- Israel Gonzalez on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Dan McLellan says a lot with his channel’s name when he uses the word “Data”. That is inconsistent with his interpretation of the available data. Several times during his arguments, what he presents is his opinion mixed with some data. It is an informed opinion, but we must be honest and acknowledge that it is still an opinion. In general, his views reflect the progressive wing of academia. If you contradict him with data, he does not accept that perhaps his opinion is not the truth, or that the “data” is partial and that traditional or future points of view are still valid. His tendency is to present his opinion as dogma, as final knowledge—which is exactly what he claims to want to avoid. I know that sells, but my piece of advice for him is to be more open and less contentious.” Oct 9, 09:47
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, the quote in your last response omitted a very important word: “The data does not support the **[supernatural]** truth claims of the LDS Church.” I’ve heard similar statements from numerous faithful LDS apologists. The argument generally goes something like this: There is no scientific evidence establishing the supernatural claims of the Church, which is precisely why those claims must ultimately be accepted on faith. In the end, you’re still drawing a conclusion about his personal beliefs based on his public statements, despite his explicitly denying that those statements represent his personal views. Your conclusion may be correct, but it may also be wrong. Perhaps the more reasonable conclusion is simply that his statements weren’t as carefully qualified as they could have been. But you seem to be arguing that, even if your interpretation is wrong, you’re nevertheless justified in publicly attributing beliefs to him that he explicitly denies holding. Ironically, there’s something rather biblical about that kind of reasoning.” Oct 9, 08:48
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, one last thing and then I’ll leave this alone. Dan posted the following on his Twitter account yesterday: “There is no belief to which I hold that I would not be perfectly happy to publicly criticize. In fact, I’ve done it many, many times.”” Oct 9, 08:25
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “That’s not what he said though. “Archaeology does not provide positive support for Book of Mormon claims” is a much more measured, and frankly responsible, statement than the sweeping “the data does not support the truth claims of the LDS Church.” “Joseph Smith was a false prophet” is not, “he occasionally made prophecies that were hit and miss.” And yes, apologetics can be “data” unless you’re not open-minded enough to accept any apologetics argument a prior. Sorry, but again if your whole thing across hundreds of movies is about how data is better than dogma, and how people should be less wedded to the latter than the former, then it’s a reasonable supposition that saying “the data contradict X” means you’re saying that’s probably not true, even if you technically add a disclaimer; that’s a not a get out of jail free card to the obvious implications. I respect his decision to not go public with his positive religious beliefs, but only somebody who’s really trying to use some special pleading and torturing “the data” of his statements would think that he’s a believer. Also “maybe you really do think it’s great that there are active, attending Latter-day Saints who are vocal about the historical problems with the Church’s truth claims.” He’s not that vocal though. As noted, he occasionally responds on the issue when pressed, so we’re not talking about somebody who challenges truth claims in Sunday School or has a website devoted to debunking the Church, so sure, that’s within the window of it being great that they feel they can be a part of it. ” Oct 9, 07:24
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, you say that “it’s great that our tradition is big enough to include people who are skeptical of its truth claims,” and maybe you really do think it’s great that there are active, attending Latter-day Saints who are vocal about the historical problems with the Church’s truth claims, but come on. As to Dan’s two statements you provided above, I’d prefer that Dan explain himself, but, short of that, I read the first statement as taking the “prophet” title literally and looking at actual prophecies rather than what we Latter-day Saints generally think of when we call someone a prophet (we sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, but we certainly don’t require them to prophesy as a requirement of that calling). It’s certainly no secret that Joseph Smith’s prophecies were hit and miss. And, yes, I understand that there are apologetic arguments that try to explain and contextualize the misses, but apologetics are not facts and data. As to the second statement, he’s simply repeating the majority position as to whether the archaeology of the New World supports Book of Mormon historicity (spoiler, it doesn’t support it). That’s not a controversial position. I can and do believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but I fully admit that the vast majority of archaeologists do not accept the Book of Mormon’s description of the New World as a historical account. I don’t expect my bishop or stake president to try to grab my temple recommend simply because I admit that.” Oct 9, 06:59
