- Stephen C on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: ““So you really need to retract what you wrote regarding him being on record of not believing the LDS truth claims.” Nah: “The data support the conclusion Smith was a false prophet. Why would I have an argument against a claim I agree with?” https://x.com/maklelan/status/1979924790497648857 “I have consistently and repeatedly stated that the data do not support the supernatural truth class of the LDS church including the historicity or ancient origin of the Book of Mormon.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=779wB_fGXUE&t=270s IIRC There was another bit where he specifically says the evidence doesn’t support the idea that the Church is led by prophecy, but my quick Chat-GPT search of his statements didn’t find it, so maybe it was a false memory. No academic article will try to argue for the thesis that “Joseph Smith was a false prophet.” That’s not what academics do; so he can’t say that and then retreat to “I’m just reflecting what the literature says,” that’s clearly his personal interpretation of “the data” since that’s nowhere in the academic literature. And that’s fine! I’m not trying to poison the well with members or get him in trouble with anybody. He doesn’t do the “as a Mormon, I think XYZ” thing, so he has the right to privacy about his personal religious beliefs. I think it’s great that our tradition is big enough to include people who are skeptical of its truth claims. (And the fact that a non-believer won the God medal of appearing on Rogan before any of the believing influencers speaks to our inability to break out our inside-baseball bubbles when the gospel should be more capacious, but that’s another issue, although Jacob Hansen appearing on Alex O’Connor’s podcast is maybe a solid silver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_E4K_6O1LY). The fact is that he’s honestly answering a question that’s posed to him. If he were to make his channel specifically about trying to show the data debunks the BoM or whatever then yes, that might be disciplinary counsel territory, but I don’t think anybody would really have a problem with his skepticism when he only incidentally touches on his Mormonism specifically when pressed on it (often by conservative Christians who suspect he’s just playing the long game to undermine traditional Christian beliefs for his Mormon puppet masters in Salt Lake). Not a Cougar: I was about to his submit when your post went up. If your thing is literally data>dogma, and you say data=X, then sure, maybe in that one case “dogma” (personal religious beliefs) might be >data. He might be a young earth creationist who thinks God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test us, and he’s only speaking about the primacy of data in a hypothetical, theoretical sense, but come on. ” Oct 8, 19:17
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “From Dan’s Twitter account today: “Because folks are asking: You will not hear about my personal religious beliefs on any social media, only my scholarship. When I say, ‘The data indicate that [claim X] is [true/false],” I am *NOT* saying “It is my personal religious belief that [claim X] is [true/false].’ “” Oct 8, 19:03
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “People just can’t quite grasp Dan’s explanation that his public statements are either from his own academic work or are the academic consensus of the data and not necessarily his own private faith based beliefs. The only thing we know of his private testimony is that he hasn’t expressed it publicly and that he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So you really need to retract what you wrote regarding him being on record of not believing the LDS truth claims because its factually incorrect.” Oct 8, 17:43
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Hmm. I was rather hoping Brad Wilcox could go on there, I am sure he would have some interesting answers as to why Black people were not able to have the Priesthood for so long.” Oct 8, 09:35
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, if that’s the case, then I’d urge you to be a little clearer that you have made a conclusion regarding his beliefs based on his public scholarship rather than giving the incorrect impression that Dan has publicly stated he is a nonbeliever. If belief is a choice, as Elder Neil L. Andersen taught in his talk “Faith Is Not by Chance, but by Choice,” from the October 2015 General Conference, then, for all we know, Dan chooses to believe in spite of his and other’s scholarship . Isn’t that exactly what we’re asked to do when we’re told by multiple General Authorities to doubt our doubts? I’d be hesitant to make conclusions about someone else’s personal beliefs, especially when they are on record multiple times saying that they don’t talk about their personal beliefs in public. Also, thanks again for highlighting the interview.” Oct 8, 08:23
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Sure, I guess? But if you say “the data contradicts LDS truth claims” I’m fine taking that meaning that he doesn’t believe the truth claims. I don’t think that’s much of a stretch. I take his reticence to be mostly about what he *does* believe, but it’s not that hard to parse out what he *does not* believe on his channel on LDS and other religious topics. ” Oct 8, 07:39
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, first, thank you for highlighting the interview. I listened to it in its entirety, and Dan was his usual thoughtful and thought-provoking self. I also agree that he gently but firmly pushed back on Joe’s instinctual desire to veer toward “extreme minority” (i.e., weird, unprovable, and extremely unlikely) explanations for ancient history. That said, I’d push back on your statement that “[Dan] is also on the record as not believing in LDS truth claims.” He’s certainly on record as stating that his scholarship does not support the Church’s truth claims (a quick search pulled a quote that has him saying his scholarship “almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas”), but that’s a fundamentally different statement from whether or not he is on record as personally not believing them. In fact, he’s been very clear about the fact that he does not speak about his personal beliefs in public fora, and he reiterated that position towards the end of this interview when Joe asked him about how his scholarship impacts his personal beliefs. If you have a public quote from Dan on his personal lack of belief in LDS truth claims, I’ll be happy to withdraw my objection to your statement above.” Oct 8, 07:34
- on Attention Spans and Spiritual Diets in the 21st Century: “If nothing else, 25-minute lessons are a better fit for the average current attention span. You even get a quick break in the middle to stand up and take a short walk.” Oct 7, 12:26
- on Attention Spans and Spiritual Diets in the 21st Century: “Two days ago someone posted on X: “We created gyms because modern day work no longer required physical activity. Without exercise, our muscles atrophy. I predict we’ll need gyms for our brains too, once AI starts doing our knowledge work.” On Bluesky, there were a few responses: “the tech industry is about to invent books,” one said. “Hear me out … We call it ‘The University,’” said another.” Oct 6, 20:27
- on Attention Spans and Spiritual Diets in the 21st Century: “I was born in 1966, and so was seven in 1973. Now and then I would take home from the school library some thick yet age-appropriate story book from before 1950. The book may have been no older than Harry Potter is now, but it was from the before-times when seven year olds did not watch re-runs of Bonanza, Gilligan’s Island, and Star Trek in the afternoon. I did not know about the divide then, but as an adult it made sense of something like The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins, a book I remember as just going on and on and on as if the child reading it had nothing else to do that hour. So, I guess I should have sympathy with today’s children and youth and the point made above.” Oct 6, 13:19
