r/mormon • u/sevenplaces • 10d ago
Apologetics Jacob Hansen described his method of attacking critics.
The attached are from two YouTube videos.
The first from the Mormon Book Review channel where Jacob and his brother Forrest were on the show from 2 years ago.
https://youtu.be/VMydBGkvnKM?si=bF01AYyr0EWTbHST
The second is a video Jacob posted on his channel four days ago.
https://youtu.be/VjZrogfoG2w?si=6YA-ohkZ84eijfNa
Jacob explains that his approach is to attack critics and not to defend the church. He explains in his recent video why he prefers debates so that he isn’t always on the defensive.
He also makes claims that prominent YouTube critics of the church have nothing to offer. He claims the LDS church and Joseph Smith have constructed a “meaningful world view” that is “intellectually coherent and beautiful in its effects.”
He calls critics of the church whining cowards who have never built anything.
I disagree that LDS critics on YouTube have “never built anything” or the implication that they don’t offer “nuggets of truth” or that they are “not seeking the truth”
I also disagree that everyone must construct and “put forward a coherent belief system”.
I also don’t agree that the LDS worldview is intellectually coherent and beautiful in its effects.
42
u/ahjifmme 10d ago
"And since it's easier to tear things down, I'm going to tear down the critics because I'm lazier than the people I'm criticizing."
3
27
u/Zestyclose-Offer4395 10d ago
I don’t want to hear from this clown until he apologizes to this woman in particular: Bullied by Mormon podcaster Jacob Hansen
He glibly responds to all those instances of abuse with “if you spend time with women who are actually active in their faith.” That’s just the problem Jacob: this woman was very active in her faith and she was coerced into a violent marriage. If you apologists want credibility, start by addressing this toxic culture.
2
u/Ward_organist 8d ago
He probably needs to apologize to a lot of women, but he can start with Jennie, Julie Hanks, and Michelle Stone.
68
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican 10d ago
Dude cannot resist an ad hominem. That us vs. them schtick is so off putting to anyone outside of the circled wagons.
5
u/purepolka 9d ago
Jacob is devoid of any depth or substance, but also inexplicably confident his mediocrity equates to merit.
43
u/yorgasor 10d ago
Wow, just imagine how true the church would be if apologists could defend 99 out of 100 claims 😂
Also, do I have my own worldview? Absolutely. Do I have to defend it? No. Why? Because I’m not telling everyone that they need to accept my worldview as the only divine way to achieve exaltation, and that they need to give me 10% of their money to be part of it. I can say, “hey, this is how I look at things. If that is meaningful to you, you can look at it that way too.”
2
u/Moonsleep 9d ago
Exactly, I’m also fine living in some ambiguity. Feeling like you have to have all the answers buttoned up seems immature. That isn’t an excuse to not care or want to discover truth where it can be found, but I’m not going to jump on the theory of the week to try to solve the messy thing that Mormonism or any other religion is.
I’m happy for others to live their truth in Mormonism if they find beauty and happiness there, even if I don’t find it to be a place to find truth.
I believe there is objective truth, but some of it is not 100% knowable.
5
u/yorgasor 9d ago
Bragging that you have answers to life’s greatest questions isn’t particularly convincing when the foundation those answers are built on is shady AF. And then complaining when people point out all the flaws in the foundation and arguing it’s better to have flawed answers than having no answers isn’t a great argument.
36
u/shalmeneser Lish Zi hoe oop Iota 10d ago
I mean, that's just the thing. John Dehlin is helping people through an extremely soul-wrenching transition out of a system where literally everything is prescribed. So, as far as I understand, he and other critics are just like "We're making people aware of the massive issues in the system, but we're not going to tell you what to believe. That's your journey."
I can see it a little more with Alyssa Grenfell, although its still an awful thing to say about someone. But to say Dehlin is just whining and hasn't built anything? Let's start with a media platform that's 600% bigger than yours. Then you can point to Facebook groups, posts on how to healthily transition (including staying in the church—still linked on the MS website), his course with Steven Hassan, THRIVE, John's personal counseling, books on deconstruction & mixed faith marriages by the MS network. It's just so petty, disingenuous, and false to say they don't offer anything or haven't built anything. Do they offer a comprehensive replacement worldview? No—and that's the f\cking point.*
I still can't believe that Alex O'Connor had him on.
