The Book of Abraham: NEW Research That Proves Critics Wrong

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So, how about this?

- The people who like him stop saying he is the best debater to ever live in the history of Mormonism.

- The people who don't like him stop saying that he "engage(s) in some of the worst bad faith polemics on social media (especially Twitter/X). He thrives off rage bait and he fancies himself a gatekeeper for the Church..."

How about instead of being an ‘enlightened centrist’ that intuitively assumes the truth must be smack dab in the middle we find out what is actually correct?

The idea that both sides of any debate are psychopathic partisans and can be safely dismissed on that basis is toxic. Instead we should be dismissing people on the basis of them being liars and charlatans and similar things of that nature after we determine they are wrong.

Appealing to “both sides equally bad” arguments is often a confession that the person isn’t very secure about where they stand. They have a vague sense that their case is shoddy so it is easiest to make everyone into villains to even the playing field. However, this is just more psychology and figuring out why someone is wrong is best done after you determine that they are actually wrong. Otherwise you slip into Bulverism.

[JVW]

I don't watch Jacob Hansen but I am glad that he's out there on the internet having debates and making videos and stuff. The world needs more LDS influencers, for better or for worse. Christianity and Islam have a billion of them and our church has a lot of catching up to do.

[ZealouslyStriving]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How about instead of being an ‘enlightened centrist’ that intuitively assumes the truth must be smack dab in the middle we find out what is actually correct?

The idea that both sides of any debate are psychopathic partisans and can be safely dismissed on that basis is toxic. Instead we should be dismissing people on the basis of them being liars and charlatans and similar things of that nature after we determine they are wrong.

Appealing to “both sides equally bad” arguments is often a confession that the person isn’t very secure about where they stand. They have a vague sense that their case is shoddy so it is easiest to make everyone into villains to even the playing field. However, this is just more psychology and figuring out why someone is wrong is best done after you determine that they are actually wrong. Otherwise you slip into Bulverism.

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

[BlueDreams]

44 minutes ago, JVW said:

I don't watch Jacob Hansen but I am glad that he's out there on the internet having debates and making videos and stuff. The world needs more LDS influencers, for better or for worse. Christianity and Islam have a billion of them and our church has a lot of catching up to do.

FWIW I fall somewhere in the middle of this. I used to watch some of Hanson. I liked several of the debates. But I did get turned off when the debates and dialogue focused on social issues. In there I can certainly see the gate keeping orientation that ttribe is point out. I don't mind and generally assume many hold different social views in the church body. I have a problem with said socio-politcal views are assumed to be more right or gospel aligned than others. And these were often that. There were a number that felt super srawman-esque. Particularly the ones where the argument he was against was formatted by him and then the only guests available were ones that agreed with him. Wasn't impressed at all by that

 I was willing to ignore one video....but at the time he strung up several in a row. And I don't enjoy watching things to perpetually be annoyed at it. 

 

He's allowed his space on the Internet. But there's others I prefer for a more measured approach. I may disagree with a couple points here and there, but I'm not annoyed or irritated by it. Hanson had a way that annoyed. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So, how about this?

- The people who like him stop saying he is the best debater to ever live in the history of Mormonism.

- The people who don't like him stop saying that he "engage(s) in some of the worst bad faith polemics on social media (especially Twitter/X). He thrives off rage bait and he fancies himself a gatekeeper for the Church..."

It's an opinion based on my personal observations, man. Why you and Stargazer are so obsessed with my criticisms, or with defending Hansen for some reason, is completely beyond me. I don't know him personally, so I can't say I "don't like him," but I don't think he's very good at what he does and I don't think he has a firm grasp of many of the issues he tries to address. I'm sure you'll live through the tragedy of me criticizing his actions.

[JVW]

50 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

FWIW I fall somewhere in the middle of this. I used to watch some of Hanson. I liked several of the debates. But I did get turned off when the debates and dialogue focused on social issues. In there I can certainly see the gate keeping orientation that ttribe is point out. I don't mind and generally assume many hold different social views in the church body. I have a problem with said socio-politcal views are assumed to be more right or gospel aligned than others. And these were often that. There were a number that felt super srawman-esque. Particularly the ones where the argument he was against was formatted by him and then the only guests available were ones that agreed with him. Wasn't impressed at all by that

 I was willing to ignore one video....but at the time he strung up several in a row. And I don't enjoy watching things to perpetually be annoyed at it. 

