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.
It’s not often one gets to hear a true believing member interviewing someone who doesn’t believe. So to me this is an important step to helping those in faith transition. However, Allen has to be so careful when he talks about his reasons why he doesn’t believe. It feels like he gets just a few crumbs in that might help believers have more compassion. I guess for now I will just appreciate the crumbs. But it is still unsettling that Allen and I and so many others hardly have a voice. This to me is the biggest cause of pain while trying to stay active while not believing the same.
Thanks Nadine. What have you had success with when talking to believers about why you no longer believe? In my experience, diving into the specifics of truth claims just doesn’t work. Goal posts are moved, interpreting the data differently, etc. I’ve found that focusing on the new information learned contradicting with my personal spiritual experiences works best.
When not in a podcast setting I usually add the question, “How would your faith change if you learned irrefutable information that contradicted what the Spirit had told you?” We lay our entire belief structure on those spiritual experiences. If those experiences can’t be trusted as a way to find truth, the entire thing crumbles. That’s why I focus on that.
I loved the discussion! The only part I had real issues with was the assumption that Allan would’ve been ok if only the messy history would’ve been taught while he was growing up. I laughed at bringing up ISIS, but it totally is the data that’s problematic, not that it wasn’t taught (of course, hiding the info creates more problems than it solves). I hate when people assume that I only have issues because early leaders made human mistakes or the history wasn’t taught to me. It totally misses the mark, but I get that those are safe places for the TBM mind when confronted with dissonance.
Super dooper!!
This is a great episode!!!
So much to learn from what a healthy argument and resolutions can look like.