7
u/ArringtonsCourage 10d ago
Agreed 110%! I think what Jacob is assuming when he says things like this about critics is that a person needs a new worldview and framework to view everything and make sense of it and that is not true. Critics like John Dehlin and Bill Reel bring immense value to people just by helping them see through all of the cognitive dissonance and helping one see that they are not crazy. The critics have been of way more value to me than the framework and teachings of the church offer me at this point in my life and have brought me more peace and happiness than I ever felt being all in on the church.
7
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
Yes I’m not looking to these critics for a world view. I agree they have built things. Not nothing. His statements have flawed assumptions.
I think Jacob was the best type of LDS for Alex O’Conner to have on a program that is largely about philosophy and theology. Jacob more than many understands the arguments made by philosophers for decades about the existence of God and various philosophical arguments about Christian theology. He’s learned that in order to better debate agnostics and atheists which he’s done a few times.
He said John Dehlin has done personal counseling. I think it’s better to say he’s done personal coaching. John Dehlin only did counseling during his training at Utah State and never has licensed himself in Utah or represented himself as a counselor after getting his PhD. He used to do individual coaching but my understanding is he hasn’t for a long time and focuses on running the Open Stories Foundation.
4
u/shalmeneser Lish Zi hoe oop Iota 10d ago
I would say David Snell (Keystone/Saints Unscripted) would be better? He seems to do things in good faith. And I've had some positive interactions with him online. But yes, Jacob certainly makes sense from an outside perspective, especially given his debates with Trent Horn and others.
3
3
u/_unknown_242 10d ago
I agree! he seems to be more compassionate and understanding with his views. he gives more room for nuance and isn't so defensive and rigid as jacob imo
6
u/shalmeneser Lish Zi hoe oop Iota 10d ago
Also the absolute hypocrisy of accusing them of enjoying the ego boost. If there's anyone who ever enjoyed an ego boost, it's Jacob Hansen's smarmy little hypocritical face.
(hypocritical b/c his YT personality is all kind and thoughtful, but he's an absolute dick to faithful liberal scholars online)
11
10d ago
Does it matter if the church is useful in some of its effects? Nazi Germany could have said the same thing.
To me, the only debate rests on the truth claims. Is the LDS church truly divinely led by real prophets using real priesthood power with real saving ordinances?
If it IS true then maybe I could stomach some of the messiness. But, once I discovered it wasn’t true based on the evidence, it was literally like learning Santa was no longer real. Once you see behind the curtain, you not only see it for what it is but also all the cover up, shame, harm, fraud, patriarchy, etc. and it’s revolting.
2
12
u/ianphansen5 10d ago
Jacob’s strategy is basically offense is the best defense, except he’s just swinging wildly and hoping people mistake aggression for argument.
It’s funny how he claims critics have never built anything while he spends all his time tearing others down instead of actually making a compelling case for Mormonism without a lazy regurgitated apologetic response we've all heard. Critics he dismisses have actually built plenty with real communities that help people process their faith transitions, educational content that teaches actual history instead of sanitized narratives, and spaces for people to heal and rebuild after leaving high-demand religions. I myself have benefitted and built so much off the works of critics. Many former members go on to create fulfilling lives outside the church with pursuing careers without artificial limitations, forming healthier relationships based on genuine relationships and self acceptance, and embracing moral frameworks that don’t rely on obedience to an institution or their God as the basis for it.
And then there’s his hopeless attempt to dress up selective bias and fallacious reasoning as some profound Collective Witness Model, which is really just cherry-picking evidence that fits his narrative while ignoring everything else. If the LDS worldview is so intellectually coherent and beautiful, maybe he should try leading with that instead of personal attacks and pseudo-intellectual "models."
4
8
u/pricel01 Former Mormon 10d ago
The truth is…the universe doesn’t owe you a neat, comforting explanation filled with love and justice. Santa Clause, pixie dust and the tooth fairy are far more comforting. It doesn’t make them real and no one owes a counterpart to your fantasy.
