As a fellow Brit, I’ve watched Alex O’Connor’s videos for many years and have often thought the same thing. Almost all of his issues with religion are resolved through the restoration. I’d be ecstatic if you were able to arrange a conversation with him. I think he would find our theology extremely compelling.
We still don't have answers on the slavery question though and he could easily bring up equally hard questions about our church too but many of his questions are moot against our church so its always fun to compare their answers to ours.
I don’t entirely agree with your point on slavery. We have a far more expansive and nuanced view of what scripture is. We don’t claim the bible to be inerrant, and so we aren’t forced to justify aspects of it that contradict revealed teachings from living oracles of God. There are definitely other questions that would be difficult to answer, but from a purely logical perspective our theology resolves so many issues that other Christians cannot effectively address (to put it mildly).
@@logankearl8115the answer to the question of slavery within the Bible is that people engage in evil all the time. The Old Testament books were written by those people. God allowing slavery is their justification of which I’m not going or have to defend.
@elijiahburgess5506 the thing is alex attacks that statement by showing there are direct commands from God in leviticus on how to enslave people. He wasn't merely allowing it but seems to condone it. So it's just not going to be satisfactory.
@@benparker8381agreed our answers may skirt a little farther but it leaves it unanswered because how much of the Bible is wrong? Is it just the part in leviticus that talks about it or can there be more wrong? How do we know what to trust other than a prophet's interpretation which i don't think will come out about it at least not soon. So we have to leave the answer pending but at least it can be answered eventually.
Alex O’Connor reminds me of myself. I was raised Catholic and became an atheist in my high school years. After letting go of the pain that came from the traumatic loss of faith, I started to realize that Christianity and the Bible were actually very valuable. Funny enough, one of my friends who is a Jehovah’s Witness by technicality, helped me to realize a more pragmatic approach to the Bible. I was also debating if I should go back to the Catholic Church or join something else. I came across some Latter-day Saints when I moved and after a series of events, I joined the Church. I could definitely see with Alex, at the very least, a further understanding of Latter-day Saint theology that helps to solve many issues within Christianity in a way that’s logically consistent and intellectually honest. I hope you guys can get together to talk, Jacob.
I’m a Latter-Day Saint, and I really like Alex O’Connor. I respect healthy skepticism. He seems to make conclusions about free will and determinism I don’t necessarily agree with. Overall, he seems very smart and fair. I haven’t heard him talk about Latter-Day Saint theology much, and I’ve wondered what he would think about it if he studied our source material.
I think Alex may have some interesting questions about our Theology, and most certainly the very same critiques he has of the Bible for our own history.
I agree. I doubt he converts, but I’d be curious to see him analyze the Book of Mormon. I think the faith propositions of the Book of Mormon are very strong compared to even the cosmological arguments or the teleological arguments. It’s maybe not perfectly comparable to those because those arguments are more abstract. But in a way, I think the Book of Mormon is more difficult to disprove if somebody actually puts in the time to understand it academically. It’s easy to disprove if you don’t understand it, but I think Alex would do more than the generic analysis you see guys like Trent Horn do. Not to be rude, but I think Alex is quite a bit smarter than Trent.
I like Alex but I have to be a little blunt. I don't believe that he would give it that time. So many creators I respect revert to criticisms because they come from "unbiased secular scholars". People who examine our faith are unwilling to read from our scholars no matter how qualified because they're "Mormon scholars, and Mormons are just like Muslims, or some other group I don't like, therefore I have to stick to the unbiased Secular scholars etc"
I don’t know if I’ve seen Alex lazily appeal to authority very often. He’s a decent authority himself and I think he has a degree or emphasis in theology. I have respected Alex because he is usually smart enough to acknowledge when he doesn’t know something. I think he is generally keen to acknowledge secular bias or other biases. Would he put in the time? I think he’s smart enough to realize to recognize it’s a unique theology, and I think Jacob was wise to compare our population to Judaism. I’ll give Alex the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise
@@natedawg2020 You know, I am doubtful that O'Connor would spend the time talking about the Latter Day Saint doctrine, not because of biases, but because the Latter Day Saint doctrine is much harder to intellectually defend then the christan doctrine. The Christian faith has a lot of strong things going for it, and while I don't believe, I can reasonably see why someone might, whether it be the strong correlations between early manuscripts of the bible, the incredible amount of cross references in the text itself, or the fact that the bible has become the most influential peice of literature in western civilization. Because these are strong claims, there is merit in tackling them. Additionally, christanity has the added benifit of some level of vagueness, where the belief systems are not well enough defined for someone to easily cut at them. I might take a swipe at a catholic's talking point, but it might not be have the same effect on a protestant, because they might have an entirely diffrent belief. The issue for me, and I imagine many others, is that the lds church does not seem to have these strengths. The lds church's beliefs are clearly defined by the prophet that is currently alive. I say clearly defined, but it is really more clearly redefined. The beliefs that polygamy is essential for salvation, that black people are descendants of Cain (or that black people rebelled against God in the primordial realm) , and that some sins (like adultery) are so great that they can only be forgiven through killing the sinner in a process Brigham Young called blood Atonement. Ignoring the large moral issues there, are these beliefs true? The modern church says no, but the early church says yes. Additionally, how does this speak to the reliability of prophets? If they all speak for God, did God change his mind, or did he willingly deceive them? Ignoring that, the real weakness that the lds church suffers from is its holy text, the book of mormon. It was supposedly translated off of golden plates that Joseph Smith found in the woods. He then translated them, which brought us what we now know as the book of mormon. The first issue arises in the translation of the plates. Joseph Smith translated the plates not by deciphering the symbols of the plates, but by looking at a rock called a seer stone, which he would place into a hat, and it would tell him what the plates say. This wouldn't be too much of an issue, if he hadn't done this already. Years before, Joseph was convicted of fraud (If I remember this correctly) for pretending to be a treasure seeker. He would take this same stone, put it in a hat, and it would supposedly help him find native American treasure. He never found any. He was brought to court because of this, and was found guilty, but the judge let him off because he was too young. This was years before he ever met God, or found golden plates. The other issues with the translation are not with the book of mormon, but the other things which he translated: the book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates. The book of Abraham was supposedly translated off of an Egyptian scroll. We still have partial copies of this scroll, and upon translating it ourselves, we find that the book of Abraham is such a mistranslation of the text that I couldn't in good conscience call it a translation. The papyrus was a standard funeral scroll, and nowhere does it even mention the name Abraham. The Kinderhook plates are even worse in my opinion. A farmer grabbed a collection of stone plates, and etched on them fake Egyptian symbols. He then provided them to Joseph, all in a attempt to prove him a fraud. This worked, because Joseph began to translate them, though he never finished. But maybe the book of mormon is different, and he really did translate it. It still seems like a poor conclusion when you factor in the fact that no one has seen the golden plates except for Joseph. I know there are the 3 and the 8 witnesses, but all of them in their writings attest to seeing them with "spiritual eyes" and not their real ones. All of this only speaks to the unreliability of the translation. What about the book itself? Well it's full of anachronisms. Horses, bronze, barley, and about 20 other things were not present in the Americas at that time. The doctrine that the native Americans are descendants of people from the middle east is way off. All evidence points to them being descendants of eastern Asian people. There is no archeological evidence of the massive civilizations described in the book of mormon. Mormon scholars are still trying to find the hill cumorah. The evidence just seems to point away from it. Now I am biased, obviously. I grew up in the church, and while I still love it, and think the people in it are incredible, I have some level of prejudice against the organization itself. However, if I, a sorta dumb guy, can find that many flaws in the fundamental beliefs of the church (and that is only a fraction of them) what would happen when you get someone like O'Connor? If i were him, it might just seems too easy, for a much smaller reach. I would love to see him dive into this, but it seems unlikely in my mind. Also, I didn't, and still don't mean for this to be an attack on your beliefs. Believe what you want. It's more so meant to be a statement about the strength of the truth claims of both Christianity and the LDS faith. I left not because of any moral issues with the church, but because of intellectual issues like these. I am curious, though, what a practicing member like yourself thinks about things like these. It's rare I hear members talk about issues like these, and a lot of the ones I've talked to are not even aware. I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. Have a great day!
I like that Alex accurately points out prominent problems in Catholicism, Protestantism, or just other classic religions. Latter-Day Saint theology really does seem to be the most science-friendly theology since we believe God is physical rather than nonphysical. We believe in something that can be comprehended rather than something that can’t. Our theology is philosophically more sound than other religions, and I wish we had better Latter-Day Saint philosophers in the podcast/youtube realm
What’s up with this reply section? These aren’t counterarguments, and you just sound like whiny NPCs. How about if you guys want to make a counterargument, you put on your big boy pants and use coherent sentences. Maybe try something better than the same old debunked cliches.
