What are you doing attending lots of Sunday schools? Sounds a bit dodgy to me. Perhaps their opinion is 'Get out of my classroom!'

It's figurative, not literal. I'm sure you got the point despite your different experiences.

I have to agree with you regarding that, because doctors are also biased to a certain extent and can be wrong. Maybe the answer is if you don’t have a doctor you can trust you should find another doctor. On the other hand, I get the point he’s making and I agree with the spirit of the point he is making.

I agree. The analogy didn’t age well. We are finding out just how arbitrary medical “science” is.

And to add to that most of time the when doctors strike the mortality rates stay the same. And on a few occasions they have actually dropped. Just look at what’s inside medicine, a lot of chemicals.

Well, I think that most people would agree that the weight of the average doctor's opinion has been reduced by at least 50% since COVID.

Mine, as well.

Religion gets in its own way by claiming "Objective" truth, while rejecting the methodology for finding objective truth. I think it's perfectly fine to claim that "kindness" is an objective truth, but when religion asserts things like visions or miracles as objectively true, it digs itself into a massive hole. There are most certainly things experienced that are beyond provable, that's what places them into the category of faith.@@kimberlycarlile

@@tsmithson1 Thanks for your insights. I'd appreciate your thoughts on experiences I've had regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were, to me, confirmations of truths in the scriptures, from the Holy Ghost. Is that still faith? Or objective truth for me that I share as a part of my testimony. Such confirmations were grounded in the scriptures. Perhaps "likening" the scriptures unto myself. Nevertheless, I "know", and I know God knows I know, and for me to deny it...well, I can't.

People who grow up on a farm or in some situation where they see practical applications & consequences all about them, and learn that their actions and choices make a big difference in the quality of theirs & others lives, are learning reason. They grow up with a natural sense of logic. People who grow up in an insulated culture & danger-proof home, who are always shielded from their own stupidity, can make up any rules they want, get away with it and never pay a price for being wrong, don't learn reason, but have a sense of elitism, often traded for a sense of victimhood, and that everything is always someone else's fault. You can see the vast difference today in various upbringings.

U do know that Saturday is the Sabbath and Sunday is the Lord's day! They aren't the same and that commandment is about the Jewish Sabbath.

Yes. Jacob is being profoundly hypocritical in this video.

Is correct thinking what it's all about? If so, who is the arbiter of correct thinking? How do I or you prove that we in fact are the ones who hold the correct ideas. This seems to me to be more of the problem than the solution. We humans continue to trade our expressions of being right for our highest values. We begin with value in mind and then quickly devolve into ideological recruiters.

@@tsmithson1 Fair enough. I realize some viewers look at these, this, discussion as constrained to the topic only, but there is obvioulsly a overtone of believers, thus the name of the program. The idea that there is a universal right on fundamental subjects to me weighs on the side of logic.

It's standard reading in Christian Universities: I read it in University in the 70's ! His fictional books are prophetic as to exactly what's happening in our Society today.

For the same sort of reason evolution cannot adequately explain the moral sense: because it cannot give an objective standard of right or wrong. The best evolution can do is to explain tribal cooperation (like Nazism, for instance).

As an individual who realizes that morality is always and necessarily subjective, I most certainly can and do condemn the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

@@Theo_Skeptomai Sure. But how could you critique someone who felt the opposite? All you can say is you feel differently, isn't it, and not that they were actually wrong?

@@grantbartley483 And what is this "objective standard" of right and wrong that you speak of? Please show us the list.

WHY are you combating relativism? I am not following.

OK, I don't disagree, however, it seems to me that religion has a major issue with conflating facts (truth) and belief. If we are going to follow the principles of objective truth, then we cannot accept something as factual because we had a warm fuzzy feeling, while the data expresses a completely contradictory view. Faith is faith because it's placing trust in something that is "not known", that is not provable or unprovable by any objective sense. The existence of God is NOT an objectively provable fact, but I can choose to live my life as though God exists. To have faith in something, it must also be objectively unprovable.

Conflating opinions with facts is the whole game for Jacob and apologists.

