Hello Dan Mcclellan, The data is overwhelming that Joseph Smith had multiple supernatural and legitimate religious experiences. -- anyone with a brain

No, the data are not remotely overwhelming, you’re just asserting your dogma as if it were based on data for rhetorical effect.

I am not LDS but don’t understand why many see him going in Joe Rogan as some victory. He seems to not believe anything they do.

Please show us this overwhelming data lol.

The historical record does not support the claim that the data is “overwhelming” for Joseph Smith having multiple verified supernatural experiences. The core claims rest almost entirely on his own later accounts (and those of close associates), with no independent contemporary corroboration of the supernatural elements, significant inconsistencies across his tellings, and strong natural explanations available from the cultural context of the early 19th

Kirk, I relaly like your content. But this is strange. At the beginning of this video doesn't he say he does not reject that Joseph Smith was a prophet but explins that he understands that there is no data to back it? Why is that cut off at the beginning of the video?

Not a Catholic ⬆️

hey @grok , did Stephen Webb, a catholic theologian, think Joseph Smith had genuine spiritual experiences? Also explain to @stackerco that life doesn't function in absolutes (ie., JS as a fraud vs infallible full blown prophet), and certainly not when applied to Joseph Smith

Yes, Catholic theologian Stephen Webb regarded Joseph Smith's spiritual experiences as genuine. He described the Book of Mormon as an apparently miraculous text and Smith as a remarkable prophetic figure whose insights on divine materiality enriched Christian thought. Life rarely fits neat binaries. Joseph Smith need not be either pure fraud or infallible prophet. Historical figures often blend sincere experiences, human limits, and evolving ideas. Nuance leaves room for authentic spiritual encounters without demanding perfection.

@stackerco hey @grok tell us more about what Stephen Webb thought of the book of mormon, Joseph Smith, and more.

Webb called the Book of Mormon an apparently miraculous text, dull precisely because it centers entirely on Jesus and expands his biblical portrait without damaging it. He saw Joseph Smith as a remarkable figure of rare spiritual originality with a deeply Catholic mind who reinvented sacramental Christianity. Webb prized Smith's insight that spirit is refined matter and God is embodied, viewing it as a corrective to Platonic dualism that enriches thought on the incarnation and a physical heaven. Mormonism, he said, is obsessed with Christ.

So why aren’t you Mormon? Your posts don’t make consistent sense. If you think JS was having legit encounters with Jesus then you should probably join his church. So what is it? Do you think they were truly supernatural but maybe he was talking to demons? What?

He's got some kind of psychological theory that tells him which "data" (lol) are allowable within the theory. Also known as circular reasoning. Sad!

You’re claiming data for things that cannot be materially proven because it lacks empirical verifiable evidence. To “know” those things you have to prayerfully rely on Joseph and his colleagues’ witnesses. That is faith in subjective phenomenological events.

Jesus performed many miracles not supported by scientific data. I don't appreciate how Dan McClellan comes across. But, I could see an active member who doesn't accept the scientific fact of the scriptures, but consider it miraculous, only possible with God.

Demon possessed people in the Bible certainly did experience supernatural and legitimate religious experiences, so on that we agree. It also explains exactly what the false prophet, Joseph Smith, was involved with when he created the fiction known as the Book of Mormon.

This is mostly off-topic, but the "intelligentsia" who grammatically use "data" in the plural, rather than as a singular term for a body of information, irritate me. We don't say, "The population are..." We don't even say, "My agenda are full" (despite agenda/agendum and data/datum sharing the same Latin grammatical structures), because that's dumb. We're not speaking Latin, and it is long past time that we naturalized "data" into English the same way we have "agenda." It's "The data DOES not support...," Dan. Keep saying it in this correct way until it feels good in your mouth.

The data do not support Dan McClellan is an active member of the church. The data do support he is a power-tripping liberal who feeds off humiliating people for their religious beliefs. IMO.

What data?

Let’s see this “overwhelming” data

He chose the Church as a faith home and he is being respectful in discussing his views. I don’t think it’s a problem.

I hold sure evidence of Joseph Smith’s divinely authorized prophetic ministry.

How is he not exd yet? Like what are we waiting for?

The problem with such critics like this - those outside the church, and rarely those inside, is that too many other people also shared in many miraculous experiences. Even worse for the critics, miracles continue to happen. I really do not get where Dan is coming from or how he came to his conclusion.

Why is he still a member?

I would say he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he's not even bothering with the disguise. He's just an open wolf.

Bro fumbled, let’s have some grace

You’re so obviously a Mormon

That's grating to listen to. "The data do not support..." is he a toddler? Does* 🙄

Dan has repeatedly avoided do much content on Mormonism

Correction Dan: “The data DOES not support…” saying “the data do not report” makes you sound like an idiot. And what data is it that you’re pulling from? Please, share your sources.

Men in error apostatize without repentance... May God help him see his error.

Dan: I don’t listen to life affirming truths of eternity from jokers who wear super hero t-shirts. The guy probably knows the marvel cannon better than Christian cannon.

You should learn about what “data” means Because you clearly don’t know

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB!

I agree. How is the data not supporting Joseph's claims? Let's look at your data Dan.

Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

It blows my mind that so many “smart” people don’t understand the relationship between evidence (i.e., data) and proof.

Hello Kirk. I don’t enjoy Dan either but I don’t think he deserves anymore criticism than you yourself does. You aren’t even a member but criticize the church and its members consistently. You are a hypocrite and the flip side of the same coin in my eyes. I’m just a lurker of LdS twitter as a lapsed but believing member who would like to return someday, so I’ve seen plenty of your posts. Quit playing engagement games with faithful members when you have no intention of actually rejoining. You don’t and you know it. When and if you do I’ll celebrate it wholeheartedly but I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon. You just want to engagement farming the decent and trusting hearts of members I love.

Wasn’t Joseph Smith arrested for fraud twice before his miraculous, inconsistent telling of God’s word?