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: ““So you really need to retract what you wrote regarding him being on record of not believing the LDS truth claims.” Nah: “The data support the conclusion Smith was a false prophet. Why would I have an argument against a claim I agree with?” https://x.com/maklelan/status/1979924790497648857 “I have consistently and repeatedly stated that the data do not support the supernatural truth class of the LDS church including the historicity or ancient origin of the Book of Mormon.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=779wB_fGXUE&t=270s IIRC There was another bit where he specifically says the evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Church is led by prophecy, but my quick Chat-GPT search of his statements didn’t find it, so maybe it was a false memory. No academic article will try to argue for the thesis that “Joseph Smith was a false prophet.” That’s not what academics do; so he can’t say that and then retreat to “I’m just reflecting what the literature says,” that’s clearly his personal interpretation of “the data” since that’s nowhere in the academic literature. And that’s fine! I’m not trying to poison the well with members or get him in trouble with anybody. He doesn’t do the “as a Mormon, I think XYZ” thing, so he has the right to privacy about his personal religious beliefs. I think it’s great that our tradition is big enough to include people who are skeptical of its truth claims. (And the fact that a non-believer won the God medal of appearing on Rogan before any of the believing influencers speaks to our inability to break out our inside-baseball bubbles when the gospel should be more capacious, but that’s another issue, although Jacob Hansen appearing on Alex O’Connor’s podcast is maybe a solid silver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_E4K_6O1LY). The fact is that he’s honestly answering a question that’s posed to him. If he were to make his channel specifically about trying to show the data debunks the BoM or whatever then yes, that might be disciplinary counsel territory, but I don’t think anybody would really have a problem with his skepticism when he only incidentally touches on his Mormonism specifically when pressed on it (often by conservative Christians who suspect he’s just playing the long game to undermine traditional Christian beliefs for his Mormon puppet masters in Salt Lake). Not a Cougar: I was about to his submit when your post went up. If your thing is literally data>dogma, and you say data=X, then sure, maybe in that one case “dogma” (personal religious beliefs) might be >data. He might be a young earth creationist who thinks God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test us, and he’s only speaking about the primacy of data in a hypothetical, theoretical sense, but come on. ” Oct 8, 19:17
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “From Dan’s Twitter account today: “Because folks are asking: You will not hear about my personal religious beliefs on any social media, only my scholarship. When I say, ‘The data indicate that [claim X] is [true/false],” I am *NOT* saying “It is my personal religious belief that [claim X] is [true/false].’ “” Oct 8, 19:03
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “People just can’t quite grasp Dan’s explanation that his public statements are either from his own academic work or are the academic consensus of the data and not necessarily his own private faith based beliefs. The only thing we know of his private testimony is that he hasn’t expressed it publicly and that he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So you really need to retract what you wrote regarding him being on record of not believing the LDS truth claims because its factually incorrect.” Oct 8, 17:43
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Hmm. I was rather hoping Brad Wilcox could go on there, I am sure he would have some interesting answers as to why Black people were not able to have the Priesthood for so long.” Oct 8, 09:35
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, if that’s the case, then I’d urge you to be a little clearer that you have made a conclusion regarding his beliefs based on his public scholarship rather than giving the incorrect impression that Dan has publicly stated he is a nonbeliever. If belief is a choice, as Elder Neil L. Andersen taught in his talk “Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice,” from the October 2015 General Conference, then, for all we know, Dan chooses to believe in spite of his and other’s scholarship . Isn’t that exactly what we’re asked to do when we’re told by multiple General Authorities to doubt our doubts? I’d be hesitant to make conclusions about someone else’s personal beliefs, especially when they are on record multiple times saying that they don’t talk about their personal beliefs in public. Also, thanks again for highlighting the interview.” Oct 8, 08:23