We see commonly in scripture the idea of the "Mysteries of God". I'm not sure why religion hasn't picked up on and leveraged the concept of things being "unknowable", that's what makes them a mystery. The pursuit of the highest good seems like a worthy endeavor, but supposing that somehow God has privileged you with his omnipotence is the very definition of Pride. @@flipjohnson5863

Jacob (like all apologists) wants to have faith in his cake and eat it too. @@tsmithson1

@@tsmithson1your statement is hereby proven true in the following Book of Mormon scripture: · “And he [the brother of Jared, after seeing the finger of the Lord] had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting”. - Ether 3:19 However, I do not feel the presenter is not expressing anything here concerning his own testimony of his faith of which he personally received via the witness of the Spirit of truth necessarily. Instead, it appears to me that his intentions were simply to help others better identify the subtle differences between expressions of fact or opinion during encounters of debate, whatever the subject may be. If the topic be upon religious theology, then fact would be the EXACT words recorded in the scripture, whereas opinion would the various interpretations thereof. That’s what I got from it anyways.

He is not going to examine Mormonism by the same standard. Jacob is a presuppositionalist.

Yes! Testimony meeting anyone???

Say u haven’t read Alma 32 without saying u haven’t read Alma 32

@@user-zf8eo3lx3x did your mom giggle at that - I bet she did. She probably thinks you are clever. Now you have silly mic drop comment for sunday school class this week. Alma 32 can work for JW, scientology, hindu - hell it can work for any class in high school or hobbie class. What a yawn of a comment.

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽😂😂

You're that ignorant one! NOT US! And we ain't you're cousin: all Mormons R ! LOL 😂

I was raised Protestant with a pinch of Catholic. I have pointed out a few times how without the pre-existence God would be unjust, but they will still defend to the end despite the reality of it is blatant

The Joke is, Atheists Always Say that, then They Believe Things They have Absolutely Evidence for. Like when Hemant Mehta Hears of Paul Turek's Atheist Role Play, Imagined it was Christians saying Things like "If Evolution is True, Why do We still have Monkeys" beating the Atheist Role Player, and based on what He Imagined, Ridiculed Christians in General for Needing to set up Strawman Arguments for Atheists that are Easier to Defeat Rather than Address the Real Arguments Atheist Make. Turek's Atheist Role Play is actually Available Online for Free, and was When Mehta Wrote that Article, but He didn't bother Looking Into it. He simply Imagined what it was Like then Ridiculed what He Imagined. Then all His Mindless Atheist Drone Followers Ridiculed Atheist Role Play based on Hemant Mehta imagining it that way. This is the same Hemant Mehta Who Attacked Chris Avell and Whose Followers now go about Attacking Anyone Who Defends Avell., including other Atheists, since Mehta claimed Avell did not Run a Real Church but an Arcade and it was a Death Trap and he Deserved being Punished as He did not "Really Care about The Poor". All While His Followers Ignore that Mehta is a Millionare Who Runs an Atheist Tax Exempt Origination that Helps None of the Homeless. They also say They don't need Dad's Place as there is a Homeless Shelter Next Door, as if This is Ignored by the Media when in Reality the Reason Dad's Place Opened to the Homeless was Due to the Shelter not being able to Accommodate Them. Even that silly "Atheists do not Claim God does Not Exist, they merely lack beleif in a god" nonsense is Obviously not True since They call People Delusional for Believing in God. Refer to God as a Sky Fairy, refer to God as a Myth, call God Fictional, say God is People's Imaginary Friend, and even outright State God does Not Exist, yet We are supposed to Pretend in the Face of all This Evidence that They Really do Claim God does Not Exist that The Word Atheism is Defined as a lack of beleif in a god therefore Atheists make No Claims and have No Burden of Proof, as if Defining the Word Atheism as a lack of beleif in a god is More Important than what They Actually do. Atheists Imagine their way to being Right... Atheist never offer Sufficient Evidence, they Insist They Merely lack beleif then Pretend This makes Everything They Say True and Must be Believed.

Except that today everyone has their own definition for "evidence". You're assuming that everyone understands and uses the same logic, see's the same things as being evidence [or not]. Our language has become a mess with the late infiltration of Marxism into academia, and has changed and clouded the meaning of words and concepts. 2 people arguing usually mean different things by the words they use, and "evidence" is a big one. What is 'evidence' for me would likely be rejected by you, as proving nothing. Same with the word "prove" - you cannot "prove" anything to anyone who does not want to accept it, no matter what "evidence" you present. To demonstrate this point, I often ask people what they would need as "proof" to accept something they currently reject. I have yet to get an answer from any of them, because they have no intention of accepting the things they reject, regardless of what "evidence" there is. There is even a video of some atheists [including Richard Dawkins] discussing what they would consider proof of the existence of God. They came to the conclusion that there could be none. Nothing would convince them, no matter what it was. They admitted it. Hearing the voice of God, seeing God, seeing miracles, etc, etc, NOTHING would work as proof for them, because they have made their minds up that anything that COULD prove it, they would simply reject, and assume it must be a hoax of some kind, even if they couldn't explain it any other way. I'm sure you can still find the video. It shows you the TRUTH about people...in their own words. There will always be "insufficient evidence" for anything you don't want to accept, because you get to make up your own mind about whether to accept such evidence. "Evidence" means NOTHING to the stubborn psyche.