Physicalism isn’t what makes LDS philosophy more logical or tangible. There may be an argument for a more concrete metaphysics (how does LDS doctrine teach about the soul, the body and resurrection?) but the problem with LDS theology is largely historical. Without being disrespectful, the weakest historical case can be made for the Latter Day Saints Christian perspective. Objectively the credibility of Joseph Smith is questionable and his character is suspect. Historical speaking, Christianity has a great historical case, with eye witness testimony of the resurrection, and great corroboration of the New Testament with so much preserved and many copies in circulation, and with more copies of the New Testament in Greek available than any other classical Greek text for comparison. The historical sources for the Book of Mormon, by comparison, is no where near the case for the New Testament, or even the most speculative of historical documents, because we don’t have a single original source for the Book of Mormon, and are required to take the entire matter on faith. Objectively, the case for Islam and the Quran is better, and the Bhagavad Gita, both of which have original material in the spoken language, and disciplic succession. The case for Christianity is arguably better with greater historical evidence, even of the Resurrection. The case for another testament of Jesus Christ, is frankly lacking. Christianity doesn’t ask for, or require this kind of faith, it asks us to test all things, and hold fast to that which is good.
WOW. 10:31-11:08 is so well said. Concise, and powerfully simple. I wish more people knew this and believed it. It would ease so much stress and anxiety in the world.
I've suggested to him to reach out to Blake Ostler...He replied saying he hadn't ever really looked into the Church, but he appreciated the suggestion. A pleasant way to say "cool story". I still think it would be so interesting to see him realistically engage with a member of the Church. My line up would include Blake Ostler, Jacob Hanson, Ben Spackman, among others
@philandrews2860 it's such an interesting thing to consider...because the Church does not have some creedal boundary to contain our theology, there is such a variety of thought within the Church. Obviously there are certain things we should agree on, but there is so much variation outside that. So then when it comes to finding someone to represent the church in a forum like that of O'Connor's podcast, it makes it tricky. I think most people assume a very uniform thought within the Church but that just isn't the case. I love that about the church, but it makes these kinds of conversations interesting. Even some of Ostler's positions aren't necessarily "main stream", and as evidenced on X recently, many differing opinions exist about the historicity of Biblical stories. But I'd hope any of the people who would speak with someone like Alex would have the tact and ability to navigate it well.
“Canst thou by searching find out God?” (Job 11:7) “God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown, and the things of God are and can be known only by and through the Spirit of God.” (Bruce R. McConkie)
Just want to drop this comment so when I become LDS in a year, the transition that led me there is documented. 😂 This was an awesome video and I’m excited to engage with more of your content. The algorithm did me well on this occasion.
As members off the church we can learn a lot from him. The deepness of his questions can lead to a download of personal revelation if we seek in prayer. I enjoy watching his content, but I avoid the comment section, I have sensed palpable darkness in there
I was really pleased to see you make these conclusions in this video Jacob. There are quite a few scholars and intellectuals I listen to, Alex included, that I have always had such a strong feeling of "if only they would give the restored Gospel a chance". I think there are none I have felt this so strongly about, than I have for dear Dr Jordan Peterson. I truly earnestly believe that all his logical wrestling throughout the years have lead him to so many conclusions that are so perfectly in line with the doctrine and the theology of the restored Gospel and Church. Living here in Spain, I went to see him in Madrid and I was so close to paying for the one on one experience just to have a chance to discuss it with him further. I regret not doing so to be honest. However having seen your selfie with Alex on Facebook, it got me so so excited. Not only did I think it was a great outcome, but it really got me thinking, it could be a step towards you yourself meeting with Jordan one day in the near future, now you have a potential mutual friend!
Most atheists arguments I’ve found have more to do with debunking bad theology rather than actually proving the impossibility of God’s existence. I wish more were exposed to good theology. Latter-day Saint belief is deep and answers a lot of existential questions that have plagued philosophers and theologians for millennia. Not to bad for a backwoods farmboy.
I agree. As an atheist that’s what I hear most of the time. There are some decent arguments for God-most people don’t know them and couldn’t articulate them. But the same goes for most atheists-especially on the Internet-they couldn’t argue themselves out of a wet paper bag.
"Most atheists arguments I’ve found have more to do with debunking bad theology rather than actually proving the impossibility of God’s existence." As an atheist though, we're not trying to prove the impossibility of God's existence. We just reject the claims made about any God(s) made by theists due to the lack of any God(s) showing up. But you're not wrong about trying to debunk bad theology. Mostly in an attempt to show people why their religion doesn't make sense.
@@roxics atheists have all sorts of positions as we aren’t a monolith. I do in fact employ such arguments and so do many others. While I agree you can have the position you do, I also think there’s a philosophical cowardice and intellectual dishonesty in yours and many atheist’s position, by not engaging in positive argumentation and always leaving it to theists to shoulder the burden; all the while hiding behind the weak, unjustified assumption of not needing to put forth a positive case as you haven’t made a positive assertion. That position is problematic at best, but I think it’s lazy and demonstrates a lack of commitment to good faith intellectual dialogue and human knowledge.
@@hardwork8395 "It’s problematic at best" Except it's not problematic, the problem is atheists who try to assert with certainty there is no God. It's unfalsifiable. So going down that path to begin with is a silly thing to do. I can prove to you that God exists, I just can't prove to you that it's an objective being that exists outside the imaginations of human beings. The best an atheist can do is mostly shoot down a specific God claim. Even then, theists have a squirmy way of moving the goal posts for their deity. But I will agree with you we are not a monolith.
Excellent points, Jacob! Any intelligent, rational atheist who looks at religion objectively will arrive at the same conclusions. This is the same phenomenon we have seen with Dr. Jordan Peterson. The deeper he digs into the biblical corpus, the closer he comes to Latter-day Saint theology; because it IS the MOST logically coherent theological structure of any on earth.
New to this channel, been a fan of Alex's work for about a year now. I'd love to see this conversation happen! Just watched Alex on Modern Day Debate, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his points, just with Latter-day Saint caveats.
So often when I listen to Christians and atheists debate I end up siding with the atheists because they are just seeing the same problems with modern Christianity that the restored gospel solves.
I highly recommend to everyone the book: Your Life Your Game by keezano 🙌 I read it, and it truly changed my life. It shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read... God bless! 🙏
Commenting and liking and sharing so this meet up can happen. Huge fan of both Alex and Thoughtful Faith! I think bringing our religion and our beliefs into the main frame of inspection would be amazing!
It would be awesome to get Alex to have a conversation with a Latter Day Saint like you! Hopefully that happens sometime in the future! You should definitely try to contact him.
I’m an atheist and I concur. Alex has grown, s as most of us do with age and education, beyond pure reactionary hyperbole, to a more mature dialectic. I’m glad Jacob has moved past the ignorant, ridiculous talking point “real atheists are nihilists”, to accepting there is diversity of thought amongst the atheist population.
Here is how I understand it: Atheism = "There is no God" Agnosticism = "I don't know." When I see atheists mature, they're actually moving from atheism to agnosticism. Jacob is correct. Real atheism is nihilistic. Agnosticism seems to have a spark of hope. I'm not so sure you're an atheist. You seem more agnostic to me. If you were truly atheistic, you wouldn't be hanging around this part of TH-cam. ;)
@@harmonillustrationI know my beliefs just fine. I don’t believe in any gods. I enjoy intellectual engagement. That’s why I’m here-and other places. And I personally enjoy much of Jacob’s content, among others, like Travis Anderson, Ostler, Jonah Barnes, and a few other LDS. Do you deny immateriality, and hold to a universe solely built on materiality in your LDS belief system?
It would be more accurate to say atheism leads to nihilism. Naval upset many in his audience by pointing out that society is in decline primarily because atheism went mainstream.
He always struck me as a very earnest and intelligent person. You ought to invite him onto the show and have a theological discussion. He’d probably be up for it.
Many of our scriptures do talk about sin being a stain, and the analogy of us being able to try again only comes through repentance which requires acknowledgement not just of a mistake, but of an intentional injustice manifesting an evil nature. If we act like we're good people who are just not skilled, then our repentance will be ineffective. We must smite our breast and say "God have mercy on me, a sinner."
He seems sincere and has real intent, put that together with faith in Christ and he can get his own personal witness via the Holy Ghost. Perhaps you should contact him, it's only a spiritual witness that he lacks!
A collab between you two would be awesome! I also watch an atheist philosopher British TH-camr who’s channel is called Unsolicited Advice, talking to him would be cool too.
"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death-in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter-without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it." -Elder Holland Ken Ham is right about this (sans ex nihilo), which is a different point from literal Adam and Eve and Eden.
