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.
At least we know the Church is taking baby steps in the right direction. Still a long way to go, but nobody is perfect, right?
I don’t know how much longer the stage act can hold up, it’s coming apart. Not everyone can handle the shock… better reinforce the stage.
Well if the church won’t issue an apology, I will issue my own:
“I’m sorry I had racist views, I’m sorry for uttering hurtful racist perspectives. I’m sorry for the damaged it caused. Please forgive me for the jokes I made and the perspectives I had. Going forward I will consider you my brother in every way. Thank you for your forgiveness and for allowing me to be considered your brother in Christ and beyond. May we take every necessary step to eradicate hate in the future.” Your friend. – David M.
President Dallin Oakes in the recent 40th anniversary celebration gave a talk. He said after the 1978 revelation the church promptly and publicly renounced the teachings of the past justifying the ban. This is a lie. I was a member during this time and it didn’t happen. Loyd Newell confirms this when says he wrote in sunstone at the 25th anniversary of the ending of the ban that the church should renounce the teachings justifying the ban. The church did not promptly and publicly renounce these teachings President Oakes. I would like an apology to people like me who were taught racist doctrine as a youth.
A church that defends its mistakes by saying, “Everyone makes mistakes” has no business commanding members to obey and not question. Bring back the real Law of Common Consent/Dissent which used to allow and encourage members to stand for Jesus first, to reduce and correct (repentance for leaders here) those mistakes by imperfect leaders sooner. When leaders come first, idolatry ensues and errors and lies pile deeper and deeper. By their fruits… Stand clear while it implodes of its own design?