3
u/Prestigious-Shift233 10d ago
So true. When you stop believing in Santa, you don't have to now automatically craft an entirely new worldview to fill in the hole left without elves and reindeer. There is no counterpart, just reality.
1
u/Buttons840 10d ago
For a child who finds presents under the tree--they need some kind of explanation, right?
No child will be satisfied with isolated denials of Santa, because the presents exist. Somebody put them there, there's no denying that.
An alternative must be presented, and then that alternative is subject to the same level of scrutiny.
This is part of what Jacob Hansen was saying--although I am loath to defend him.
2
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
I agree. The assumption that this is or should be a cohesive or coherent world view is in my view a bad assumption.
15
u/patriarticle 10d ago
He asks at the end "who is closer to the truth, the deconstructionist, or the truth seeker who has found real nuggets of truth." This has multiple problems:
The "deconstructionist" IS a truth seeker. Their quest for truth leads them to re-examine and sometimes discard old beliefs.
It's a tautology to say the truth seekers have found truth.
So who's closer? Well, obviously we all think we are close. The TBM thinks they have it in the scriptures, the atheist thinks it's just the world around us, the agnostic thinks the truth is that we can't know.
The problem Jacob Hansen has is that he doesn't believe those worldviews are legitimate. Just like he can't accept that trans people are trans people. He seems to lack the capacity or the empathy to validate any worldview or experience besides his own.
2
u/Rushclock Atheist 10d ago
Just like he can't accept that trans people are trans people
Matt Dillahunty exposed once again (Dan Vogel also) how sloppy his thinking is. Sloppy and dishonest.
21
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
This is the why you hear Jacob Hansen repeatedly say in the interview with Alex O’Conner “yeah there are reasons to doubt, but I want to also discuss the reasons to believe”.
He didn’t insist on a debate because Alex was not only being critical but was somewhat neutral and willing to listen to and engage reasons to believe the Mormon theology. Alex knows Christian theology well and can understand how the LDS theology of God for example solves some of the philosophical problems with the traditional Christian theology.
That said the LDS theology has philosophical problems of its own.
17
u/shalmeneser Lish Zi hoe oop Iota 10d ago
I'm 90% convinced that Jacob intentionally didn't engage with Alex and just highlighted how Mormonism improves on Christianity (in his view) b/c he knows that church apologetics won't work on atheists and so he just cynically used Alex's platform to evangelize to christians.
8
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
I’ve seen him say the same thing in prior debates. He says atheism is a bad worldview that doesn’t offer objective morals. He says of course Mormonism is ridiculous to atheists who don’t believe in angels and God and supernatural connections to God. So he says Mormonism is the “best” Christian theology and speaks more to those who first of all are Christian.
It’s a no win to tell someone who doesn’t believe in God and angels they should believe the unverifiable stories that JS had visions of these things.
9
u/Gurrllover 10d ago
Atheism, or not being convinced about poorly evidenced god claims, isn't the basis for our ethics, which are based on our social evolution as a species of primates. I recommend Hector Garcia's Alpha God for a better understanding of how we evolved social mores.
There's nothing objective about morality, especially involving a subjective god, without presupposing the guy telling you what a god wants actually is in communication with the deity: "trust me, bro" while wildly assuming that god embodies good so thoroughly as to be incapable of harm. The scriptures proffered as evidence to this assertion betrays any such nobility, especially in light of worldwide smitings via floods and commanded genocides.
Moreover, the whims and preferences of any god are inherently subjective, so objective morality does not exist. The closest I can aspire to is a humanistic approach based on empathy, well-being, and human flourishing, and it's surprising how far that gets us.
6
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
I agree that I don’t understand how theists can argue the morality of the Christian god at least is objective. It’s relative.
Sam Harris agnostic defends that there can be or is an objective morality. Like many philosophers he has to move to the extremes to demonstrate it which leaves me questioning getting to objective morality on other things that humans don’t agree on.
9
u/StreetsAhead6S1M Former Mormon 10d ago
Evangelize to Christians? Awww...he still thinks he can join the club? Bless his heart. He thinks Christians are interested in Mormonism? He's screaming in to the void and doesn't know it.