While I feel Jacob is a bit ham handed in his views sometimes, this is SPOT FREAKING ON. The version of the problem of evil articulated is why I left protestant Christianity. It's why, though sometimes I wonder/wander, I cannot join Catholicism. Positing the base of reality as Agents with Agency (in some form) rather than God, solves EVERYTHING in my mind. As Jacob said, rejecting Ex Nihilo solves the problem of evil, and many of the questions I had about my upbringing. I find the restoration to be the single greatest thing I've ever found apart from Christ himself. I'm fond of Orson Scott Card in Xenocide, "Philotes doing what they want". Or Madsen in Timeless Questions, Gospel Insights, "A self existent universe with agency". You do this, the problems melt away. We can explain all we see. We don't understand all the mechanics, but we understand the broadstrokes.
Keep seeking Alex! Ah man intellectual honesty from an atheist is something that makes me very happy. I really do appreciate when Alex makes an honest attempt to question an understand. I don't think he's right about everything he says though. Its like he's looking at it in the wrong lense.
I think it depends on the person. there are definitely theological barriers that are harder for some people to overcome depending on who they are and how they think. I’ve had plenty of atheist friends who are good people but who reject god for various personal reasons. People need to find God in their own time and in their own way. That being said- one could argue that Alex may have more of a monetary incentive to put up resistance. But for the most part he strikes me as being sincere.
As an ex-Mormon, I would certainly give a watch to Alex analyzing Mormon theology and text. I would hardly say he’s unintentionally promoting the “restored gospel,” and I really do find reading through this comment section humorous as people seem to think there are no flaws or fallacies in their accepted religious text, but Alex is most definitely an interesting analyzer and one of the skeptics I really enjoy listening to.
Here’s where I would disagree with you. It always seems like when people are legitimately trying to figure out what is true and searching for answers that are logically consistent, they naturally tend to move closer to our theology in their rhetoric a lot of the time. 🤔 some of the things he’s said about religion have high key reminded me of the religious writings of Terryl and Fiona Givens. ‘The God Who Weeps’ being one of the books I think would resonate hard with him due to the logical and systematic way they explore and break down the different views of the nature of God and give more atheistic or skeptical arguments their fair shot. And even concede some of those philosophical critiques against a more creedal view of God’s nature. Juxtaposing them against our own positions. I remember thinking of him specifically when I read the book. Alex always struck me as a very sincere and intelligent person. I think he would resonate with a lot of these ideas.
@@caitlinwhite237he’ll be someone excellent to talk to, though I disagree about the givens book. I think it was poorly argued and had too many fatal flaws to count. The arguments represent the low bar in apologetic material. They are poetic and are great at rhetorical exposition though. Alex needs more sophistication to match his education
When I hear Alex express his frustration in not finding God, I always came back to one particular idea: does Alex see/feel the need for a savior? Christianity comes alive in a person’s life not because of some empirical or even metaphysical evidence (though the person who comes to faith will find these), but because like Alma, that person has found himself crying out “O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me.”
I'd love too see it, I'm an atheist and last year I visited Carthage IL to see where Joseph Smith was killed. I agree with s lot of what you say in the video
Speaking as a former atheist myself, at least in my experience, the first year or two of being an atheist is when you tend to be the most "into" atheism. After a while, it starts to lose its luster and it ceases to scratch that peculiar itch we all have for religion. In a lot of ways, atheism, especially internet atheism, is quite juvenile in its critiques of religion, unable to stand up against any apologist who happens to have read a book or two. And that's because a large part of internet atheism skews quite young. Most people who've been atheists for a long time don't talk about it or really care that much about atheism, because atheism isn't that interesting. It's so bankrupt of intellectual or emotional value that, within about two years or so of being an atheist, I started looking into the arguments religious people actually used to justify their beliefs and, though I wasn't immediately convinced, I realized there was a lot more to it than internet atheism ever portrayed. These weren't knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who could barely string two thoughts together like internet atheism has historically made religious people out to be, but people with the same questions as everyone else, thoughtful, intelligent people who've considered these things a lot more in-depth than I had at that point. When I realized that, though I still didn't stop being an atheist, I did stop bothering with Internet atheism. That was when I started earnestly learning about religion from both its adherents and from unbiased academics, and not just from the gutter of the internet.
I largely agree. But what you’ve described is the culture of the internet at large-not just internet atheism; it tends to cater to sound bites and people unchecked in their emotions. Many of the long-time atheists lose interest in continuing to debate as they’ve lost that initial emotional reaction and they move on to other pursuits; but some, like myself, occasionally come in and out of these spaces because of intellectual interests. There are mostly bad arguments, in my opinion, on all sides; and there are some good ones on both sides-but the strength of those are subjective, as what might be convincing to you may not be for me and vice verse.
14:00 or so. It's true though. The lowercase-o orthodox credal Christian teaching of the Trinity is so baffling that the majority of heresies throughout history have been people earnestly struggling to understand it and just getting it wrong in some way. Not rejecting it, but just getting it wrong.
I think this is one of your best videos. Thanks for the hard work and for sharing it. I still don't understand how you can understand this but not that Brigham Young was wrong on polygamy and that Joseph Smith wasn't the originator of it. Either way, thank you for this.
As a Oneness Pentecostal Youth Pastor, Alex is also my favorite atheist TH-camr for different and similar reasons. I really appreciate his sincere search for God he appears to be on. As far as his objections to Ken Ham, the serpent was the devil, which we believe to be a fallen spiritual being that had been created good. There was a tree of knowledge of good and evil they weren’t to eat- but it was there because true love requires a choice. If they couldn’t choose to reject God then they couldn’t really choose to love Him either. The LDS view of God with a physical body who didn’t create out of nothing has to deal with the Kalam Cosmological Argument as defended by William Lane Craig because he isn’t spaceless, timeless or immaterial. Not to mention the fact that the Bible calls God a Spirit (John 4:24), invisible (Colossians 1:15) and that the only way He has been seen is in Jesus (John 1:18) and that He made all things & without Him nothing was made (John 1:3). Also, how do LDS deal with how a very low population in Hell (or Outer Darkness) with all of the overt evil in the world seems to make God unjust for letting sin go unpunished if people choose not to accept Christ’s substitutionary death in our place? Hell is spiritual death or the absence of the presence of God which has been earned by every human because of our rebellion against our Creator. Jesus took the wrath we deserved. If we don’t accept that gift by obeying Acts 2:38 I don’t understand why we would go unpunished still unless you say Christ’s atonement can be applied any other way?
This seems like a sincere comment with great questions . Do you really want to understand the reasoning behind them because there are robust theological discussions in those areas. It would require a genuine desire to understand a different framework with an open mind. Probably best to start with one question such as the implications of rejecting creatio ex nihilo or something, but if you are up for it there are many lovely and knowledgeable people on this channel that would probably be glad to engage with you. 🙏 ❤
I think you have *some* information but not enough understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as those scriptures you quoted aren’t at odds with the Church’s doctrine. God is spirit but that would require you to understand how we understand what spirit is and that it doesn’t conflict with God having a physical body. At the end of the day sola scriptura is going to be the biggest issue you’ll have to overcome. We’re not built on the Bible, we are built on what the Bible is built on - living prophets and apostles who receive public revelation. Thus we are not bound to the Bible only for Gods revealed word, nor are we left to figure the Bible out for ourselves through our own understanding and reason as it seems most who hold to “the Bible only” fall into.
No one is going to argue that a poor understanding of God is the basis for most of these disagreements. Its actually a good thing that we can see in the modern era that Satan's most potent tactic is to confuse us about our identity. He's been doing it with God since the beginning and scored a HUGE win at Nicea. Re: Outer darkness. When Paul was asked about the resurrection he said that bodies would have levels of glory comparable to the Sun, moon, and stars. He didn't mention hell at all. We have to contrast his answer with Christ teaching that there is an unforgivable sin worse than all the others (murder, theft, rape, etc) which is consistent with the LDS belief and not your assertion that God is "letting sin go unpunished" Again its due to creedal consensus declarations that altered the doctrine and understanding of the Apostles at the inception and have been taught at divinity school degree programs ever since. They aren't consistent and don't make sense, but they are codified and accepted. Everything else is heretical or non mainline christianity.
@@wheat2344 how do you personally deal with the idea that the LDS concept of Heavenly Father previously being a man like us could mean there is someone who created Him? Even if you think there is continued revelation, do you think John was wrong that it was by Jesus that all things were made? You don’t have to answer if you don’t feel certain about it. I just can’t reconcile it with what I see in the Bible.
@@HaleStorm49 how do you understand how the sin of someone who isn’t a member of your faith is dealt with if they don’t accept the ordinances someone performs by proxy in the afterlife?
I’d be happy to debate you on that last comment that “Mormonism is the most plausible version of Christianity”! I know I don’t have a big TH-cam channel but that really shouldn’t matter if truth is our goal. At the very least maybe you would have a discussion with me that I could post on my channel? I’m a friendly guy haha so let me know!
It's not only the most plausible but it's also getting far superior results in both the micro and macro. It's peak Christianity practiced as God intended. Id also discuss this topic with you.
