- Stephen C on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, June 2026: “Of course! This month was a gold mine…” Jul 1, 11:32
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, June 2026: “Thanks, again, Stephen. I always look forward to these round-ups.” Jul 1, 08:53
- on Simplifying in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/28?: “I was grateful for the music I heard. We sang a new song and I didn’t sing along, I just listened and felt a peaceful spirit. Music and the Spoken Word had some of my fav songs that the choir sings and gives me a worship reverence and renewed gratitude for music and for those who share that talent. One of the speakers was a return missionary. He testified of how beautifully simple the gospel is. There are a lot of older members that still dont get this concept. It was nice to see he did at his age.” Jun 29, 15:38
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Michael Heiser claims that the elohim in Psalm 82 are the “sons of God.” And I think it’s interesting that when we read how that psalm is quoted in John 10 the element that causes one to be divine is the reception of the word. Now there’s a lot that could be said about what that might mean–even so, I think the long and short of it is–there is a way in which mortal beings may become “divinized.” And that’s by becoming sanctified and then being admitted into the divine council–as was Isaiah. There’s been no shortage of crazy ideas about who the sons of God were in early writings. The writings of Enoch portray them as fallen angels–you know the story. Even so, I’m of the opinion that what has caused so much confusion about their identity is a hermeneutical problem more than anything else. And it is the restoration scriptures that help us to understand how to interpret references to the “sons of God.”” Jun 28, 22:32
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Certainly Paul was quoting Isaiah. But in Isaiah the quote is part of a laundry list of good things that the Lord will do for his people, and the meaning is unclear. Paul uses it as part of a discourse on the resurrection, where the image of a god of death who swallows up everything being swallowed up by Christ’s victory is directly relevant. It’s possible that he was just quoting Isaiah without having any idea what Isaiah was referring to. Or maybe he was familiar with the image of death swallowing things without knowing its origin. But the relevance of the reference makes me think it’s more likely he understood it–chronologically he was a lot closer to actual worshippers of Mot than to us. That’s not to say he believed Mot actually existed, but it was part of his cultural vocabulary the way Greek and Roman gods are part of ours. Even if it was just a quote, I find it fascinating that Canaanite religion shows up in the New Testament at all.” Jun 28, 22:01
- on Simplifying in Church: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/28?: “Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (6/28): During the Sacrament I pondered on the idea that the sacrament was originally a meal, something that had been reduced down to a mere symbol. I think in many ways reducing the meal in this way makes it more spiritual because we’re less distracted by things like how good the elements of the meal taste, whether there is enough quantity for how hungry we are, etc. Of course, we likely lost something in the process, but on the whole I think reducing the meal to a symbol is for the best. One of the speakers today talked about the story of the lost 116 pages and suggested that God knew ahead of time that this would happen, and had made contingencies so that everything fits His plan. I must admit that I’m a little dubious about this view. I’m not sure it works philosophically. Is God really a ‘master of contingencies’? Doesn’t this reduce God somehow? The speaker also told the story of Joseph Smith being tarred and feathered in Kirtland. It occurred to me that this is kind of like the nursery rhyme about sticks and stones and words not hurting us —— tar is like the sticks and stones because removing it is so painful and awful, while the feathers are like words, since they are mostly there to make fun of the victim. Maybe that isn’t terribly important, but the feathers part always seemed kind of silly, and thinking about it this way helps In class someone made the point that we learn in this life step by step — and my mind quickly added, ‘yes, but you can’t count this kind of steps on your smart watch.’ ” Jun 28, 21:05
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “RLD, are you suggesting Paul was knowingly drawing on Canaanite religion in writing his epistle or was he simply quoting Isaiah? Those are two very different things, and I think the latter is far, far more likely than the former. And if it’s the latter, why should Paul get any credit for unknowingly and thus unintentionally making a reference to Canaanite religion?” Jun 28, 10:30
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Alex Arnold on his channel, Moroni’s Standard, provides a masterful weaving of Psalm 82, the Divine Council, and First Temple theology.” Jun 27, 21:35
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “I meant to give an example: the Canaanite god of death, Mot, is described as having an insatiable appetite. Death swallows up everything. So when Paul, following Isaiah, says that thanks to Christ, “Death is swallowed up in victory,” he’s drawing on and subverting imagery from Canaanite religion.” Jun 27, 16:27
- on The Heavenly Lawsuit: Dan McClellan on the Original Meaning of Psalm 82: “Stephen, to your point about El and Yaweh, I guess so, kinda, sorta, not really? If we were to “Venn diagram” your connection, we have two ovals with one representing our understanding of God the Father and Jesus Christ and the other is the general consensus of historians on El amd Yaweh. The overlap is a few square inches where we have a father-son deity relationship and in the remaining area of the El-Yahweh oval you could park a couple of metaphorical 747s’ worth of historical odds and ends like, for example, “the rest of the heavenly council,” an a historical Exodus, and the monolatry of Israel for Yahweh being a late development in the kingdom of Judah rather than a foundational characteristic of a the predecessor united Kingdom under David.” Jun 27, 16:24
