- Restricted Listening on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Hilarious to me that all the commentary is about Dan, and not the other guy behind the microphone. Surprised the other guy even came up on this blog.” Oct 9, 12:55
- on Attention Spans and Spiritual Diets in the 21st Century: “Many things in the world today are too long, way too long. For example, most 3-hr movies, John Dehlin interviews, many books, TV series, etc. They get repetitive. Mormon church services are boring. General Conference is boring. Some try to blame this on members for their lack of concentration. But life is too short to waste time on unproductive activities. Meetings lack creativity. Redundant and repetitive messages. Recycled material. MoTab music is frequently dreary. Instead of bemoaning short attention spans, we need to readily accept that it is reality. That increasingly members expect more with less beating around the bush. The development of new technologies is accelerating. We need to evolve with it. New technologies give us incredible opportunities. We need to use them productively. I would like to hear Jackie DeShannon’s “Think of your Fellow Man” in church. While the song dates from the 60’s, hearing an upbeat song in church with a positive message would be innovative.” Oct 9, 12:30
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “You do good work. So does McClellan. Sometimes you thrown down this very specific vibe, the term that comes to mind is “Nibley Negativity.” This nerfs the impact of your voice for a lot of people. I think your overall effectiveness and reach would improve without it. Keep doing good work.” Oct 9, 12:24
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Even if we stipulate that Dan is a faithful, believing church member, it’s still a crummy move to put the weight of one’s discipline on the side of doubt in public, and then refuse to explain anywhere how he gets from that point to personal devotion. It takes work to explain how data fit with belief, and there may be professional costs for doing so, but it’s a crummy deal to leave that work and those costs up to other people. Being witnesses at all times and in all things and in all places is an obligation on the same level as mourning with those who mourn and comforting those in need of comfort, and it doesn’t make an exception for podcasts and social media.” Oct 9, 12:23
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, I’m going to join with the crowd here: it’s presumptuous and inappropriate for you to opine on whether someone else believes in the Church’s truth-claims. It runs deeply against the love for neighbor we’re commanded to have, and deeply against the mandate that we have to not judge AND to not judge unrighteously. I don’t know the details of your testimony, I don’t know the details of Dan’s, and you don’t know the details of mine. If you, or Dan, or I, feel like sharing those details, we certainly can. But uninformed assertions, based on our interpretation of what people say about other topics, is certainly not Christlike.” Oct 9, 12:11
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Israel, that’s an interesting perspective on Dan’s work, and I’d like to learn more. Can you link to any examples of his Youtube videos, Twitter exchanges, or podcast episodes where he refuses to accept or engage with objective data that conflicts with or contradicts his position?” Oct 9, 10:59
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Dan McLellan says a lot with his channel’s name when he uses the word “Data”. That is inconsistent with his interpretation of the available data. Several times during his arguments, what he presents is his opinion mixed with some data. It is an informed opinion, but we must be honest and acknowledge that it is still an opinion. In general, his views reflect the progressive wing of academia. If you contradict him with data, he does not accept that perhaps his opinion is not the truth, or that the “data” is partial and that traditional or future points of view are still valid. His tendency is to present his opinion as dogma, as final knowledge—which is exactly what he claims to want to avoid. I know that sells, but my piece of advice for him is to be more open and less contentious.” Oct 9, 09:47
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, the quote in your last response omitted a very important word: “The data does not support the **[supernatural]** truth claims of the LDS Church.” I’ve heard similar statements from numerous faithful LDS apologists. The argument generally goes something like this: There is no scientific evidence establishing the supernatural claims of the Church, which is precisely why those claims must ultimately be accepted on faith. In the end, you’re still drawing a conclusion about his personal beliefs based on his public statements, despite his explicitly denying that those statements represent his personal views. Your conclusion may be correct, but it may also be wrong. Perhaps the more reasonable conclusion is simply that his statements weren’t as carefully qualified as they could have been. But you seem to be arguing that, even if your interpretation is wrong, you’re nevertheless justified in publicly attributing beliefs to him that he explicitly denies holding. Ironically, there’s something rather biblical about that kind of reasoning.” Oct 9, 08:48
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “Stephen, one last thing and then I’ll leave this alone. Dan posted the following on his Twitter account yesterday: “There is no belief to which I hold that I would not be perfectly happy to publicly criticize. In fact, I’ve done it many, many times.”” Oct 9, 08:25
- on Latter-day Saint on Joe Rogan: “That’s not what he said though. “Archaeology does not provide positive support for Book of Mormon claims” is a much more measured, and frankly responsible, statement than the sweeping “the data does not support the truth claims of the LDS Church.” “Joseph Smith was a false prophet” is not, “he occasionally made prophecies that were hit and miss.” And yes, apologetics can be “data” unless you’re not open-minded enough to accept any apologetics argument a prior. Sorry, but again if your whole thing across hundreds of movies is about how data is better than dogma, and how people should be less wedded to the latter than the former, then it’s a reasonable supposition that saying “the data contradict X” means you’re saying that’s probably not true, even if you technically add a disclaimer; that’s a not a get out of jail free card to the obvious implications. I respect his decision to not go public with his positive religious beliefs, but only somebody who’s really trying to use some special pleading and torturing “the data” of his statements would think that he’s a believer. Also “maybe you really do think it’s great that there are active, attending Latter-day Saints who are vocal about the historical problems with the Church’s truth claims.” He’s not that vocal though. As noted, he occasionally responds on the issue when pressed, so we’re not talking about somebody who challenges truth claims in Sunday School or has a website devoted to debunking the Church, so sure, that’s within the window of it being great that they feel they can be a part of it. ” Oct 9, 07:24