Not only is it the most plausible, but it also gets far superior objective results than creedal Christianity. This argument can be made from either statistics or scripture. Peak Christianity is practiced as God intends-by covenant, not by consensus. I'd take you up on your offer as well. Most active LDS members are dying to have someone talk to them about this stuff.
Could you give the specific stats about comparative growth for the first 180 years. Just hoping to get the backing or a little detail from those claims.
It's not surprising that someone who genuinely wants to find the truth but also wishes for that truth to be divine would come to the best possible (i.e. the most forgiving) interpretation of Biblical problems. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith arrived at the doctrines he did because of the active debates of the time around the subjects (things like grace versus works, the nature of God, the problem of evil, etc.). People back then knew there were problems with the teachings in the Bible so naturally they discussed them, as we still do today, and Joseph, no doubt would have heard debates and drawn his own conclusions. Like Alex, I want there to be an all-powerful god and an afterlife but I can't let that desire dictate my conclusions about reality. Letting go of all the comforting ideas taught by the church was not something I did lightly. It was the natural result of paying attention to the real evidence around me.
Yep. Normative Judeo-Christian theology is internally inconsistent and illogical, making something out of nothing -- based primarily on Greek philosophy, but seldom based on anything in the Bible.
4:53 i love love love ken ham don't you dare go after our friend. If Jacob agrees with Alex by going after a literal creation story, Jacob is in bad company. I hope I'm wrong.
Alex's always been honest. He just decided there's no point beating on the dead horse of "religion not true" and instead decided to focus on explorations of religiosity as a philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and perhaps biological phenomenon. He didnt want to pound on the poor christians repeating the same points which as far as the material world is considered have been mostly long settled while due to their nature, religious claims, can never be falsified. So instead he decided to explore why it is so hard to divorce humanity from belief and entertain the notion of not holding religion to the same rigour of evidence to which materialists hold material facts and see what happens. This ensures there's always more content to be made so its a win win and as an atheist I'm all for it.
Agreed. I've watched his videos for a number of years. He's young and smart and not wanting to drop the bomb on the conversation, which as a fellow atheist can be frustrating sometimes, but he's not out to try and win the argument. He's obviously curious, but I wouldn't fault him for also trying to make a long TH-cam career out of it.
@roxics I think that's what makes him different to JBP these days (another "religious" atheist), who appears to wilfully obfuscate the meaning he is hiding behind and is somewhat reluctant to work towards establishing common terms and definitions to communicate better which is frustrating to watch and to my mind sounds more like pandering to the conservative crowd who's willing to accept mystical formulations. Alex somehow manages to connect with different people and perhaps to better make their own points for them. As exemplified by his moderation of the Dawkins Peterson debate. The theology degree could be helping here.
Could you do a video about the slaughter of the Amalekites? That is something I, and perhaps others, do not understand why it occurred and how it was justified.
They were warned for decades and deserved worse than they got. there is also a devils advocate argument that can be used for abortion in that God did not want any of those children becoming pagans and chose to wipe them out rather than let be groomed by their evil society.
I would agree. The theology that Joseph Smith created does answer many of the pitfalls that many Christian’s that only have the Bible can answer. The Bible is easy to refute as its Iron Age interpretation of Bronze Age mythology. Mormonism has the advantage of getting a fresh start and giving God a modern day update when compared to 2000-2500 years ago. While I have no doubt Alex could still find many flaws in Joseph’s mythology he created. Once he was exposed to the history that would be the final coffin. Have him on. I would definitely enjoy watching that. 😊
11:42 with respect, numbers of people adopting a particular viewpoint does not necessarily reflect the merit of that viewpoint. There are many examples throughout history where a majority have made questionable choices, recent and historic so citing comparisons of followers is not necessarily a win. Perhaps use a different point to prove your position.
Most atheists aren't dumb; they are good at sound reasoning. I can empathize with many of them, even Dawkins. We are all products of our environment to some degree and I see that in him. Many of the issues and problems they point out with Christianity and its history are things we would agree with and are already part of our belief system. The problem is that most Christians approach them without compassion and understanding and would just condemn them to hell because of their lack of belief. I think we could learn a lot from each other and perhaps we could be a bit more analytical (dare I say skeptical) as we approach belief. I think if approached in the right way, Mormons and atheists could teach each other a lot that would broaden our outlook and help us all recognize and accept truth wherever we might find it.
"Mormons and atheists could teach each other a lot " I'm an atheist and to me that sounds nice, I don't honestly know anything about Mormonism. Other than the fact it is a more modern sect of Christianity. One which other Christians frown on. But to an atheist like myself, that doesn't matter, since I don't buy into any of the God claims. It would take God itself (if it existed) coming to me personally in a way that convinces me for me to say "God exists." Other people claiming a God is like this or said that isn't going to do it for me. If God exists and wants me to know it, it can do that. Since it's God. Short of that, someone is just trying to sell me something or control what I do and using this God concept as a puppet they put on to try and speak with authority and I'm not interested. Although I will admit the mythology and stories can be fun, just like they are with Thor and Jupiter and Ahura Mazda and so on. As is the psychology of why people believe. Those things can be endlessly fascinating.
Jacob, 1) What do you mean by 'creedal Christian'? Is Ken Ham a creedal Christian? 2) If rejecting creation ex-nihilo helps resolve the problem of pain and evil, does it create any challenges?
He is using that term because creedal christianity was the result of consensus councils where self-appointed experts decided what was Christianity and what wasn't. They canceled any ideas they didn't accept (sound familiar) and declared any outside their circle "heretical" This is why today if you don't confirm to their beliefs you are labeled "non Christian" a "cult" or said to believe in a "different Jesus" They took Christianity and declared it theirs...but the truth is that they are creedalists. Jacob's argument is that if you are a creedalist, then a "peak Christian" is not actually a Christian at all. It doesn't matter if what they say makes more sense, adheres closer to scripture, or gets better results. It can't be christianity because it doesn't follow the creeds. The Pharisees had a similar issue with John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Ken Ham is a creedal christian. Deja Vu all over again. Hope that helps.
As a fellow Brit, I’ve watched Alex O’Connor’s videos for many years and have often thought the same thing. Almost all of his issues with religion are resolved through the restoration. I’d be ecstatic if you were able to arrange a conversation with him. I think he would find our theology extremely compelling.
We still don't have answers on the slavery question though and he could easily bring up equally hard questions about our church too but many of his questions are moot against our church so its always fun to compare their answers to ours.
I don’t entirely agree with your point on slavery. We have a far more expansive and nuanced view of what scripture is. We don’t claim the bible to be inerrant, and so we aren’t forced to justify aspects of it that contradict revealed teachings from living oracles of God. There are definitely other questions that would be difficult to answer, but from a purely logical perspective our theology resolves so many issues that other Christians cannot effectively address (to put it mildly).
@@logankearl8115the answer to the question of slavery within the Bible is that people engage in evil all the time. The Old Testament books were written by those people. God allowing slavery is their justification of which I’m not going or have to defend.
@elijiahburgess5506 the thing is alex attacks that statement by showing there are direct commands from God in leviticus on how to enslave people. He wasn't merely allowing it but seems to condone it.
So it's just not going to be satisfactory.
@@benparker8381agreed our answers may skirt a little farther but it leaves it unanswered because how much of the Bible is wrong? Is it just the part in leviticus that talks about it or can there be more wrong? How do we know what to trust other than a prophet's interpretation which i don't think will come out about it at least not soon. So we have to leave the answer pending but at least it can be answered eventually.
Alex O’Connor reminds me of myself. I was raised Catholic and became an atheist in my high school years. After letting go of the pain that came from the traumatic loss of faith, I started to realize that Christianity and the Bible were actually very valuable. Funny enough, one of my friends who is a Jehovah’s Witness by technicality, helped me to realize a more pragmatic approach to the Bible. I was also debating if I should go back to the Catholic Church or join something else. I came across some Latter-day Saints when I moved and after a series of events, I joined the Church.
I could definitely see with Alex, at the very least, a further understanding of Latter-day Saint theology that helps to solve many issues within Christianity in a way that’s logically consistent and intellectually honest. I hope you guys can get together to talk, Jacob.
Why a latter-day saint? I can't that God is not above everything. It's obsurd.
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 The bots are broken
@@HaleStorm49 I love breaking Matrix-minded bots with Trinitarian programming 😂
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 Because what most people call Mormonism is really just Christianity that makes sense. At least you got the name right.
I love how you reach out (sometimes call out) to others right here on your channel.
I would love to see this conversation.
I’m a Latter-Day Saint, and I really like Alex O’Connor. I respect healthy skepticism. He seems to make conclusions about free will and determinism I don’t necessarily agree with. Overall, he seems very smart and fair. I haven’t heard him talk about Latter-Day Saint theology much, and I’ve wondered what he would think about it if he studied our source material.
I think Alex may have some interesting questions about our Theology, and most certainly the very same critiques he has of the Bible for our own history.
