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.
Yes! The tales of Jesus and the Pharisees and His many creative labels for them, along with D&C 121: 33-46 ought to be far more than enough to wake up the sleepiest Mormon as to what they are drenched in?
If parts 1 and 2 of the podcast don’t do the trick, hopefully part 3 will.
Part 3 is set to go up this Sunday.
RFM
Great Podcast as always RFM. Hearing the clip from Elder Oaks’ speech to Aaronic Priesthood youth about taking and passing the Sacrament with their right hands, I was reminded of a great experience in my earlier life.
I was an Elder’s Quorum President in a Ward in Northern California and had long heard teachings about passing/taking the Sacrament with your right hand (along with the white shirt instructions as well). A new Bishop was called in our ward who had suffered an injury of some kind causing him to lose his right arm above the elbow. He had a prosthetic arm that had a clamping hook on the end that allowed him to pick things up. However, all of his Mormon types of “ordinance” activities had to be carried out with his left hand. When he sustained someone in the ward, stake, or General Offices of the church, he sustained them by raising his left hand. When he took the Sacrament as the presiding Priesthood holder in the Ward, he did so with his left hand.
I found it so refreshing for 5 years that all the talk about “right handed” BS ordinance participation virtually went away while he was the Bishop. No one in the Ward, including Pharisaical High Priests could make a comment about this because their own Bishop did everything with his left hand. Makes you stop and think about how silly Elder Oaks is with his recent training!
Keep up the great work RFM!
Great story!
My non-Mormon girlfriend who is left-handed takes special umbrage at Elder Oaks’ emphasis on right-handedness!
Ah yes, I too had my Pharisee moments.
I probably still do…
We all do, David.
The trick is to be aware of it.
And then not let yourself fall into the trap.
Or let others put you in the trap by, for instance, motioning a congregation to stand up for you when you enter the chapel.
I visited a ward once where the Bishop said, from the pulpit, “Brothers and Sisters, it does not matter which hand you use to take the sacrament.”
I know a man who deliberately takes the sacrament with his left hand as a show of defiance because of the Nov 2015 policy.
I am heartened to hear some local leaders realize it makes no difference which hand one uses.
But then, I also have to wonder whether that particular bishop would have corrected Elder Oaks on the subject . . .
“IF” there is no “Kingdom of Heaven” for homosexuals, then it would be dishonest to tell them “God is ok with you as you are”. The Apostle Paul wrote that homosexuals would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. He didn’t write that they just needed to hide it, or repent, and pay a full tithe and attend meetings, and they WOULD go there. They won’t inherit it, “if” 1) there is a Kingdom of Heaven and 2) Paul was right. If there is no God, no Afterlife, then what purpose would the Church be “for”? You might as well start a “club” or a “lodge” if the Church is simply a “social” organization. If there is no God or Afterlife, there is no reason to have a “Church”. One could replace it with a “social club” where people get together and have pot lucks and talk about how thankful they are for their husband/wife/family/children___fill in the blank____. The LDS Church is treated much like a social club already by many “people formerly known as Mormons”. But 1) if there is a God, and 2) if there is an Afterlife and 3) if there is a Kingdom of Heaven and 4) if Paul was CORRECT, then homosexuals are not going there.
Are they going to eternal hell-fire? Or are they going to a “lesser kingdom”? Well 1) if MOrmonism is false then NO they are not going to a lesser kingdom. One would then have to determine “Which church or religion is true?” to determine where homosexuals “go” after death. “My” current religion teaches me that homosexuals will “come back” here, on this planet, for another life, as heterosexuals will, and only ASEXUALS (yes, they do exist) will go off to the Kingdom of Heaven. But, again, “if” the Apostle Paul was correct, homosexuals will NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, regardless of how many hours they sit in a Mormon meetinghouse, how much tithing they pay, how many times they’ve given secret handshakes inside a Mormon Temple.
Whether or not LGBTQ people should 1) be allowed to marry, and 2) should have the right to live anywhere or if 3) conservative churches should be FORCED by the governing by threat of prison or legal confiscation of property, to “marry” same-sex couples, are questions completely OUTSIDE of “will they inherit the Kingdom of Heaven” or not.
If Jesus was alive today, what would He say about LGBTQ? Well, homosexuals say Jesus would say: “Gay is okay, everybody goes to heaven”. maybe He won’t say that. I believe, that Jesus reincarnated in 1909, in Jerusalem, wrote 150 books, worked thousands of supernatural miracles. And, yes, HE DID mention homosexuals and their fate. But, you won’t believe Him, because, well, He may not agree with YOU on the matter, and other matters. Like those with “inching ears” YOU will only believe those “prophets” or “philosophers” in whom YOU already agree with. That is why The Truth will never darken your door. You’re unworthy of it.