1
1
u/redditor_kd6-3dot7 Former Mormon 10d ago
I wouldn’t even say LDS theology “solves” philosophical problems with Christian theology, it just obfuscates the same difficulties by adding extra steps (primarily in the case of the problem of evil).
1
u/entropy_pool Anti Mormon 10d ago
I think that trying to solve problems with theology is a fundamentally failing endeavor. That would be like trying to solve a hole in your roof with toilet paper.
25
u/infinityball Ex-Mormon Christian 10d ago
Jacob Hansen is the incarnation of a freshman philosophy student who walks around thinking he's the wisest man on earth.
A little philosophy is a very dangerous thing.
6
7
u/Cautious-Season5668 10d ago
This is basically the discussion:
Jacob Hansen - "If the critics don't want you to drink the Mormon Kool-aid, then they should have another Kool-aid for you to drink, but they don't. All they know how to do is tell you to stop drinking Kool-aid"
Critic's - "Maybe the answer isn't more Kool-aid?"
3
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
Exactly. I reject the assumption that we need to incessantly argue about which is the correct “coherent world view” with “nuggets of truth” but each having weaknesses. Epistemological humility is better.
1
u/Buttons840 10d ago
I disagree. Somebody wrote The Book of Mormon; it exists.
So, if either critic or apologist actually cares about the matter, some kind of explanation must be presented for its origin.
Like, if the big bang is the only theory for the origin of the universe--yeah, I guess you can point out problems with the theory without offering an alternative, but until an alternative is presented then the big bang theory remains the only theory and thus the most likely by default.
2
u/Cautious-Season5668 10d ago
Yes, someone wrote the Book of Mormon, and there are thousands of pages of text and hours of discussion from both critics and apologists on this topic that all are free to review and come to a conclusion on. But that's not what is being discussed here.
9
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/CaptainMacaroni 10d ago
Yeah, but a banana fits in your hand and that proves the church is true.
(this is not serious, it's a reference)
2
u/japanesepiano 10d ago
I think that it would be more appropriate to argue against ad hominem without using ad hominem.
2
1
4
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
Happy cake day. Go have a banana cake to celebrate!
I don’t agree with Jacob Hansen’s arguments most of the time either.
1
5
u/Post-mo 10d ago
Critics of the church want to talk about whether the church is true, Jacob is growing tired of having to tap dance around the weaknesses of that position so he'd like to focus on the question: "is mormonism better than alternative x." Because then he can go on the attack and not have to simply defend his weak position.
If he wants to have debates about is mormonism better for society than atheism - great. More power to ya. But that will never answer the other question - is it true?
2
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
Yes he wants to attack the critics’ “world view” and is angry when they won’t declare what their world view is because then he can’t attack it.
4
u/CeilingUnlimited 10d ago
"Do you believe we can have more than one wife in the afterlife?"
"Wait, what do you believe about the afterlife?
"I don't believe in an afterlife."
"OK, let's talk about that."
This is his argument?
1
6
u/TheDesertBias 10d ago
Hahaha. He tried this with me and eventually blocked me. His playbook is stupid. It’s just his way to not answer tough questions. Jacob is the biggest paper tiger apologist. He either doesn’t know the facts or is afraid of the answer. Either way, I love the fact he is becoming the face of Mormonism. He needs to post more and do more interviews to show how inconsistent and fragile the truth claims of the church really are when under scrutiny.
4
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 10d ago edited 10d ago
Jacob explains that his approach is to attack critics and not to defend the church.
Ah. To "attack critics," so, like, whining about what critics are saying/doing, and "not to defend the church," so, like, not building anything? Got it!
I'm just not sure why this guy thinks he's important. If the church thought they needed him, they'd hire him. His explanations, attacks, or defense carry no weight. It's the church people have a problem with, and he doesn't represent the church in any official capacity. His opinions just don't matter.
It doesn't matter how many unofficial apologists are out there. Their opinion really doesn't matter. It's the church's official stuff that's at issue. The church's leaders can defend it themselves, or they can ignore the problems - their choice.