I agree. I doubt he converts, but I’d be curious to see him analyze the Book of Mormon. I think the faith propositions of the Book of Mormon are very strong compared to even the cosmological arguments or the teleological arguments. It’s maybe not perfectly comparable to those because those arguments are more abstract. But in a way, I think the Book of Mormon is more difficult to disprove if somebody actually puts in the time to understand it academically. It’s easy to disprove if you don’t understand it, but I think Alex would do more than the generic analysis you see guys like Trent Horn do. Not to be rude, but I think Alex is quite a bit smarter than Trent.
I like Alex but I have to be a little blunt. I don't believe that he would give it that time. So many creators I respect revert to criticisms because they come from "unbiased secular scholars". People who examine our faith are unwilling to read from our scholars no matter how qualified because they're "Mormon scholars, and Mormons are just like Muslims, or some other group I don't like, therefore I have to stick to the unbiased Secular scholars etc"
I don’t know if I’ve seen Alex lazily appeal to authority very often. He’s a decent authority himself and I think he has a degree or emphasis in theology. I have respected Alex because he is usually smart enough to acknowledge when he doesn’t know something. I think he is generally keen to acknowledge secular bias or other biases. Would he put in the time? I think he’s smart enough to realize to recognize it’s a unique theology, and I think Jacob was wise to compare our population to Judaism. I’ll give Alex the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise
@@natedawg2020 You know, I am doubtful that O'Connor would spend the time talking about the Latter Day Saint doctrine, not because of biases, but because the Latter Day Saint doctrine is much harder to intellectually defend then the christan doctrine. The Christian faith has a lot of strong things going for it, and while I don't believe, I can reasonably see why someone might, whether it be the strong correlations between early manuscripts of the bible, the incredible amount of cross references in the text itself, or the fact that the bible has become the most influential peice of literature in western civilization. Because these are strong claims, there is merit in tackling them. Additionally, christanity has the added benifit of some level of vagueness, where the belief systems are not well enough defined for someone to easily cut at them. I might take a swipe at a catholic's talking point, but it might not be have the same effect on a protestant, because they might have an entirely diffrent belief.
The issue for me, and I imagine many others, is that the lds church does not seem to have these strengths. The lds church's beliefs are clearly defined by the prophet that is currently alive. I say clearly defined, but it is really more clearly redefined. The beliefs that polygamy is essential for salvation, that black people are descendants of Cain (or that black people rebelled against God in the primordial realm) , and that some sins (like adultery) are so great that they can only be forgiven through killing the sinner in a process Brigham Young called blood Atonement. Ignoring the large moral issues there, are these beliefs true? The modern church says no, but the early church says yes. Additionally, how does this speak to the reliability of prophets? If they all speak for God, did God change his mind, or did he willingly deceive them?
Ignoring that, the real weakness that the lds church suffers from is its holy text, the book of mormon. It was supposedly translated off of golden plates that Joseph Smith found in the woods. He then translated them, which brought us what we now know as the book of mormon. The first issue arises in the translation of the plates. Joseph Smith translated the plates not by deciphering the symbols of the plates, but by looking at a rock called a seer stone, which he would place into a hat, and it would tell him what the plates say. This wouldn't be too much of an issue, if he hadn't done this already. Years before, Joseph was convicted of fraud (If I remember this correctly) for pretending to be a treasure seeker. He would take this same stone, put it in a hat, and it would supposedly help him find native American treasure. He never found any. He was brought to court because of this, and was found guilty, but the judge let him off because he was too young. This was years before he ever met God, or found golden plates. The other issues with the translation are not with the book of mormon, but the other things which he translated: the book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates. The book of Abraham was supposedly translated off of an Egyptian scroll. We still have partial copies of this scroll, and upon translating it ourselves, we find that the book of Abraham is such a mistranslation of the text that I couldn't in good conscience call it a translation. The papyrus was a standard funeral scroll, and nowhere does it even mention the name Abraham. The Kinderhook plates are even worse in my opinion. A farmer grabbed a collection of stone plates, and etched on them fake Egyptian symbols. He then provided them to Joseph, all in a attempt to prove him a fraud. This worked, because Joseph began to translate them, though he never finished. But maybe the book of mormon is different, and he really did translate it. It still seems like a poor conclusion when you factor in the fact that no one has seen the golden plates except for Joseph. I know there are the 3 and the 8 witnesses, but all of them in their writings attest to seeing them with "spiritual eyes" and not their real ones.
All of this only speaks to the unreliability of the translation. What about the book itself? Well it's full of anachronisms. Horses, bronze, barley, and about 20 other things were not present in the Americas at that time. The doctrine that the native Americans are descendants of people from the middle east is way off. All evidence points to them being descendants of eastern Asian people. There is no archeological evidence of the massive civilizations described in the book of mormon. Mormon scholars are still trying to find the hill cumorah. The evidence just seems to point away from it.
Now I am biased, obviously. I grew up in the church, and while I still love it, and think the people in it are incredible, I have some level of prejudice against the organization itself. However, if I, a sorta dumb guy, can find that many flaws in the fundamental beliefs of the church (and that is only a fraction of them) what would happen when you get someone like O'Connor? If i were him, it might just seems too easy, for a much smaller reach. I would love to see him dive into this, but it seems unlikely in my mind.
Also, I didn't, and still don't mean for this to be an attack on your beliefs. Believe what you want. It's more so meant to be a statement about the strength of the truth claims of both Christianity and the LDS faith. I left not because of any moral issues with the church, but because of intellectual issues like these. I am curious, though, what a practicing member like yourself thinks about things like these. It's rare I hear members talk about issues like these, and a lot of the ones I've talked to are not even aware. I'd love to hear what you have to say about it. Have a great day!
Let's help this child of God. He deserves to know the truth. May he feel the Lord's love surrounding him. ❤️
The amount of substantial content you create while posting so frequently is amazing. Love your stuff!
I like that Alex accurately points out prominent problems in Catholicism, Protestantism, or just other classic religions. Latter-Day Saint theology really does seem to be the most science-friendly theology since we believe God is physical rather than nonphysical. We believe in something that can be comprehended rather than something that can’t. Our theology is philosophically more sound than other religions, and I wish we had better Latter-Day Saint philosophers in the podcast/youtube realm
Bahahahahahahahahahah😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Lol I just think you need to ask about the tablets
Delulu 😂
Joseph smith polygamy
What’s up with this reply section? These aren’t counterarguments, and you just sound like whiny NPCs. How about if you guys want to make a counterargument, you put on your big boy pants and use coherent sentences. Maybe try something better than the same old debunked cliches.
Physicalism isn’t what makes LDS philosophy more logical or tangible. There may be an argument for a more concrete metaphysics (how does LDS doctrine teach about the soul, the body and resurrection?) but the problem with LDS theology is largely historical. Without being disrespectful, the weakest historical case can be made for the Latter Day Saints Christian perspective. Objectively the credibility of Joseph Smith is questionable and his character is suspect.
Historical speaking, Christianity has a great historical case, with eye witness testimony of the resurrection, and great corroboration of the New Testament with so much preserved and many copies in circulation, and with more copies of the New Testament in Greek available than any other classical Greek text for comparison.
The historical sources for the Book of Mormon, by comparison, is no where near the case for the New Testament, or even the most speculative of historical documents, because we don’t have a single original source for the Book of Mormon, and are required to take the entire matter on faith. Objectively, the case for Islam and the Quran is better, and the Bhagavad Gita, both of which have original material in the spoken language, and disciplic succession. The case for Christianity is arguably better with greater historical evidence, even of the Resurrection. The case for another testament of Jesus Christ, is frankly lacking. Christianity doesn’t ask for, or require this kind of faith, it asks us to test all things, and hold fast to that which is good.
Oh dang! That conversation would be awesome! I hope he finds this video and you guys can make it happen!
WOW. 10:31-11:08 is so well said. Concise, and powerfully simple. I wish more people knew this and believed it. It would ease so much stress and anxiety in the world.
I've suggested to him to reach out to Blake Ostler...He replied saying he hadn't ever really looked into the Church, but he appreciated the suggestion. A pleasant way to say "cool story". I still think it would be so interesting to see him realistically engage with a member of the Church. My line up would include Blake Ostler, Jacob Hanson, Ben Spackman, among others
Cool! That's a great lineup.. as long as we don't include Meldrum and Sessions and their Universal Model 🤪
@philandrews2860 it's such an interesting thing to consider...because the Church does not have some creedal boundary to contain our theology, there is such a variety of thought within the Church. Obviously there are certain things we should agree on, but there is so much variation outside that. So then when it comes to finding someone to represent the church in a forum like that of O'Connor's podcast, it makes it tricky. I think most people assume a very uniform thought within the Church but that just isn't the case. I love that about the church, but it makes these kinds of conversations interesting.
