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.
So amusing! He could open a gospel waffle house with shit toppings.
So, Bill, when are you going to do the Elder Holland podcast, “Bullying, Bullshitting, Lying sack of Shit!”?
Then on to “Shit Brownbagger.”
“Smorgasbord of ‘Gospel’ Shit.”
“The Bull shit’s gonna get deeper, take your vitamins.”
(I didn’t realize this Profit is such a model narcissist.)
“Surely the Lord will do nothing but reveal waffling bull shit lies out of the mouth of His Servants. It is the same bull shit whether from ‘mine own mouth’ or the mouth of my Servants.”
Damn, I feel like raising my hand in opposition when sustaining the leaders of the church now.
All that to say, I want you all to be faith promoting and apologists for the dominant narrative of the church rather than being objective to the truth rigorous and through to withstand scholarship scrutiny.
Just remember folks, this is the same person (Apostle I should add) that said we need to believe in a literal “Adam & Eve” otherwise the atonement makes no sense.
It’s an interesting sign when he reminds them of their “covenants” as informing their scholarly attitude without actually mentioning what those covenants are.
Veiled references to the supremacy of secret oaths doesn’t help the Church’s claim that it’s not a cult.
In other words, Elder Holland is saying, point blank, in all of his eloquent, philosophical, grammatical fluff: “Employees of the Maxwell Institute, your job is to hammer a round hole into a square peg. This is what we’re paying you for. Any questions?”
“There are times when you will need to throw your scholarship, integrity, facts and truth under the bus and support the LDS Leadership. If you’re not prepared to do this you probably should look for another job.”
I think Holland did a good job with how he delivered his message. His presentation was rather kind, considering what he was trying to accomplish. However, its not his delivery that is important here: its HIS MESSAGE.
True scholarship involves peer-review and reproducibility, including critique as well as revision. Its a way to drill through layers of falsehood until you wittle things down to stone cold truth.
Holland’s message admits, at least indirectly, that the church can’t stand being scrutinized. How STRANGE is that!….especially from an organization that claims to be transparent as well as TRUE?!
Truth hurts the LDS church. Historical truth and scholarship hurt the LDS church.
Bill…I agree with your assessment. Holland is saying that people need to sacrifice their professional integrity to defend the Church. Is there a difference between professional integrity and personal honesty?
If I were a dentist and said: “You can drink high acid water. It won’t hurt your teeth….” am I culpable for causing harm? I would conclude YES. But, this is my professional opinion. How is this different when the LDS scholars tell lies and hurt people?
Let’s see… Elder Holland stated that reviewers thought that they (the institute) May have lost SONE of their founding vision yet the narrator consistently changes that statement by completely dropping the “some” and speaks of it as though Elder Holland said or implied “all”. And while doing that he accused Elder Holland of being a liar?!? It is morally wrong for one to call another a liar especially while they are in the process of intentionally distorting what the other said.
Who did this “independent” review of the Maxwell Institute that Elder Holland keeps talking about? Who were the reviewers?
Nicely done, if you ask me the top LDS leaders know their narrative is incorrect. And they doubt what the past leaders say also.
https://seekingyhwh.com/2018/09/19/doubt/
Art – It was Holland’s son, David, Terryl Givens, and Reid Neilson (Managing Director of the Church History Department).
Bill – It is helpful to know that the three person review team, whose work Holland keeps referencing, included Holland’s son, David. Not exactly a disinterested party. Same with Terryl Givens, who makes his money selling books to Mormons, and Reid Nielson, an employee of the Church History department.
Also, some have not noticed Dan Peterson, who was kicked out of the Maxwell Institute, gloating about this address. He says the Holland’s address mirrored his vision for the Institute, before he was kicked out, but that he’s following that vision with his Interpreter Foundation. Here’s his article: https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/
If I’d been a part of the Maxwell Institute during this speech I would have been planning a job search. I don’t think academic scholarship is compatible, at all, with promoting the Mormon faith. There are too many lies and too much God magic involved.
I think I’ll go have a look at their website and see what is going on 2+ years later.