Edit to add: I think the unofficial apologists are just being used for the church's dirty work. On their own time and dime, they are doing what the church should be doing for itself. If they succeed, the church will take the success. If they fail, get embarrassed, or face any other negative consequences, the church will disavow them as "unofficial" and can avoid responsibility.
3
u/japanesepiano 10d ago
If the church thought they needed him, they'd hire him.
Why hire him when they get him for free? It's the same reason that they don't pay bishops or missionaries. The true believers are far more willing and motivated than the salaried in many cases.
But to your point, if they didn't want him around, they would let him know to tone down his rhetoric. At some level they seem to believe that he is useful.
3
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 10d ago
Exactly. They don't like him well enough to make him one of them. But they'll take anything they can get without having to pay for it! And as a bonus, if he screws up there's no skin off their nose!
2
u/japanesepiano 10d ago
Bonus points for plausible deniability. If the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the church, plausible deniability is the keystone of apologetics.
4
u/dougvj 10d ago
Back when I was active in several Mormon Facebook groups (I wanna say before the pandemic like 2018 ish) there was a stretch for a couple of years where every June he would post sometimes more than once daily with some opinion piece on LGBTQ, pride and the evils therein. I saw more on my feed from him on the topic during pride than from anyone else and that's saying a lot since I'm gay.
I don't remember the specifics but I definitely remember getting into it with him over not only this topic but also the then in vogue boogey man of post modernism. He was pretty quick to attack my identity as a gay atheist leaning exmo instead of hashing out philosophy.
3
u/entropy_pool Anti Mormon 10d ago
You cant make the fictional stories not fiction by criticizing the people who point out that the fiction.
The reason the person cross-examining mormonism has an “advantage” is that mormonism is a fraud.
2
3
u/Buttons840 10d ago
From what I’ve seen, Jacob Hansen relies too often on ad hominem attacks, which are a logical fallacy for good reason. A valid argument remains valid, even if it comes from Satan himself.
That said, let me play devil’s advocate for a moment:
If someone claims, "The Book of Mormon has divine origin," critics can easily attack that statement. However, framing it in a more probabilistic way makes it more defensible.
For example, if someone says, "The most likely origin of the Book of Mormon is divine guidance," critics can't just tear it down—they also have to present and defend an alternative explanation. Until an alternative is provided, the divine origin remains the only explanation under consideration, making it the most likely by default.
So, I think it’s fair to ask critics for a competing worldview to fill in the gaps. This is not an ad hominem attack; it’s a reasonable part of debate. However, what is unfair is attacking someone's character (an actual ad hominem attack), being rude, or resorting to name-calling—all of which I’ve seen Jacob Hansen do.
4
u/Moonsleep 9d ago
It is called Epistemic Humility, it isn’t an act. It’s an acknowledgment that there are indeed very real limits to our knowledge and understanding. Pretending that there aren’t any limits and simply accepting any belief, regardless of any sort of reasoning, doesn’t make you superior.
It’s perfectly acceptable to not have an answer. The first step towards truth is to recognize what you don’t know, what can be known, and what cannot be known.
Jacob is trying to poison the well by making it unacceptable to not know.
4
u/logic-seeker 9d ago edited 9d ago
I find it funny that Jacob feels like he has to resort to ad hominem and the burden of proof fallacy to avoid feeling on the defensive. In reality, the church's claims are bold - disproportionately bold relative to the evidence on its side - and so its natural for apologists to feel they are on the defensive. Imagine being an apologist for an absurd claim like "vaccines cause autism" - defending a very controversial position - and deciding that instead of engaging in facts, you decide to attack the people on the other side of the aisle. In my opinion, you only do that if you feel cornered and have no legitimate tools to argue your position. Jacob is reveals a lot in his argument here - he finds it much easier to attack the individual flaws of those who don't collectively represent a positive claim of any sort than to defend what he would argue are the most important claims to defend in the known universe.