@@jameseverett4976 Well that position would be true if nobody ever changed their minds about anything. But that is clearly not the case. People change their minds based on evidence all the time. Some people do not because our monkey descended brains don't work very well. So what?

I would say, with the Christian community, it isn't black and white. What I mean by that is their actually is a great amount of ideas for which someone is justified to hold the position based on their opinion. This is because so much of a Christian's understanding is left up to interpretation and ultimately they must choose between a menu of possible meaningings from the text. They always have to negotiate a meaning from the text. At the same time, good exegesis can't be ignored. It is also really hard to find, especially in LDS teaching, in my opinion.

Your brain surgeon analogy is great. I would argue that, on some points, it would be ridiculous to ignore Biblical scholars. However, the variance from scholar to scholar and from LDS prophet to LDS apostle means this analogy doesn't hold. There aren't really authorities in the faithful realm.

Incorrect take on a morality without God being arbitrary. First, moral objectivity cannot be shown. Second, that does not doom us to say that any moral system derived by man is purely arbitrary and thus unreliable. Third, you cannot demonstrate that the Christian morality is anything but man-made. Fourth, Christian morality fluctuates and therefore was not always consistent with whatever objective morality is, if it existed. Fifth, once goals are established, objective statements can be made, morally. If a society has a goal that 80% of their population will reach 78 and be on the third rung of Maslow's hierarchy for 80% of their existence, you can objectively say that killing someone is a bad or immoral decision.

Relativism is justified in a faith context. Y'all can't take this objective stance only to retreat to faith when you can't provide evidence. You cannot objectively show YWH exists and therefore can't hold that one person's view is wrong. You can say that only one can actually be true. You can say one has more or less evidence. You can't say they're wrong. This is an example of theologians talking like they're scientists while simultaneously ignoring science in lieu of faith.

It isn't that there is no actual truth, it is that humans are not able to ever fully comprehend reality. This much is demonstratable

But they do! And an investigation into historical evidence for those events reveals that they did. Just because YOU OR I don't, or people you know haven't, doesn't mean that does not happen. Your opinion is that they don't happen. Evidence exists that they do. I think that's the point of Bahnsen's argument.

@@alexkilgrow725 lol. I'd think you must be kidding if this kind of response weren't so common. Please don't just claim there is evidence unless you can provide it (hint: you can't, so don't bother).

Religious people claim faith is evidence. It is simply not rational. Faith is good but it is not evidence. Faith should not be used as a reason to not seek or have evidence.

The survival of Christianity is my witness that God sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who walked on water, miraculously healed the sick, raised the dead, and was Himself resurrected. Were it not so, the persecution of both the Jews and Rome would have crushed Christianity and we would have no Bible. The precision of Earth's distance from the sun, the perfect balance of the Earth's atmosphere, and the movement of the planets all are too perfect to be coincidental. They testify of a Creator. Who are we to say the power of that Creator can or cannot do? In continuation, I do not know a creator, even me, who does not love what they have created with their own hands and minds, at least initially. So it only stands to reason that the Great Creator "so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son." I do not mean to attack you, but I find you posting your arbitrary claim on this video truly ironic.

@@kellystone7501 But there are honest to God youtube videos showing actual GIANTS from the Bible that actually existed, and Noah's ark too! They couldn't possibly be hoaxes. (that was sarcasm, if you couldn't tell)

He was a child predator and sexual manipulator. There's that.

