Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
Sounds like a great opportunity to be addressed during general conference this October. Maybe one of them will take a stab at it.
Michael Ash seems to have the right attitude about it, and it seems like an over reach on anyone’s part to say We will never lead you astray.
This is like a parent trying to tell their child that they know what’s best for them, never mind if the children would prefer something else wherein in some instances the child may have the better recourse of action.
When all is send and done, I still prefer being part of the LDS community of that of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which lately I’ve been considering affiliating myself with.
Prophets admitting they have taught false doctrine themselves will never happen. Bruce McConkie had the nerve to say Brigham Young taught some bad things,…but hearing Bruce say he himself taught false things (for example, in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine) didn’t and would not have happened.
What is it that makes these guys have to take such a careful approach to admitting mistakes?
Uchdorf said mistakes have been made…but will you ever hear one of these Q15 say: “Yeh, I taught something wrong”?….wont happen.
I think they are afraid it will take the lid off the pressure cooker and will open it up to ALL Their words being scrutinized more by a larger group of people.
I’m of the opinion they will not admit error because of political and internal pressure. Integrity and humility don’t matter [as much]–what matters is the unified front presented to the general membership and the world.
We are also taught that the prophet is the lords mouthpiece. How do we Joseph didn’t lead us all astray when he made up this whole thing? The answer is. It just another man made religion. every time you get a new leader. You get an different ego a different mindset or perspective. A different agenda. that’s why you see the changes and disavowing going on. Different men different ego’s. All man made religion.
In my experience the current church members who invoke this idea use it to jusify why “the thinking has been done” so they don’t have to. In other words, even if they follow the prophet and do something wrong, hurtful, against God’s will – or even just plain evil, that the blame – and consequences – will be meted out to the prophet, and that the lowly member will actually be REWARDED for obedience.
IMO this is very, very frustrating – and potentially even more dangerous.
Love your podcasts! How can I get my eyes on the 1949 presidency message? Not that I don’t believe you, I just want good hard evidence for those that may not believe me.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1949
http://www.utlm.org/images/curseofcain/curseofcain_p116appendixc.gif
http://lds-church-history.blogspot.com/2012/03/george-albert-smith-aug-10-1949.html
http://mit.irr.org/1949-official-mormon-statement-on-blacks-and-priesthood
http://www.blacklds.org/1969-first-presidency-statement
This was such a validating episode for me. As someone who’s main struggles with the church are how unreliable feelings from the Spirit are, I appreciated this so much. This was the main thing that made me question everything I’d ever known growing up mormon, because I got a very strong answer to a prayer while in the temple, that turned out to be false. I tried all the justifications I could come up with to make it the correct answer, but it was so specific that I had a hard time making it the right answer. It made me doubt everything I’d ever prayed about and everything I’d built my testimony on. It’s a big problem and I haven’t found any good answers to it. The only one I’ve found was Holland’s talk on Wrong Roads. But as RFM talked about in his analysis of that talk a while ago, the talk just didn’t make sense to me and brought no comfort, just showed that prayer really isn’t trustworthy. Keep doing what you’re doing, Bill and RFM, you’re helping so many people!
Oh, yeah! Talk about the church painting itself in the corner, line upon line… Only ways out of this dilemma is to admit and start over with the real Law of Common Consent (no bullying this time), or just keep saying, “Obey! Don’t Question!!! Follow the Profit!!!!”
Thank you for this episode!!! I’ve been making these connections for a while but you summarized it all in a very clear and concise manner. I agree that this is the number one issue within the church. If the prophets can’t even tell us the correct nature of God, then nothing else from them can be fully trusted. They are just guessing like the rest of us. However they claim to speak for god. In my opinion there is nothing more dishonest they could do.