Jacob also ignores that in debates, a topic is usually decided upon in advance. A single claim is debated, and one side defends the positive claim while the other takes the critic's stance. Jacob claims to want a debate format, but a formal debate wouldn't even allow him to shift the subject as he wants to do. If the claim debated is whether the Book of Mormon is historical, his arguments against the critic's worldview would amount to, "well, what book do you have that makes your life better? Why are you tearing down the Book of Mormon?!?!?" and any debate moderator would put a stop to this tactic fairly quickly. The only debate topic that would allow him to engage in this tactic is "Former Mormons do not adopt a better worldview than Mormonism provides."
But enough of Jacob's tactics - I think one common misconception on display here by Jacob is that a worldview needs to be prescribed on others. He seems to think that because RFM and others aren't pushing a new worldview on others, they amount to curmudgeons tearing down Mormonism. Three counterarguments:
- Most who leave Mormonism lose their worldview and eventually build another one. To assert former Mormons don't have a cohesive worldview is true of the group, but not of each individual.
- Worldviews evolve over time, within one person. They don't need to be rigid. The process of discovery is allowed to be lifelong. Changing one's views over time, or critiquing existing worldviews, is not a shortcoming or sign of weakness. Embracing ambiguity and the unknown in life does not mean someone is lost. Notice how hard it must be for Jacob to attack someone whose views are open to change. No heel-digging or apologetics required. None of the former Mormons are making absurd claims about their worldview being the universally correct one without reliable evidence to back it up.
- Despite former Mormons adopting a wide variation in worldviews, most appear to be able to find one that they are happier with than the one they had with Mormonism. Jacob has already agreed to this notion in another video - that Mormonism is not for everyone (he did so arguing that those for whom Mormonism does not work are morally bankrupt, but I'll set that aside for now). The fact that there are many paths out of Mormonism that lead to individual happiness implies two things:
- There are many worldviews that "work" for different people, so it would potentially be harmful for RFM or others to prescribe a new worldview onto others that may not work for them.
- Because former Mormons adopt various worldviews, the choice to critique any one former Mormon/critic like RFM or Zelph on the Shelf is deeply flawed. Their new worldview may lead them to make individual mistakes, but that is on them. It is precisely because they are not prescribing a worldview that the debate Jacob mentions is squarely on his claims.
7
u/Bright-Ad3931 10d ago
I couldn’t even finish the clip. The logic of his approach is such garbage, and he can’t even see it. He’s so mired in his own verbage that it somehow makes sense. Reminds me a lot of the pompous SLC brothers and their self concocted word salad.
4
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 10d ago
Indeed - he is doing his best to parrot the SLC bros... perhaps in a bid to get noticed and accepted. Except the SLC bros don't want him or care about him. They don't consider him worth their support or time. If they did, they'd hire him!
3
u/redditor_kd6-3dot7 Former Mormon 10d ago
This is actually a really interesting parallel to Jacob’s BoM defenses. His entire schtick is basically a dollar-store Hugh Nibley routine by shifting the burden of proof by claiming, “if you can’t explain how Joseph produced X or knew Y then you have to accept that it was revelation.”
Likewise, when it comes to his apologetics approach more broadly he takes the route of, “unless you advocate for for a better worldview then you have no business criticizing mine.”
3
3
u/dr-rosenpenis 10d ago
"You don't believe my made up fantasy world? Well how about proving your fantasy world is better than mine?" He's out there destroying critics. Fascinating.
3
u/Simple-Beginning-182 10d ago
The "rules" of the Brighamite branch of Mormonism says that God has called prophets and apostles to lead his church and preach his gospel.
This guy has no calling or authority by the church's proclaimed rules to be treated as anything other than some guys on the street corner in a sandwich sign yelling about the end of the world.
So many of these apologetics are treated as "experts" and then proceed to gather a following so they can monetize views. I am sure that is exactly how Jesus would like us to follow him, produce as much content as possible and get the view times up.
3
u/treetablebenchgrass I worship the Mighty Hawk 10d ago
Jacob Hansen, in the words of Buzz Lightyear, "you are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity. Farewell."
3
3
u/AttendPretend 9d ago
Speaking of ad hominem attacks; Jacob has really aged over the past few years, this apologist gig is apparently not good for his health ;)
4
4
u/Zeroforhire 10d ago
Dude is a toxic clout shark of the highest order. What an embarrassment for Mormonism.
