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.
Oh Bill, you’re so much better than these guys. You didn’t have to lower yourself to do this
Don, I haven’t listened to much of IoT, and so I initially thought it would be irreverent and disrespectful. I was actually very impressed with this discussion. I loved it.
What would have happened if Joseph Smith lived on?
Would he had imploded or gone on to achieving more power?
I think if JS had it his way he would have included Polygamy (polyandry) for women as well. Too bad (or good) that Emma would have none of it.
Its interesting to me how we live in the classical physics (CF) arena, measuring everything from that perspective, including the question about “God”.
Now,…I have mixed feelings about “God” because from the current religious perspective that fights with CF, problems happen. But its interesting that both religion and CF folks stack the deck against things they can’t explain–especially when it threatens the world view they hold.
Glenn and Bill…there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEAR DEATH SURVIVORS who all say something exists outside of the CF and fundamental religionist perspectives. Why is it so easy to discount those perspectives?
I’m not picking on the pod-cast — it was interesting; but I am just perplexed why, before formulating opinions on things like the existence of “a god” (or perhaps creator of our reality), all the data isn’t consulted.
CF and fundamental religionist set themselves up as the ONLY two viable options allowed, when in reality there are other possibilities (and if you ask me, some pretty compelling evidence as well).
Just my $0.02
Its interesting to me how we live in the classical physics (CF) arena, measuring everything from that perspective, including the question about “God”.
Now,…I have mixed feelings about “God” because from the current religious perspective that fights with CF, problems happen. But its interesting that both religion and CF folks stack the deck against things they can’t explain–especially when it threatens the world view they hold.
Glenn and Bill…there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NEAR DEATH SURVIVORS who all say something exists outside of the CF and fundamental religionist perspectives. Why is it so easy to discount those perspectives?
I’m not picking on the pod-cast — it was interesting; but I am just perplexed why, before formulating opinions on things like the existence of “a god” (or perhaps creator of our reality), why all the data isn’t consulted.
Its sad when CF and fundamental religion set themselves up as the ONLY two opposing sides allowed, when in reality there are other possibilities (and if you ask me, some pretty compelling evidence as well).
Love this interview, Bill, so revealing as to your and others’ journeys seeking truth which does indeed set us free. I love your choice of Infants on Thrones to interview you here, a name which typifies the spoiled/entitled child nature which leaders naturally adopt to maintain control of all dumb enough to give in to their threats, noise, tantrumning and demands. By their fruits…
I’ve heard of healing stories, but never saw it. I know of Mormons who “commanded” someone to live, who died. Mormon apostles and prophets work ZERO miracles.
Doctor Dahesh of Lebanon was a true Prophet, and he worked supernatural miracles DAILY, with eye-witnesses writing of what happened. Google “Doctor Dahesh” and read.
“I will only believe in God, if God is pro-gay and pro-Feminist and pro-Democrat”.
I will only believe if men who claim to be prophets but who seemingly have zero access to God magic or even seem to be accurate in their views holding up over time tell me to believe something.