 

He's allowed his space on the Internet. But there's others I prefer for a more measured approach. I may disagree with a couple points here and there, but I'm not annoyed or irritated by it. Hanson had a way that annoyed. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

I agree with you. I have the same issue with Hanson and his politics. I also have that issue with Dan McClellan and his politics. When he starts every video with "I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" and then starts making a social commentary I feel like he's out of his lane. But, even with that being said, I'm glad he's around sharing his opinion about what he cares about. I'm glad our church can allow for such diverse viewpoints.

As I like to say when I don't like someone, "They aren't my type of person, but there's someone for everyone. I'll let someone else be a part of their life and stay safely away." I imagine Hanson and McClellan both have helped at least one person each find their way onto the membership roles of the church, and that's a net positive for the church's mission regardless of what kind of people these new members are based on who brought them in. Cheers!

[ttribe]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

He was serious? That just seems so unlikely for anyone halfway educated in their actual behaviour, which was not socialist once the surface was scratched and it mostly didn’t need that even.  I don’t suppose you have a link (this might*** be a case where I will only believe it if I see it, it is so unreasonable)

I have not watched much of him and was wondering if you were over reacting…not much given your past posting, but you can be emphatic these days.  

***No, it’s definitely a case I need to see to believe, I just don’t see any reasonable reason for him to go there.

 

[Calm]

Technically he may not have been claiming they were socialist, just denying they were conservatives/right wing unless I missed something.  A lot depends on how one defines right wing.

Since there is an argument that Nazis are socialists coupled with the argument they weren’t right wing out there, it’s understandable why you interpret his remark that way, but I think you are wrong that this goes to that extreme.

Possibly may be implying by default they were left wing or centrist, but it is also possible he sees them as not categorizable.  Nationalism isn’t inherently right or left wing, even if more often associated with the right.  Neither is racism.

So this doesn’t seem to me that it supports him saying Nazis were socialists.

While I do think the party’s platform is important to the discussion, the conversation shouldn’t end there like it feels like he is doing though because it’s even more important than the platform itself what points they implemented on the platform and which they didn’t or did so superficially when they had the opportunity.  Of course it’s X, so it’s less conversation at times and more ‘soundbite’.

I appealed to AI for a summary of the economic points in the platform amd if they followed through…

Quote

 

11–18: Economic measures

Included things like:

Abolishing unearned income

Nationalizing trusts

Profit-sharing in big industries

Expanding old-age welfare

Land reform

Breaking up department stores in favor of small shops

➡️ Mostly NO:

They did not nationalize industry, did not end profits, and did not break up department stores.

➡️ Partly YES:

They did expand state control, war planning, and welfare selectively, but almost always to benefit the regime and big business rather than workers.

 

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Technically he may not have been claiming they were socialist, just denying they were conservatives/right wing.  A lot depends on how one defines right wing.

Possibly may be implying by default they were left wing or centrist, but it is also possible he sees them as not categorizable.  Nationalism isn’t inherently right or left wing, even if more often associated with the right.  Neither is racism.

So this doesn’t seem to me that it supports him saying Nazis were socialists.

While I do think the party’s platform is important to the discussion, the conversation shouldn’t end there like it feels like he is doing because it’s even more important than the platform itself what points they implemented on the platform and which they didn’t or did so superficially when they had the opportunity.

This started with his response to Mike Lee stating that Nazis were "socialist" and agreeing with him - 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And this is why I can't take you seriously.

I would be glad to hear a rebuttal on where I am wrong.

Also you can follow through on your declarations that you are going to ignore me any time you like. Not sure what is holding you back. Maybe I am just too entertaining? Boredom? The palpable sexual tension between us? A need to seethe in rage at someone? Satan keeps tempting you to? Reading my posts is so boring it helps you sleep?

Whatever need it is that I am meeting, you are welcome.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

This started with his response to Mike Lee stating that Nazis were "socialist" and agreeing with him - 

 

Is posting one word per line some kind of Nazi identifier thing?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Is posting one word per line some kind of Nazi identifier thing?