Even some of Ostler's positions aren't necessarily "main stream", and as evidenced on X recently, many differing opinions exist about the historicity of Biblical stories. But I'd hope any of the people who would speak with someone like Alex would have the tact and ability to navigate it well.
These videos just keep getting better and better
“Canst thou by searching find out God?” (Job 11:7)
“God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown, and the things of God are and can be known only by and through the Spirit of God.” (Bruce R. McConkie)
I would love to see a discussion with Alex O'Connor on here.
Just want to drop this comment so when I become LDS in a year, the transition that led me there is documented. 😂
This was an awesome video and I’m excited to engage with more of your content. The algorithm did me well on this occasion.
As members off the church we can learn a lot from him. The deepness of his questions can lead to a download of personal revelation if we seek in prayer.
I enjoy watching his content, but I avoid the comment section, I have sensed palpable darkness in there
I was really pleased to see you make these conclusions in this video Jacob. There are quite a few scholars and intellectuals I listen to, Alex included, that I have always had such a strong feeling of "if only they would give the restored Gospel a chance". I think there are none I have felt this so strongly about, than I have for dear Dr Jordan Peterson. I truly earnestly believe that all his logical wrestling throughout the years have lead him to so many conclusions that are so perfectly in line with the doctrine and the theology of the restored Gospel and Church. Living here in Spain, I went to see him in Madrid and I was so close to paying for the one on one experience just to have a chance to discuss it with him further. I regret not doing so to be honest. However having seen your selfie with Alex on Facebook, it got me so so excited. Not only did I think it was a great outcome, but it really got me thinking, it could be a step towards you yourself meeting with Jordan one day in the near future, now you have a potential mutual friend!
Get him on your show and help him to understand the truth. The Lord has prepared him for this time.
Prepared.? A ridiculous statement. Why your god prepared you to think rationally.😜😜😜
@@samuelavalos5096 ...
Most atheists arguments I’ve found have more to do with debunking bad theology rather than actually proving the impossibility of God’s existence. I wish more were exposed to good theology.
Latter-day Saint belief is deep and answers a lot of existential questions that have plagued philosophers and theologians for millennia. Not to bad for a backwoods farmboy.
I agree. As an atheist that’s what I hear most of the time.
There are some decent arguments for God-most people don’t know them and couldn’t articulate them. But the same goes for most atheists-especially on the Internet-they couldn’t argue themselves out of a wet paper bag.
"Most atheists arguments I’ve found have more to do with debunking bad theology rather than actually proving the impossibility of God’s existence."
As an atheist though, we're not trying to prove the impossibility of God's existence. We just reject the claims made about any God(s) made by theists due to the lack of any God(s) showing up. But you're not wrong about trying to debunk bad theology. Mostly in an attempt to show people why their religion doesn't make sense.
@@roxics atheists have all sorts of positions as we aren’t a monolith. I do in fact employ such arguments and so do many others.
While I agree you can have the position you do, I also think there’s a philosophical cowardice and intellectual dishonesty in yours and many atheist’s position, by not engaging in positive argumentation and always leaving it to theists to shoulder the burden; all the while hiding behind the weak, unjustified assumption of not needing to put forth a positive case as you haven’t made a positive assertion. That position is problematic at best, but I think it’s lazy and demonstrates a lack of commitment to good faith intellectual dialogue and human knowledge.
@@hardwork8395 "It’s problematic at best"
Except it's not problematic, the problem is atheists who try to assert with certainty there is no God. It's unfalsifiable. So going down that path to begin with is a silly thing to do.
I can prove to you that God exists, I just can't prove to you that it's an objective being that exists outside the imaginations of human beings.
The best an atheist can do is mostly shoot down a specific God claim. Even then, theists have a squirmy way of moving the goal posts for their deity.
But I will agree with you we are not a monolith.
I’m so glad you made this!! I was thinking the same thing about Alex the other day!
Excellent points, Jacob!
Any intelligent, rational atheist who looks at religion objectively will arrive at the same conclusions. This is the same phenomenon we have seen with Dr. Jordan Peterson. The deeper he digs into the biblical corpus, the closer he comes to Latter-day Saint theology; because it IS the MOST logically coherent theological structure of any on earth.
I really like Alex O'Connor as an atheist. I think he's one of the best!
Truly love your content Brother Jacob. Continue doing your good work, and God bless and keep you.
New to this channel, been a fan of Alex's work for about a year now. I'd love to see this conversation happen! Just watched Alex on Modern Day Debate, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his points, just with Latter-day Saint caveats.
So often when I listen to Christians and atheists debate I end up siding with the atheists because they are just seeing the same problems with modern Christianity that the restored gospel solves.
That's the wrong comparison though. More theist vs atheist. If you're still siding with atheists then, clearly problems
I highly recommend to everyone the book: Your Life Your Game by keezano 🙌 I read it, and it truly changed my life. It shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read... God bless! 🙏
it helped me too💔
one of the best
Such a good book, it helped me a lot in dental school☺️
Scam bot
@@thekolobsocietyi bought it yesterday it’s good
I love Alex O Connor so I'm actually glad you talked about him here
Commenting and liking and sharing so this meet up can happen. Huge fan of both Alex and Thoughtful Faith! I think bringing our religion and our beliefs into the main frame of inspection would be amazing!
It would be awesome to get Alex to have a conversation with a Latter Day Saint like you! Hopefully that happens sometime in the future! You should definitely try to contact him.
I’m an atheist and I concur.
Alex has grown, s as most of us do with age and education, beyond pure reactionary hyperbole, to a more mature dialectic.
I’m glad Jacob has moved past the ignorant, ridiculous talking point “real atheists are nihilists”, to accepting there is diversity of thought amongst the atheist population.
Here is how I understand it:
Atheism = "There is no God"
Agnosticism = "I don't know."
When I see atheists mature, they're actually moving from atheism to agnosticism. Jacob is correct. Real atheism is nihilistic. Agnosticism seems to have a spark of hope.
I'm not so sure you're an atheist. You seem more agnostic to me. If you were truly atheistic, you wouldn't be hanging around this part of TH-cam. ;)
@@harmonillustrationI know my beliefs just fine. I don’t believe in any gods.
I enjoy intellectual engagement. That’s why I’m here-and other places. And I personally enjoy much of Jacob’s content, among others, like Travis Anderson, Ostler, Jonah Barnes, and a few other LDS.
Do you deny immateriality, and hold to a universe solely built on materiality in your LDS belief system?
It would be more accurate to say atheism leads to nihilism.
Naval upset many in his audience by pointing out that society is in decline primarily because atheism went mainstream.
@@hardwork8395 - I'm not smart enough to answer that. 🤣
This was a great episode! I hope he reaches out.
It's almost as if there was a good reason why Jesus said that the Creeds were an abomination. 🤔
I need to see this happen!
I would love to hear a discussion between you and Alex. Let's make it happen!
Hearing Alex explain restored doctrine on the fall almost perfectly without knowing it was very cool.
The Lord is extending the atheists understanding
Would LOVE this conversation!
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Wait a second, I've seen you in the comment section of the come back podcast and truemillenial, yes?😂
He always struck me as a very earnest and intelligent person.
You ought to invite him onto the show and have a theological discussion. He’d probably be up for it.
I've always loved Alex! Glad he is receiving more recognition.
Those would be some very good conversations! I hope at least one person will take your offer into consideration.
Many of our scriptures do talk about sin being a stain, and the analogy of us being able to try again only comes through repentance which requires acknowledgement not just of a mistake, but of an intentional injustice manifesting an evil nature. If we act like we're good people who are just not skilled, then our repentance will be ineffective. We must smite our breast and say "God have mercy on me, a sinner."
Apologies for certain folk on X being very silly towards you. This is great stuff!
He seems like a genuine person with genuine questions about genuine issues.
Alex O’Conner is the GOAT. He is my favorite atheist and one of my favorite people ever.
He seems sincere and has real intent, put that together with faith in Christ and he can get his own personal witness via the Holy Ghost. Perhaps you should contact him, it's only a spiritual witness that he lacks!
I love this channel. Keep up the good work!
A collab between you two would be awesome! I also watch an atheist philosopher British TH-camr who’s channel is called Unsolicited Advice, talking to him would be cool too.
I’d love to see a conversation between you two.
"the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death-in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter-without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it." -Elder Holland
Ken Ham is right about this (sans ex nihilo), which is a different point from literal Adam and Eve and Eden.
Hopefully you two can talk!
At some point I would love to see a book review of Jordan Peterson's new book, We Who Wrestle with God.
Only got through the first chapter, a little dense but pretty good so far
While I feel Jacob is a bit ham handed in his views sometimes, this is SPOT FREAKING ON.
The version of the problem of evil articulated is why I left protestant Christianity. It's why, though sometimes I wonder/wander, I cannot join Catholicism.
