This Viral Ex-Mormon Interview Spreads INSANE Misinformation

[Stargazer]

Thoughtful Faith has responded to a video interviewing a former LDS member and former bishop who lost his faith. The original video appeared on a channel with over 6 million subscribers, so it would have some impact. 

When I saw the video, I thought of @ttribe, who had some issues with Jacob Hansen, who narrates this answer to that video, wherein he posted:

Quote

Jacob Hansen has never had an original thought of substance in his apologetic endeavors. Expecting him to solve the mystery of the Book of Abraham is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Here's the video:

 

[webbles]

The interviewee mentions hearing that those abused may be guilty of a sin.  Hansen then says "Is that really what the church teaches?"  And then he shows a video from Elder Scott which says the opposite.  But that feels a bit like a misdirect.  Elder Scott, in the exact same talk that Hansen is showing, does say what the interviewee said.  The talk is at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Elder Scott does say:

Quote

At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse.

He also says:

Quote

I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.

 

This bugs me.  Instead of pointing out that Elder Scott did say that and also said the later, he makes it seem like no one said that and it was never taught.  Yes, if you look at the holistic teachings, the idea that the abused is guilty of something is not correct teaching.  But the way Hansen said it, it makes it seem like the interviewee is lying or misremembering, but he isn't.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

The interviewee mentions hearing that those abused may be guilty of a sin.  Hansen then says "Is that really what the church teaches?"  And then he shows a video from Elder Scott which says the opposite.  But that feels a bit like a misdirect.  Elder Scott, in the exact same talk that Hansen is showing, does say what the interviewee said.  The talk is at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Elder Scott does say:

He also says:

 

This bugs me.  Instead of pointing out that Elder Scott did say that and also said the later, he makes it seem like no one said that and it was never taught.  Yes, if you look at the holistic teachings, the idea that the abused is guilty of something is not correct teaching.  But the way Hansen said it, it makes it seem like the interviewee is lying or misremembering, but he isn't.

You are also leaving out the full text:

Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure...

**Though I wish Elder Scott was more specific, I don't believe he was incorrect**

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You are also leaving out the full text:

Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure...

**Though I wish Elder Scott was more specific, I don't believe he was incorrect**

I'm not sure what that misses.  Elder Scott (as Hansen shows and as I quoted) does say that "you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty".  The problem is that Hansen doesn't actually discuss that.  The way he cuts the videos together, it makes it seem like the interviewee misremembered.

I also am frustrated (in general) that video form like this have no sourcing.  The fact that the interviewee could make a claim and with no documentation on where that claim is from and then Hansen can respond with a video clip but no documentation on where that video clip came from is frustrating.  Sure, I found it, but it would be so much nicer if there were links.  I wish we went away from video stuff and back to text.  So much easier to deal with.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm not sure what that misses

You made in seem like Elder Scott was implying that every abuse victim shared some responsibility for what happened- which is clearly not what he was saying.

[webbles]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You made in seem like Elder Scott was implying that every abuse victim shared some responsibility for what happened- which is clearly not what he was saying.

I'm sorry it looked like I implied that.  But luckily, I linked to his full text so you could easily read it.  Unlike what Hansen did where he made it look like the interviewee misremembered or made it up.

That's my point.  You felt like I misquoted or gave a bad impression of Elder Scott but with the link, you could easily verify it.  The way Hansen cut the video and with no sourcing, I was extremely suspect that Hansen was ignoring something.  So I went off on a search.  And then found that the interviewee was correct, that Elder Scott did say something that an impressionable child could have misunderstood.  And then I found that Hansen must have known that since he showed Elder Scott from the exact same talk, just later on.  And that makes me have a hard time listening to Hansen because I can't trust him.  Because I'm constantly having to prove/disprove what he says.  And, by the way, I'd be doing the same thing if I had been listening to just the interviewee.  But Hansen, since he already did the research, could have showed it and pointed out how Elder Scott did say something that could have been misinterpreted but that wasn't what Elder Scott actually meant.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm sorry it looked like I implied that. 