Not necessarily. External objective reasons might be given, such as that the Gospels are reliable beccause the writers would have no reason to lie under persecution. The question is not whether this belief is mere opinion, but whether it's a good objective argument (which it is)

@@grantbartley483 An argument about the reliability of a sacred text which was not actually written by those whose names are on the various chapters - with some exceptions - makes them objectively reliable? You do realize that the gospels were not actually written until well after the death of Christ and by people who were not actually there to witness the events. They passed on what they heard. Even the LDS church struggles with the Journal of Discourses (claiming misinterpretations and misunderstandings in the reported speeches) and that is filled with accounts taken in short hand (which didn't exist of course in Christ's time) by reporters and stenographers who were actually there listening to the speeches. No such luck in Christ's time. Hearsay is all they had to work with and then someone heard the story and wrote it down. Remember the party game where you pass a message down a line of people? Ya, now think about that over a few hundred years. Don't get me wrong, in spite of it's shortcomings and falsehoods in claims as to who authored what, there are still things in the Bible worth studying - as in almost all religious texts. You just cannot claim it to be objectively reliable. Those texts are factually not reliable. Just look at today - we have pens and paper, audio and video recordings, eye witnesses who record what they saw - and still we get things wrong even today. Now tell me that what we have today was accurately conveyed over let's say a thousand years - no, let's say 100 years. Belief does play a large part in this discussion because that is what causes many to hold strong opinions in spite of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs - so they find anything possible to support their belief. We all do it and not just with religion. We just need to be aware that we are doing it so that we can recognize our own reality and the holes that exist in it.

@@ericbyers235 Sorry Eric but you're talking historical nonsense. All the ancient Gospel manuscripts long enough to have names on bear the names of the four Gospel writers, no others, and we know from Papius and other early writers that Peter was the source of Mark and John was the apostle. So clearly first-hand evidence. No credible scholar in the field puts any Gospel after 95 AD, which is the latest date for John, so they're all written within living memory. But you're welcome to present any contrary evidence.

@@grantbartley483 living memory. Key words. Assumptions that they got it right to begin with and that none of the writers may have changed things up due to ulterior human motives is quite a leap. Not to mention assuming that there weren't any changes after they wrote them. Today we have ways to track changes and who mad the change. There are scholars who seem to have legitimate concerns over who actually wrote the gospels, which makes sense due to the nature of how things were recorded,by whom, and how they were kept. There always seems to be an underlying perspective of divine intervention in order to make the Bible effectivity infallible. And that is objective and logical? We can argue forever. My ultimate point is that we must recognuze our own holes, biases, and stop pointing fingers as Jacob loves to do. if we don't then it's just a repetitive conversation using every tool possible to support our own position. It is no longer about the discovery of troth.

@@ericbyers235 Give me some ulterior motives that match with the history, including the spostles being a persecuted poor minority surprised by the resurrection, and I'll allow you're actually thinking and not just trying to dodge the truth. If you say 'wealth and power', I'll say, don't be stupid, the church had none of that for three hundred years. And we know the Gospel was not changed in that time, since Jesus's death and resurrection was reported continually by writers ever since it happened. Face it, you're trying to dodge the truth by stirring up mud.

He has to bring John up to get anyone to look at his trash

Unfortunately his life didn't back his theology up ! And I am saying that as a Christian: not as a Mormon.

So it rewards you by reinforcing your decision to be a self proclaimed ex mo? Hmm sounds like you are engaging in relativism the same as an atheist or the mormon you claim is unable to look at things a certain way due fear of losing their testimony. You are continually reinforcing your decision by "exploring the angles" that then reinforce your decision. If it is such a "flawed" religion, why not just forget about it and move on? I suspect the "challenge, criticizing, and making fun of" is actually how you keep throwing dirt on top of that uneasy feeling you have. How do I know? I was just like you! I wish you luck in being able to bury that feeling but I doubt there will ever be enough ridicule you can direct at the church and it's members to truly bury it.

Feel bad for you bro. My guy heeded the voices, my guy is fascinated with the great and spacious building 🤦‍♂️

No, it’s about the truth

Well said. Perfect!

I would like to give you a more complete answer. I believe we all have to walk our own paths in life, and you may very well be on your way to being a most committed member of the Church, as I am. However, my path is the opposite of yours. I was raised in and around virtually every other kind of Church imaginable in the Midwest. As a teenager, if it was bad I was into it, probably because the opposite was a mess. Nobody I knew of had good, cohesive answers to what life was all about. As an almost 19 year old Marine, that all changed when I found out about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only did the pieces fit together and make sense, they have continued to do so in depth and richness for my 50 years in the Church. Yet, I did notice some people, who were apparently like you, who take what they had for granted. That’s the thing that you are going to have to learn, that the rest of what the world has to offer doesn’t come close to what we already have available to us as members of the Church. Some people, like you and me, have to learn the hard way.

The delusional wall is Mormonism: always trying to redefine Christian terms resulting in a counterfeit religion!