Positing the base of reality as Agents with Agency (in some form) rather than God, solves EVERYTHING in my mind. As Jacob said, rejecting Ex Nihilo solves the problem of evil, and many of the questions I had about my upbringing. I find the restoration to be the single greatest thing I've ever found apart from Christ himself.
I'm fond of Orson Scott Card in Xenocide, "Philotes doing what they want".
Or Madsen in Timeless Questions, Gospel Insights, "A self existent universe with agency".
You do this, the problems melt away. We can explain all we see. We don't understand all the mechanics, but we understand the broadstrokes.
Keep seeking Alex! Ah man intellectual honesty from an atheist is something that makes me very happy. I really do appreciate when Alex makes an honest attempt to question an understand. I don't think he's right about everything he says though. Its like he's looking at it in the wrong lense.
It’s interesting to me that someone could search so hard for God and not find Him. I wonder if Alex just isn’t seeing God reaching out to him?
Give him time, he seems like the kind who would kick themselves for not being thorough enough.
I think it depends on the person. there are definitely theological barriers that are harder for some people to overcome depending on who they are and how they think.
I’ve had plenty of atheist friends who are good people but who reject god for various personal reasons. People need to find God in their own time and in their own way.
That being said- one could argue that Alex may have more of a monetary incentive to put up resistance. But for the most part he strikes me as being sincere.
I've always loved alex, would be so great if he could engage with you jacob!
So many great points to think about! Thanks for making that video.
So well done 👏🙏
I would love to watch a conversation between you two.
As an ex-Mormon, I would certainly give a watch to Alex analyzing Mormon theology and text.
I would hardly say he’s unintentionally promoting the “restored gospel,” and I really do find reading through this comment section humorous as people seem to think there are no flaws or fallacies in their accepted religious text, but Alex is most definitely an interesting analyzer and one of the skeptics I really enjoy listening to.
Here’s where I would disagree with you. It always seems like when people are legitimately trying to figure out what is true and searching for answers that are logically consistent, they naturally tend to move closer to our theology in their rhetoric a lot of the time. 🤔 some of the things he’s said about religion have high key reminded me of the religious writings of Terryl and Fiona Givens. ‘The God Who Weeps’ being one of the books I think would resonate hard with him due to the logical and systematic way they explore and break down the different views of the nature of God and give more atheistic or skeptical arguments their fair shot.
And even concede some of those philosophical critiques against a more creedal view of God’s nature. Juxtaposing them against our own positions. I remember thinking of him specifically when I read the book.
Alex always struck me as a very sincere and intelligent person. I think he would resonate with a lot of these ideas.
@@caitlinwhite237he’ll be someone excellent to talk to, though I disagree about the givens book. I think it was poorly argued and had too many fatal flaws to count. The arguments represent the low bar in apologetic material. They are poetic and are great at rhetorical exposition though.
Alex needs more sophistication to match his education
Where do you attend church now?
@@HaleStorm49 I don’t attend any specific church, because there is almost no purpose for them (except building a community of like mindedness).
@@Fritz_Lost_Sanity That seems like a pretty important purpose, no?
When I hear Alex express his frustration in not finding God, I always came back to one particular idea: does Alex see/feel the need for a savior? Christianity comes alive in a person’s life not because of some empirical or even metaphysical evidence (though the person who comes to faith will find these), but because like Alma, that person has found himself crying out “O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me.”
This is awesome! Alex O’Connor, please talk with Jacob! You’ll have a fun time! 🌟
Everyone Smash the like button so this video gets views. We want Alex Connor to see this.
He’s seen it.
@@thekolobsociety How have you confirmed that?
I'd love too see it, I'm an atheist and last year I visited Carthage IL to see where Joseph Smith was killed. I agree with s lot of what you say in the video
14:08 that kid said it so well!
Completely agree with the closing statement. Most Christian beliefs are actually insane.
Loved the content in this video!
Speaking as a former atheist myself, at least in my experience, the first year or two of being an atheist is when you tend to be the most "into" atheism. After a while, it starts to lose its luster and it ceases to scratch that peculiar itch we all have for religion. In a lot of ways, atheism, especially internet atheism, is quite juvenile in its critiques of religion, unable to stand up against any apologist who happens to have read a book or two. And that's because a large part of internet atheism skews quite young. Most people who've been atheists for a long time don't talk about it or really care that much about atheism, because atheism isn't that interesting. It's so bankrupt of intellectual or emotional value that, within about two years or so of being an atheist, I started looking into the arguments religious people actually used to justify their beliefs and, though I wasn't immediately convinced, I realized there was a lot more to it than internet atheism ever portrayed. These weren't knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who could barely string two thoughts together like internet atheism has historically made religious people out to be, but people with the same questions as everyone else, thoughtful, intelligent people who've considered these things a lot more in-depth than I had at that point. When I realized that, though I still didn't stop being an atheist, I did stop bothering with Internet atheism. That was when I started earnestly learning about religion from both its adherents and from unbiased academics, and not just from the gutter of the internet.
I largely agree. But what you’ve described is the culture of the internet at large-not just internet atheism; it tends to cater to sound bites and people unchecked in their emotions.
Many of the long-time atheists lose interest in continuing to debate as they’ve lost that initial emotional reaction and they move on to other pursuits; but some, like myself, occasionally come in and out of these spaces because of intellectual interests. There are mostly bad arguments, in my opinion, on all sides; and there are some good ones on both sides-but the strength of those are subjective, as what might be convincing to you may not be for me and vice verse.
I'd like to listen to a conversation with you two and Travis.
Great job with this one, Jacob
FANTASTIC!
14:00 or so. It's true though. The lowercase-o orthodox credal Christian teaching of the Trinity is so baffling that the majority of heresies throughout history have been people earnestly struggling to understand it and just getting it wrong in some way. Not rejecting it, but just getting it wrong.
This is great! I wonder though about your comment on the debate that Tent Horn was arguing like an atheist. 😁
I would love to see you two have a discussion.
Even in modern day Spanish (a Latin rooted language), the word 'Sin' means 'without' i.e "missing" something.
This is a well done video. Great points.
I think this is one of your best videos. Thanks for the hard work and for sharing it. I still don't understand how you can understand this but not that Brigham Young was wrong on polygamy and that Joseph Smith wasn't the originator of it. Either way, thank you for this.
Great video!
As a Oneness Pentecostal Youth Pastor, Alex is also my favorite atheist TH-camr for different and similar reasons. I really appreciate his sincere search for God he appears to be on.
As far as his objections to Ken Ham, the serpent was the devil, which we believe to be a fallen spiritual being that had been created good. There was a tree of knowledge of good and evil they weren’t to eat- but it was there because true love requires a choice. If they couldn’t choose to reject God then they couldn’t really choose to love Him either.
The LDS view of God with a physical body who didn’t create out of nothing has to deal with the Kalam Cosmological Argument as defended by William Lane Craig because he isn’t spaceless, timeless or immaterial. Not to mention the fact that the Bible calls God a Spirit (John 4:24), invisible (Colossians 1:15) and that the only way He has been seen is in Jesus (John 1:18) and that He made all things & without Him nothing was made (John 1:3).
Also, how do LDS deal with how a very low population in Hell (or Outer Darkness) with all of the overt evil in the world seems to make God unjust for letting sin go unpunished if people choose not to accept Christ’s substitutionary death in our place? Hell is spiritual death or the absence of the presence of God which has been earned by every human because of our rebellion against our Creator. Jesus took the wrath we deserved. If we don’t accept that gift by obeying Acts 2:38 I don’t understand why we would go unpunished still unless you say Christ’s atonement can be applied any other way?
This seems like a sincere comment with great questions . Do you really want to understand the reasoning behind them because there are robust theological discussions in those areas. It would require a genuine desire to understand a different framework with an open mind. Probably best to start with one question such as the implications of rejecting creatio ex nihilo or something, but if you are up for it there are many lovely and knowledgeable people on this channel that would probably be glad to engage with you. 🙏 ❤
I think you have *some* information but not enough understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as those scriptures you quoted aren’t at odds with the Church’s doctrine. God is spirit but that would require you to understand how we understand what spirit is and that it doesn’t conflict with God having a physical body.
At the end of the day sola scriptura is going to be the biggest issue you’ll have to overcome. We’re not built on the Bible, we are built on what the Bible is built on - living prophets and apostles who receive public revelation. Thus we are not bound to the Bible only for Gods revealed word, nor are we left to figure the Bible out for ourselves through our own understanding and reason as it seems most who hold to “the Bible only” fall into.
No one is going to argue that a poor understanding of God is the basis for most of these disagreements. Its actually a good thing that we can see in the modern era that Satan's most potent tactic is to confuse us about our identity. He's been doing it with God since the beginning and scored a HUGE win at Nicea.