It did not look like you implied that.  I read your post several times trying to find something that looked like you implied that and found you did not.  I only found evidence showing it was some victims (the word "may" and not "every".) 

7 hours ago, webbles said:

But luckily, I linked to his full text so you could easily read it.  Unlike what Hansen did where he made it look like the interviewee misremembered or made it up.

That's my point.  You felt like I misquoted or gave a bad impression of Elder Scott but with the link, you could easily verify it.  The way Hansen cut the video and with no sourcing, I was extremely suspect that Hansen was ignoring something.  So I went off on a search.  And then found that the interviewee was correct, that Elder Scott did say something that an impressionable child could have misunderstood.  And then I found that Hansen must have known that since he showed Elder Scott from the exact same talk, just later on.  And that makes me have a hard time listening to Hansen because I can't trust him.  Because I'm constantly having to prove/disprove what he says.  And, by the way, I'd be doing the same thing if I had been listening to just the interviewee.  But Hansen, since he already did the research, could have showed it and pointed out how Elder Scott did say something that could have been misinterpreted but that wasn't what Elder Scott actually meant.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

wish we went away from video stuff and back to text.  So much easier to deal with.

Ain’t going to happen. Too much easier in the ways most people want it to be.  Very attention getting and holding attention. Much easier to get distracted from text. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You made in seem like Elder Scott was implying that every abuse victim shared some responsibility for what happened- which is clearly not what he was saying.

How? Please quote the exact part of the post that does this because I am missing it if it exists as is apparently Rain…and I tend to focus a great deal on anything suggesting abuse victims share responsibility for their abuse, but I also can miss it at times.  It is quite an important topic to me, having young relatives and friends that were abused.  I hate that on top of everything else they often experience shame and blame themselves.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[Devobah]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Ain’t going to happen. Too much easier in the ways most people want it to be.  Very attention getting and holding attention. Much easier to get distracted from text. 

Yeah. Books and texts aren’t enough anymore. Videos are more digestible. Even teachers are starting to move closer to using videos as part of their curriculum or homework. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 12/8/2025 at 6:59 PM, webbles said:

The interviewee mentions hearing that those abused may be guilty of a sin.  Hansen then says "Is that really what the church teaches?"  And then he shows a video from Elder Scott which says the opposite.  But that feels a bit like a misdirect.  Elder Scott, in the exact same talk that Hansen is showing, does say what the interviewee said.  The talk is at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

Elder Scott does say:

He also says:

 

This bugs me.  Instead of pointing out that Elder Scott did say that and also said the later, he makes it seem like no one said that and it was never taught.  Yes, if you look at the holistic teachings, the idea that the abused is guilty of something is not correct teaching.  But the way Hansen said it, it makes it seem like the interviewee is lying or misremembering, but he isn't.

Especially since the interviewee was relating his experience as a sexually abused child. Teachings like Elder Scott's and those say found in miracle of forgiveness (better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle) aren't erased by talks like Hollands.

 

Not directed at @webbles, but at those who find Hansen worth defending:

And Hansen's apologetics are laughably weak. Saying others teach a gospel of shame and guilt too is a pretty weak defence. And the false dichotomies! What's the alternative to teaching shame and guilt about children masturbating? Hansen says the only alternative is "We don't need to bridle our impulses in any way. @8:19"  This is what you find convincing? Really? You seriously need to get out more.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And Hansen's apologetics are laughably weak. Saying others teach a gospel of shame and guilt too is a pretty weak defence. And the false dichotomies! What's the alternative to teaching shame and guilt about children masturbating? Hansen says the only alternative is "We don't need to bridle our impulses in any way. @8:19"  This is what you find convincing? Really? You seriously need to get out more.

The false dichotomy. You either follow the divine laws on sex or you end up having nightly orgies. There is no middle ground. This goes all the way back to the Bible.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The false dichotomy. You either follow the divine laws on sex or you end up having nightly orgies. There is no middle ground. This goes all the way back to the Bible.

This is what I think when I hear “we teach the ideals” (ideal of good, ideal of evil, no middling) 😛 

Edited December 11, 2025 by Calm