It's the unfortunate reality of modern social media that shorts get eyeballs. Especially among younger viewers. The shorter the better, because most people are just flicking through hundreds of shorts at a time.
Seriously? I’m in my 60s. You’re condemning yourselves. You “intellectuals” make all these presumptions about others then claim you’re intelligent.
That fact is is that McClellan is repeating what both the Bible and The Book of Mormon state, that faith is belief in things unseen. People receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost. You all have at one time. But now you’re hung up on some historicity issue because you can’t find bones or whatever it is that you claim will provide proof.
I’m just laughing that the M2C crowd and the Heartlanders can’t even agree on where the fantasy story took place
Mormon Stories has created a few shorts, based on Daniel McClellan's interview. This short on the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to have ruffled the Mopologists' feathers:
Mopologist Jacob Hansen decided to jump in and "critique" Daniel McClellan. Jacob is clearly out of his league and offers absolutely nothing of substance. He also tries to take a personal swipe at Daniel McClellan at the end of the short. If this is the best they can do, the Church is in deep trouble:
Expect many more personal attacks on Daniel McClellan from the Mopologists, since they are incapable of attacking his scholarship.
Jacon Hansen does his best work making LDS propaganda and taking the negative side in amateur debates. The dude regularly takes Ls from Jeff Durbin so there is no way he could do anything of value going after McClellan. But Hansen's only goal is to try to keep LDS people from leaving the church and any answer is a good answer so I doubt he cares about the intellectual quality of what he produces.
What's the data that doesn't support The Book of Mormon? Data from Mopologists? Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists?
Talk about an assumption of misinformation (almost like it has been crafted by Mopologetics to deliberately mislead). Dan McClellan gets information by reading the accepted Biblical scholarship that has nothing to do with the Mormon Church. Best to check with honest Mormon scholars before tapping into that Mopologetic stuff.
Interpreter should invite McClellan to engage on a series of topics - his choosing or theirs - and see where it all leads.
I would host that debate on my channel.
I wonder if Dan might wish to avoid direct debate over church positions or beliefs. I watched through to the end of his interview with Mr. Dehlin. Dan was careful to draw lines separating his professional scripture study wherein he follows professional standards of following the data from his church participation. He notes faith can stand alone without data support. He stated he will not express his personal belief or faith outside of some church contexts where it is appropriate. In the same way it appears he wants to be very careful not to criticize church leaders or directly confront church positions.
I suppose with those constraints there may still be some subjects of debate he would be willing to engage in but it sounds like they would have to be carefully chosen.
so there is no way he could do anything of value going after McClellan. But Hansen's only goal is to try to keep LDS people from leaving the church and any answer is a good answer so I doubt he cares about the intellectual quality of what he produces.
, i haven't received anything from an imaginary entity. 
