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.
Powerful and true! Thanks for this
Thank you
My goodness…
Can you provide a transcript of the revelation from God that you produced?
I think it deserves to be translated into Spanish and floated around some family members.
I’ve just added a PDF of the introduction and scriptural adaptation. Note that I am not an English major. Enjoy.
Loved the episode.
Your question about church repentance? They can’t do it. Too late for them–they are path dependent on Oaks policy of not apologizing.
I couldn’t agree with you more about the blindness however. The leaders are as two-faced as they come: on one hand putting out a public face of piety; and on the other, they are “grizzly bears”….as Boyd Packer was referred to.
I hear you. My hope is for Oak’s apology policy be reversed just like the Nov. 15th policy. I’m not holding my breath though.
I’ve thought for a long time about this whole institutional sin idea–and its nice to hear it articulated in your podcast.
It becomes sooooo difficult for large organizations to apologize. I suppose it opens them up to litigation,…and isn’t that sad? As regarding the LDS church, its amazing to me that they preach the evilness of using “Satan’s tactics to fight”, and that at an individual level, when in both practice AND PRINT they condone it, provided it protects the “good name of the church.”
How does telling lies and withholding information protect a good name?
I remember a GA giving a talk on how the ends do NOT justify the means. I’m astonished that this teaching is tactfully annulled when the church takes license.
Johnathank….any chance you might pull some of the quotes where GAs have said “We will beat the devil at his own game”….and “We have to lie to protect Joseph”….etc?
There is only one way for the church to “begin” the repentance process… that is for the President to stand up at general conference, give a complete mea culpa, release all of the other general authorities and after announcing a date for a conference of stake presidents to reorganize the church… resign his office…!
Amen and Amen.
Shocking and powerful. I think the leaders are incapable of apologising, with the few exceptions who dare not risk losing their livelihood, family and reputation by speaking out. The others are so immersed in their small reality that they cannot conceive of a greater, healthier reality. They lack the humility of a Pope Francis, who showed godly remorse at his own lack of judgement until he became better informed. We can better inform the LDS leaders until everyone of us has either resigned or been excommunicated, but they will not, cannot budge.
I hope I am a poor prophet who will be proved wrong (I’ll be in good company!).