I didn’t say Jacob “couldn’t be woke,” I said he isn’t. He’s talked about it before and has taken issue with some of the SJW stuff…like the stuff that’s actually dangerous.
Unlike Greg Johnson, Jacob isn’t saying he’s “gay” and saying being gay is acceptable.
It would be more beneficial to use specific examples and or the Denhollanders own words to make such a case.
Reservation is fine. I don’t have a problem with that. The speculation, however, requires more than unfounded hunches.
We all get hunches. They become dangerous when we fail to articulate them when the commodities of time, thought, and information are available to us.
Re: the ERLC, I do not follow that org and I’m not an acolyte of Moore. I’m not sure I’d be so quick to write off anyone simply because they collaborate.
I may have conflated what you were saying with something I’ve heard elsewhere (not on this forum) that the Denhollanders couldn’t possibly be woke/egalitarian/whatever because they affirm the 1689 and go to a 1689 baptist church. That argument (which looking back at your comment, I see you didn’t make) just gets me spun up, because that’s exactly one of the points under contention: That ostensible conservatives are the ones pushing the SJ stuff while “affirming” the Danvers, 1689, WCF, BFM2000, whathaveyou. It’s no defense to say “well, they couldn’t be doing that because they’re conservative!” (Which again, I see you weren’t saying that).
That may be beneficial for someone to do, but not me and not here. I’m not convinced one way or the other about the Denhollanders “wokeness” and I see no reason to search out evidence to form an opinion.
You are correct that he did say the words “that’s not going to be in the video,” referring to abuse cases. However, when listening to the context, starting about two minutes earlier as you suggested, it seems to me that he’s saying it won’t be possible to cover so much ground in 1 film. Thus his statement about “it not being in the video” seems to be a conclusion based on that, not a statement of information that he has. It could be taken either way though.
I still don’t think you can definitively say what will or will not be covered in this film based on what James White says here due to the fact that it is somewhat ambiguous, and because he is not actually involved in making it and has no authority to say what will be covered. Anything he says is still only his opinion.
Any final decisions would be from the Founders organization.
I didn’t say it was definitive, I’ve said “if it’s true.” I suspect it is true. Being familiar with White’s work, he’s not one to speculate on issues like this.
But if it is included, I think White is right: there’s no way to satisfactorily address that issue, let alone the others, in a movie.
I don’t think we’re required to investigate everything that’s ever said otherwise we’d get nothing done in real life. I’m merely contributing to exchanges on a thread you began.
I do think we are required to be more careful about speculating. I’ve seen it a number of times from different individuals in this thread. Not only is this contrary to the 9th commandment, when we do it, it dilutes future witness we may bear when there is an actual issue.
For the record I think Trump claimed to be boringly Presbyterian 
.
Agreed. And the main reason people should stop speculating about what the documentary will say, and just let the film maker let it speak for itself.
Except the point of a trailer is to elicit interest and spark conversation.
If the film was intended to speak for itself only as a whole, a trailer wouldn’t have been released.
Ok, brothers. I think we’ve talked this one out. If requested, I’ll reopen this topic when the film is released.