bad experiences, and a degree of suspicion is unsurprising.
I have no authority to grant or deny any status or stigma, but it still matters to me whether a religious body is Christian. Not because I am going to purge or excoriate those who aren't, but because it matters to me that I know if, for example, a prayer I am being asked to join in is directed to the God I worship or not, or whether I can accept communion there, or invite a member to share my church's communion. Because part of living in a multi-faith society where religion is not an entirely secret, personal affair is that we do need to have and respect boundaries. If you think these are just social clubs, maybe that does seem bigoted or irrational, but it is important if these are matters of spiritual communion and identity.
I intend no condemnation of Mormons for not considering them to be a part of the same faith as (my) Christianity. Plenty of people are not Christians and that is none of my business. I live with a non-Christian friend. I take care of non-Christian clients and work with non-Christian coworkers. We get along just fine and I love some of them very much. But I am not going to pretend we are correligionists out of some vague fear that someone else may make the distinction with malice.
posted by pattern juggler at 11:18 AM on October 8 [2 favorites]
I was raised Eastern Orthodox Christian, and my mother's take on fundamentalist protestantism was always "They seem to take the ahistoric stance that The Church was a product of The Bible, instead of the other way around."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:29 AM on October 8 [4 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 11:29 AM on October 8 [4 favorites]
A few people mentioned similarities between Francesca Stavrakopoulou and McClellan. It looks like Dr. Stavrakopoulous was McClellan's thesis advisor so that probably explains some of it.
I'm a fully deconstructed/former christian who occasionally is served and watches McClellan's content on TikTok. I find it interesting from a historical perspective and have also been happy to see his support of LGBTQ+ people in a few of his videos. I'm not an avid consumer of his content but have enjoyed what I've seen of it.
While I logically don't disagree with the sentiment of comments such as:
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to, as an adult, voluntarily join a multinational hate group that wants our lgbtq+ friends and family dead or removed from society, since he is apparently not deterred by the danger they pose to him.
I've had continued unease with the fervor with which we hold seemingly honest and kind people to task for not aligning with us completely when I think that fervor should be pointed at the people actively doing damage and in power in these organizations.
I'm definitely reaching with this but it reminds me of how creators I enjoy (eg Jen Hamilton, John Green, Elyse Meyers) were lambasted for not making Gaza their top priority. That doesn't mean McClellan shouldn't be pushed on how he justifies belonging to an organization that appears to clash with his shown support / beliefs, particularly since he's a public figure and it's better aligned with his profession/content than say Elyse Meyers, but that doesn't immediately mean he's a reflection of all the evil the Mormon church does. More likely he's a human that's capable of incredible rationalizations, willful ignorance, and/or differing beliefs.
I often yearn for Elijah to bring fire down from the heavens but I don't think it's always the appropriate or most effective course of action.
posted by Quack at 8:10 PM on October 8 [5 favorites]
I'm a fully deconstructed/former christian who occasionally is served and watches McClellan's content on TikTok. I find it interesting from a historical perspective and have also been happy to see his support of LGBTQ+ people in a few of his videos. I'm not an avid consumer of his content but have enjoyed what I've seen of it.
While I logically don't disagree with the sentiment of comments such as:
Oh, then I guess it's ok for him to, as an adult, voluntarily join a multinational hate group that wants our lgbtq+ friends and family dead or removed from society, since he is apparently not deterred by the danger they pose to him.
I've had continued unease with the fervor with which we hold seemingly honest and kind people to task for not aligning with us completely when I think that fervor should be pointed at the people actively doing damage and in power in these organizations.
I'm definitely reaching with this but it reminds me of how creators I enjoy (eg Jen Hamilton, John Green, Elyse Meyers) were lambasted for not making Gaza their top priority. That doesn't mean McClellan shouldn't be pushed on how he justifies belonging to an organization that appears to clash with his shown support / beliefs, particularly since he's a public figure and it's better aligned with his profession/content than say Elyse Meyers, but that doesn't immediately mean he's a reflection of all the evil the Mormon church does. More likely he's a human that's capable of incredible rationalizations, willful ignorance, and/or differing beliefs.