Seems to just be an idiotic Mike Lee thing.

[The Nehor]

Just now, ttribe said:

Seems to just be an idiotic Mike Lee thing.

Potato, potahto.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This started with his response to Mike Lee stating that Nazis were "socialist" and agreeing with him - 

 

Ignore everything I just said about him then.  

Though agree throwing out Nazis on conservatives is just as wrong.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Seems to just be an idiotic Mike Lee thing.

It

Is

Very 

Annoying…

Unless it’s an acrostic 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I agree with you. I have the same issue with Hanson and his politics. I also have that issue with Dan McClellan and his politics. When he starts every video with "I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" and then starts making a social commentary I feel like he's out of his lane. But, even with that being said, I'm glad he's around sharing his opinion about what he cares about. I'm glad our church can allow for such diverse viewpoints.

As I like to say when I don't like someone, "They aren't my type of person, but there's someone for everyone. I'll let someone else be a part of their life and stay safely away." I imagine Hanson and McClellan both have helped at least one person each find their way onto the membership roles of the church, and that's a net positive for the church's mission regardless of what kind of people these new members are based on who brought them in. Cheers!

Do generally agree. The difference between Hanson and McClellan for me is a) actual credentials and b) I've learned things from McClellan. Hanson was more entertaining debate than educational for me. FWIW I also slowed on videos with mclellan because they were getting repetitive and I wasn't gaining much in terms of new info from him. But he still had a very singular lense/narrative for looking at the bible in particular. Useful and informative, but still limited and singular. Once I gleaned what I felt that I could from it, I haven't been super interested in listening to much more and I'm full on my roster of podcasts...so I don't get to that very often either (read as it's been months at least). I prefer variety in views over a uniform perspective anyways. 

 

I think the net positive is when both can be recognized as members of the church and realizing that there's a broad umbrella of practitioners within the faith. But I'm not a fan when a side encourages, even subtly that this is the more true way to be a latter-day saint. I know there are views and experiences that are skeptical of people like me "truly" believing or "really" representing the faith. And I'm not a fan of that. I think that can inadvertently become a net drag as it promotes a view that alienates people who will not see or engage with faith in a more standard member fashion. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited December 9, 2025 by BlueDreams

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Do generally agree. The difference between Hanson and McClellan for me is a) actual credentials and b) I've learned things from McClellan. Hanson was more entertaining debate than educational for me. FWIW I also slowed on videos with mclellan because they were getting repetitive and I wasn't gaining much in terms of new info from him. But he still had a very singular lense/narrative for looking at the bible in particular. Useful and informative, but still limited and singular. Once I gleaned what I felt that I could from it, I haven't been super interested in listening to much more and I'm full on my roster of podcasts...so I don't get to that very often either (read as it's been months at least). I prefer variety in views over a uniform perspective anyways. 

 

I think the net positive is when both can be recognized as members of the church and realizing that there's a broad umbrella of practitioners within the faith. But I'm not a fan when a side encourages, even subtly that this is the more true way to be a latter-day saint. I know there are views and experiences that are skeptical of people like me "truly" believing or "really" representing the faith. And I'm not a fan of that. I think that can inadvertently become a net drag as it promotes a view that alienates people who will not see or engage with faith in a more standard member fashion. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Jacob has attacked Dan in the past, FYI -https://x.com/search?q=from%3AThoughtfulSaint Dan&src=typed_query&f=top

Edited December 9, 2025 by ttribe

[BlueDreams]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Jacob has attacked Dan in the past, FYI -https://x.com/search?q=from%3AThoughtfulSaint Dan&src=typed_query&f=top

Pretty sure I was either aware or am confusing him attacking dan with another guy he's gone after in the past. Either way...not surprised. 

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Pretty sure I was either aware or am confusing him attacking dan with another guy he's gone after in the past. Either way...not surprised. 

It's as fine an example of his gatekeeping efforts as exists.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

It's as fine an example of his gatekeeping efforts as exists.

I don't disagree with you on this. Just said it differently. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Jacob has attacked Dan in the past, FYI -https://x.com/search?q=from%3AThoughtfulSaint Dan&src=typed_query&f=top

Dan McClellan ticks off just about everybody.