Re: Outer darkness. When Paul was asked about the resurrection he said that bodies would have levels of glory comparable to the Sun, moon, and stars. He didn't mention hell at all. We have to contrast his answer with Christ teaching that there is an unforgivable sin worse than all the others (murder, theft, rape, etc) which is consistent with the LDS belief and not your assertion that God is "letting sin go unpunished" Again its due to creedal consensus declarations that altered the doctrine and understanding of the Apostles at the inception and have been taught at divinity school degree programs ever since. They aren't consistent and don't make sense, but they are codified and accepted. Everything else is heretical or non mainline christianity.
@@wheat2344 how do you personally deal with the idea that the LDS concept of Heavenly Father previously being a man like us could mean there is someone who created Him?
Even if you think there is continued revelation, do you think John was wrong that it was by Jesus that all things were made?
You don’t have to answer if you don’t feel certain about it. I just can’t reconcile it with what I see in the Bible.
@@HaleStorm49 how do you understand how the sin of someone who isn’t a member of your faith is dealt with if they don’t accept the ordinances someone performs by proxy in the afterlife?
I’d be happy to debate you on that last comment that “Mormonism is the most plausible version of Christianity”! I know I don’t have a big TH-cam channel but that really shouldn’t matter if truth is our goal. At the very least maybe you would have a discussion with me that I could post on my channel? I’m a friendly guy haha so let me know!
I'm interested to have a discussion on your channel or mine in case Jacob doesn't respond.
It's not only the most plausible but it's also getting far superior results in both the micro and macro. It's peak Christianity practiced as God intended.
Id also discuss this topic with you.
Not only is it the most plausible, but it also gets far superior objective results than creedal Christianity.
This argument can be made from either statistics or scripture.
Peak Christianity is practiced as God intends-by covenant, not by consensus.
I'd take you up on your offer as well. Most active LDS members are dying to have someone talk to them about this stuff.
@ sure, I’d be happy to speak with you. How can I get in contact with you?
@@HaleStorm49 sure, I’d be happy to take you up on that. Where can I contact you?
Could you give the specific stats about comparative growth for the first 180 years. Just hoping to get the backing or a little detail from those claims.
It's not surprising that someone who genuinely wants to find the truth but also wishes for that truth to be divine would come to the best possible (i.e. the most forgiving) interpretation of Biblical problems. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith arrived at the doctrines he did because of the active debates of the time around the subjects (things like grace versus works, the nature of God, the problem of evil, etc.). People back then knew there were problems with the teachings in the Bible so naturally they discussed them, as we still do today, and Joseph, no doubt would have heard debates and drawn his own conclusions.
Like Alex, I want there to be an all-powerful god and an afterlife but I can't let that desire dictate my conclusions about reality. Letting go of all the comforting ideas taught by the church was not something I did lightly. It was the natural result of paying attention to the real evidence around me.
assumptions about reality.
Is there a way people can tag Alex so he sees this? I’d like to see you two engage in a video
Awesome video.
Yep. Normative Judeo-Christian theology is internally inconsistent and illogical, making something out of nothing -- based primarily on Greek philosophy, but seldom based on anything in the Bible.
4:53 i love love love ken ham don't you dare go after our friend.
If Jacob agrees with Alex by going after a literal creation story, Jacob is in bad company.
I hope I'm wrong.
Alex's always been honest. He just decided there's no point beating on the dead horse of "religion not true" and instead decided to focus on explorations of religiosity as a philosophical, sociological, anthropological, and perhaps biological phenomenon. He didnt want to pound on the poor christians repeating the same points which as far as the material world is considered have been mostly long settled while due to their nature, religious claims, can never be falsified. So instead he decided to explore why it is so hard to divorce humanity from belief and entertain the notion of not holding religion to the same rigour of evidence to which materialists hold material facts and see what happens. This ensures there's always more content to be made so its a win win and as an atheist I'm all for it.
Agreed. I've watched his videos for a number of years. He's young and smart and not wanting to drop the bomb on the conversation, which as a fellow atheist can be frustrating sometimes, but he's not out to try and win the argument. He's obviously curious, but I wouldn't fault him for also trying to make a long TH-cam career out of it.
@roxics I think that's what makes him different to JBP these days (another "religious" atheist), who appears to wilfully obfuscate the meaning he is hiding behind and is somewhat reluctant to work towards establishing common terms and definitions to communicate better which is frustrating to watch and to my mind sounds more like pandering to the conservative crowd who's willing to accept mystical formulations. Alex somehow manages to connect with different people and perhaps to better make their own points for them. As exemplified by his moderation of the Dawkins Peterson debate. The theology degree could be helping here.
Could you do a video about the slaughter of the Amalekites? That is something I, and perhaps others, do not understand why it occurred and how it was justified.
They were warned for decades and deserved worse than they got.
there is also a devils advocate argument that can be used for abortion in that God did not want any of those children becoming pagans and chose to wipe them out rather than let be groomed by their evil society.
I would agree. The theology that Joseph Smith created does answer many of the pitfalls that many Christian’s that only have the Bible can answer. The Bible is easy to refute as its Iron Age interpretation of Bronze Age mythology. Mormonism has the advantage of getting a fresh start and giving God a modern day update when compared to 2000-2500 years ago. While I have no doubt Alex could still find many flaws in Joseph’s mythology he created. Once he was exposed to the history that would be the final coffin. Have him on. I would definitely enjoy watching that. 😊
So good 👍
6:20 What do you think he means, eat the tree of good and evil when it's time?
11:42 with respect, numbers of people adopting a particular viewpoint does not necessarily reflect the merit of that viewpoint. There are many examples throughout history where a majority have made questionable choices, recent and historic so citing comparisons of followers is not necessarily a win. Perhaps use a different point to prove your position.
I want to see you and Alex together on a video so bad.
He’s read lots of stuff from lots of authors. He should add Joseph Smith and Alma and King Benjamin to his list 😊
It'd be great if you had Alex on
Jacob is a BEAST!!!!
Alex, give a good long listen to my man Jacob here.
Most atheists aren't dumb; they are good at sound reasoning. I can empathize with many of them, even Dawkins. We are all products of our environment to some degree and I see that in him. Many of the issues and problems they point out with Christianity and its history are things we would agree with and are already part of our belief system. The problem is that most Christians approach them without compassion and understanding and would just condemn them to hell because of their lack of belief. I think we could learn a lot from each other and perhaps we could be a bit more analytical (dare I say skeptical) as we approach belief. I think if approached in the right way, Mormons and atheists could teach each other a lot that would broaden our outlook and help us all recognize and accept truth wherever we might find it.
"Mormons and atheists could teach each other a lot "
I'm an atheist and to me that sounds nice, I don't honestly know anything about Mormonism. Other than the fact it is a more modern sect of Christianity. One which other Christians frown on. But to an atheist like myself, that doesn't matter, since I don't buy into any of the God claims. It would take God itself (if it existed) coming to me personally in a way that convinces me for me to say "God exists." Other people claiming a God is like this or said that isn't going to do it for me. If God exists and wants me to know it, it can do that. Since it's God. Short of that, someone is just trying to sell me something or control what I do and using this God concept as a puppet they put on to try and speak with authority and I'm not interested.
Although I will admit the mythology and stories can be fun, just like they are with Thor and Jupiter and Ahura Mazda and so on. As is the psychology of why people believe. Those things can be endlessly fascinating.
I think hrs doing exactly what God asked us to do here. Search and ponder, he's just missing the prayer
I’m not surprised you like Alex, Jacob. The two of you have the same level of belief in Jesus so you’re basically on the same spiritual level.
Ur a clown 🤡🤡
SIR, you have no ancient text for your ancient book translation. That, and your fly is down.
man he needs to read the Book of Mormon ha
Jacob,
1) What do you mean by 'creedal Christian'? Is Ken Ham a creedal Christian?
2) If rejecting creation ex-nihilo helps resolve the problem of pain and evil, does it create any challenges?
He is using that term because creedal christianity was the result of consensus councils where self-appointed experts decided what was Christianity and what wasn't.
They canceled any ideas they didn't accept (sound familiar) and declared any outside their circle "heretical"
This is why today if you don't confirm to their beliefs you are labeled "non Christian" a "cult" or said to believe in a "different Jesus" They took Christianity and declared it theirs...but the truth is that they are creedalists.
Jacob's argument is that if you are a creedalist, then a "peak Christian" is not actually a Christian at all. It doesn't matter if what they say makes more sense, adheres closer to scripture, or gets better results. It can't be christianity because it doesn't follow the creeds.
The Pharisees had a similar issue with John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Ken Ham is a creedal christian. Deja Vu all over again.
Hope that helps.
@@HaleStorm49 What is a creedalist? Is Ken Ham a creedal Christian?
@@pigetstuck Answer above. Anyone who adheres to creedal Christianity is a creedalist.
@@HaleStorm49 Much of modern American evangelicalism isn't very creedal. Right?
@@pigetstuck The creeds gave us the Trinity and defined the nature of God, the role of Christ and how salvation is attained.
You tell me.