Christianity is absolutely true if it is absolutely true. Plenty of Christians do have arbitrary ways of arguing. Pretty much everybody does. It’s arbitrary to call a religion false if you don’t believe in truth. It’s not so arbitrary to call a religion true if you do believe in truth, but you can still be wrong, and have a belief founded upon arbitrary standards. This video seems to largely be an argument in favor of believing in absolute truth, but against undue confidence. Those who believe in truth will presumably seek it out, and must ask themselves by what standard it can be determined.

@@captainsirk1173 is the Bible absolutely true?

did he withhold a blessing?

@@harambeboy not sure what you're referring to. He was doing a QandA with the youth and it came up in one of his answers to something.

Ironically, that's his opinion, and therefore irrelevant by his own logic.

@@jmut714 If his opinion is irrelevant, then his opinion is true. As an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, what he says holds a little more weight.

@@themanflake Kind of a paradox, huh? Similar to when Elder Anderson said that "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk." However, only he said that, not the whole quorum, and his words are indeed hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk.

Also, spiritually wifery was bad, but polygamy was good, as long as Joe gave his stamp of approval?

Dan shoot me an email. I would love to discuss your thoughts on morality on my channel. ThoughtfulFaith2020@gmail.com Lets set up a time.

the main reason why i like relativism is because it give us an oportunity to grow

Are you a real atheist or a fake atheist? (aka humanist)

Subjective beliefs are only subjective when Jacob doesn't want to believe them. His beliefs aren't subjective because he says so.

Jacob has almost no ability to critically self-reflect on his own views.

Do you know a better system that shows absolute complete objective truth without any errors that can be a better alternative to the collective witness model? I'd like to find out which others I can study.

How do you answer the same question about your deeply held beliefs? You really haven’t gained any ground by getting someone to admit there isn’t absolute proof of anything, just a tactic to interject skepticism as if that means someone is wrong. You are under the same condition and are still just as likely or more likely wrong. What people do to be rational with justification is to take the best possible choice among options that is more consistent, collective witnesses does that unless you rationally propose something better. A prophet today and theology about the afterlife are just a few things that LDS beliefs are more consistent with all the witnesses available.

Nah, there has to be some level of humility lest people end up like the Pharisees.

​@@boltrooktwonot if you're prophets R counterfeits: you run the risk of being wrong about everything you think is Christian!

@@davidjanbaz7728 That’s more skepticism without reason, an arbitrary opinion. The prophets are more consistent with the writings of the apostles of Jesus Christ who clearly relate there should always be a prophet, even today, “till we are unified in Christ” to keep people from going astray with arbitrary opinions and relativism.

Here, here! I’m over the tutus too.

I was recently reading in 3rd Nephi (6:18-20) about how wicked things were just before Christ's coming, and found these words, ". . . men inspired from heaven and sent forth . . . preaching and testifying boldly of the sins and iniquities of the people, . . ." and wondered why we don't hear that kind of preaching in General Conference, or Sacrament Meetings.

It’s not opinion, it’s witness. Jesus was the most accurate prophet that has existed, the things he said can be measured and demonstrated as accurate. People have witness of Jesus today and His direct influence. Witness is the basis of all evidence, even your personal experience is your witness put on your memory. Your ideas here, how are they not arbitrariness or relativism and why should anyone else be subject to it?

So you're telling me that you're nonintelligent default position of nonintelligence creating the Universe is more rational than an intelligent mind creating the Universe. U Seriously believe that? You're the one denying things based on you're ignorant presuppositions: there is no evidence of nonintelligence creating any intelligent beings.

@@davidjanbaz7728 Technically, there’s no evidence for or against anything beyond the boundaries of the known universe. All we know with any certainty is that a universe such as ours is possible. The notion of intelligence being required for design is bound by the laws we perceive here, as is the notion that a being such as God couldn’t exist. There’s no telling what’s possible out there from in here. This is why things like the existence of God are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. We’d have to become godlike beings ourselves, capable of transcending the universe to actually find out with any certainty. Of course, if God doesn’t exist, that’s probably impossible.

The only witness Jesus or you or I should care about is how you live your life and treat your fellows beings. If your beliefs don't cause that to happen then they are true, they are just ideas.@@boltrooktwo

@@tsmithson1 You are giving me an arbitrary should statement from your personal opinion. What I do, my values, and the reasons I do it all matter. All the witnesses and evidence matter because they are true. Truth is eternal and immutable, our participation in it counts along with our consistency and integrity that are in harmony with human value and purpose. How you think I should treat people or how you treat people is arbitrary and relative, it might not be true or the best.