I often yearn for Elijah to bring fire down from the heavens but I don't think it's always the appropriate or most effective course of action.
posted by Quack at 8:10 PM on October 8 [5 favorites]
I've had continued unease with the fervor with which we hold seemingly honest and kind people to task for not aligning with us completely
If he's in good standing with the church, he's donating 10% of his pre-tax income to people who want a cisheteropatriarchal white supremacist theocracy. That's a little more than "not aligning with [me] completely".
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:26 AM on October 9 [2 favorites]
If he's in good standing with the church, he's donating 10% of his pre-tax income to people who want a cisheteropatriarchal white supremacist theocracy. That's a little more than "not aligning with [me] completely".
posted by adrienneleigh at 9:26 AM on October 9 [2 favorites]
There's no way to answer the question of "who is a real Christian" without establishing yourself, or some other group as a religious authority, and giving them the a tremendous amount of power to enforce their views.
There's always the Emo Philips method.
posted by flabdablet at 3:33 AM on October 13 [1 favorite]
There's always the Emo Philips method.
posted by flabdablet at 3:33 AM on October 13 [1 favorite]
If he's in good standing with the church, he's donating 10% of his pre-tax income to people who want a cisheteropatriarchal white supremacist theocracy.
I think the relevant word there is "If".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:29 PM on October 14
I think the relevant word there is "If".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:29 PM on October 14
Even if he isn't tithing, willingly associating with the cisheteropatriarchal white supremacists is not just "not aligning with me completely" on its own either. Some things - and thus some groups - are beyond the pale, and it does nobody but the bigots any favours to pretend that bigotry is just another anodyne difference of opinion.
posted by Dysk at 11:59 PM on October 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 11:59 PM on October 14 [1 favorite]
I mean, i understand that some folks want to make some kind of distinction between the idea of a religion and the idea of a hate group. But there is a continuum between, say, the Order of Nine Angles on one hand and the Religious Society of Friends on the other, so mostly what folks seem to be quibbling about is whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is closer to the former or the latter.
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:52 PM on October 15 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 12:52 PM on October 15 [1 favorite]
Jimmy Kimmel's monologue last night mentioned the 600,000 Mormons in Nevada and Arizona as crucial to defeating Trump, and a quick search confirms the sentiment among major newspapers. Some takeaways:
For years, many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported Mr. Trump, often reluctantly. They were turned off by his vulgarity, his disdain for women and his attacks on immigrants, anathema to the church’s pro-immigrant, pro-refugee message.
More than anything else, what differentiates Latter-day Saints from white evangelical Protestants is their commitment to cultural pluralism and political tolerance. Sixty-one percent of Latter-day Saints say that America’s increasing racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for society, a view shared by only 36 percent of white evangelical Protestants. Nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of church members believe the US should encourage more diversity as it fosters tolerance and understanding. Most white evangelicals reject this view.
posted by Brian B. at 12:40 PM on October 18 [3 favorites]
For years, many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported Mr. Trump, often reluctantly. They were turned off by his vulgarity, his disdain for women and his attacks on immigrants, anathema to the church’s pro-immigrant, pro-refugee message.
More than anything else, what differentiates Latter-day Saints from white evangelical Protestants is their commitment to cultural pluralism and political tolerance. Sixty-one percent of Latter-day Saints say that America’s increasing racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing for society, a view shared by only 36 percent of white evangelical Protestants. Nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of church members believe the US should encourage more diversity as it fosters tolerance and understanding. Most white evangelicals reject this view.
posted by Brian B. at 12:40 PM on October 18 [3 favorites]
lmao, ask non-Mormons living in Utah how "pluralistic" Mormons are. Utah is basically a theocracy.
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:29 PM on October 18 [1 favorite]
posted by adrienneleigh at 1:29 PM on October 18 [1 favorite]
« Older A Spooky Season List of Lists, plus a List | Electric vehicles have fed the national power grid... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's a position I can easily see being agreed with by my other favourite Biblical scholar, Francesca Stavrakopoulou.
posted by flabdablet at 9:54 PM on October 3 [2 favorites]