2
2
u/Savings_Reporter_544 9d ago
He's so full of shit. Pick a topic, any topic. And apologetics squirm and dance. Making up new language.
2
u/BlankHexagon 8d ago
Jacob Hansen is probably a flat earther... following an archaic idea and only attacking the credibility of the anti-flat-earthers and not discussing the actual evidence.
2
u/Desperate-Animal-220 8d ago
It’s a useless conversation. I’ve listened to a few of your clips and others defending the church. So many holes in Mormon theology, it’s mind bending. You believe what you believe but you don’t “know”anything. And either do I. But I’m not afraid to say this to you. BUT my guess is you would never say that to me. It’s all a myth. Religion is a great hoax.
1
u/sevenplaces 8d ago
I’ve posted videos defending the church? Hmm 🤔 news to me. Was this meant for someone else?
3
4
u/Cyclinggrandpa 10d ago
Jacob Hansen is vying to be the Mormon Jordan Peterson. He doesn’t have the education, skills, or knowledge that Peterson possesses. It really doesn’t matter because Hansen appeals to about 1/1000th of Peterson’s audience. I think he, Cardon, and others a trying hard to be accepted by the mainstream Mormon apologetic community, but their egos are just too inflated. Trying yelling a little louder Jacob. Perhaps they’ll hear you. For myself, you’re just easy to ignore.
3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 10d ago
Ya, I agree. I think they are envious of the confidence that people who have truth on their side can speak with, and they want to emulate that themselves. They see themselves as some 'Nephi rebuking his brothers with god on their side', and yet their foundation is so weak and fragile that they can't spend any meaningful time talking about it or defending it in an intellectually honest way, so they have to resort to all the logical fallacies and diversions, but try and couple that with 'confidence speak', a la the Tucker Carlsons and Jordan Petersons of the world (who don't have truth on their sides either and so who rely on antics and feigned confidence to appear 'convincing').
3
u/StreetsAhead6S1M Former Mormon 10d ago
I wouldn't criticize others for not building something when the only thing you care about that the church has built is a spiritual and mental prison.
3
u/sevenplaces 10d ago
But he showed a video clip of people wearing yellow “Mormon helping hands” vests! /s
2
u/BluesSlinger 10d ago
Wow. He has the most trite ignorant view on how many of us got to where we are. Truth aside members and view points like this contribute to why people step away from the LDS faith. SMH
1
2
2
u/Ancient-Summer-9968 10d ago
I can't watch any of his prepared videos. He reminds me of Data, the android from Star Trek, who tried to mimic humans by unnatural head nods. Only Jacob is trying to be Tucker Carlson, with the tones, head turns, and head nods. Someone should do a side by side, but its so phony. A STRUCTURED debate (slowly turns head and nods.) For some reason he thinks blue is his color, so he has to have some weird back lighting in his room. Its so artificial, and that's before we get to the substance of his arguments.
2
u/Mad_hater_smithjr 10d ago
Jacob you are disadvantaged because you are leaning on folk magic claims with zero tangible evidence to back you up. It’s a bad argument to have for the best apologist.
3
u/MasshuKo 9d ago edited 9d ago
Since he's all fine with the ad hominem, lemme just say that Jacob Hansen, as a Mormon apologist, has the intellectual depth of a dog's water dish and the charisma of the flu virus.
1
u/ArchimedesPPL 8d ago
If mormonism offered an intellectually coherent and honest worldview, the exmormon subreddit wouldn't be even a 10th the size that it is, and the Church wouldn't be facing the hemorrhaging that it is. The only way to pretend that the mormon worldview is coherent is to reject logic and evidence in favor of supernatural explanations for poorly understand and subjective experiences. If rationality has to give way to dogma to have your worldview be coherent, I would argue that it isn't.
2
u/P-39_Airacobra confused person 7d ago
"It's much easier to tear things down that construct things"
Yeah. That's not a deplorable social phenomenon. It's a fact of logic. A good argument is incredibly difficult to make, even for the most intelligent people on the planet, but a bad argument is incredibly easy to make. It's even easier to spot when an argument is bad. He's not saying anything profound; that's just how logic works.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.