Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Official Church Logo . . .


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

Pahoran,

Your bile is getting repetitive and there’s little left to say, but I would like to respond to one thing. You said:

Approximately 99% of the people of the world agree with my basic viewpoint of your church.

What, they know nothing about it? I agree.

Some of them are “wonderfully fair”, others are not. But that has nothing to do with what I said.

I said, the site has received enough feedback over the years to prove that it is in fact not hostile. I have literally hundreds of emails from Mormons and investigators acknowledging the basic fairness of that site.

Let me emphasize that. The vast majority of Mormons, who have given me feedback have been classy, and they typically thank me for being respectful, despite the fact that they disagree with some things.

Here is an excerpt of a typical email I receive from Mormons:

So, according to you, it is typical for naive teenagers to fail to see through the self-promotional blurb and veneer of civility to the actual anti-Mormon agenda.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll accept that. Please note, though, that the old "everyone agrees with me" ploy, so beloved of manipulators of every stripe, does not impress me at all. Especially when the statements of that "everyone" are filtered through the person making the claim, and presented anonymously.

The vast majority of emails I get are like this—-the basic attitude is that while they don’t agree with everything I said, they do acknowledge my sincerity and they thank me for disagreeing without being disagreeable.

The truth is, I barely remember what that website even says. I haven’t looked at it in years, much less updated it. But since the vast majority of the feedback I get from faithful Mormons acknowledges the site’s basic decency, I am confident that I was pretty successful in my sincere objective of being fair.

I'm sure you were pretty successful in your sincere objective of appearing fair to the inexperienced and unwary.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

By contrast, "Analytics," by his own admission, quoted the entirety of the material that the missionaries routinely taught in six lessons.

That isn't quite true. The missionaries taught much more than the left-hand column of the left-hand pages. The right-hand column of that page and the right-hand page were both integral to the discussions as well. That is why that material was there.

A review that did not quote from the book under review would be no review at all; however, a review that quoted all of the text except the footnotes and supplementary material would go far beyond a review, and would also go far beyond "Fair use." Just IMHO, of course. A reader, having read the text in the so-called "review" or "commentary" would have no reason at all to go to the original, would he?

Ah ha! The reason that evil site quoted the discussions so extensively was to discourage investigators from talking to the missionaries! Clearly that was the point. After all, the prominent section of the website entitled “How to Investigate Mormonism” says the following:

An investigation of Mormonism wouldn’t be complete without actually inviting the missionaries over to your home and listening to the discussions. The missionaries bring with them the distilled essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ, taught with the aid of the Holy Ghost by those who have been called and set apart to gather God’s elect.

Personally I don’t believe that, but that is their claim. I do believe that the missionaries present a unique view of Mormonism. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that if the church is true, then listening to the missionaries will significantly increase the odds that you will be able to figure that out. So if you want to give the church a fair shake, you have got to listen to the missionaries.

http://www.lds4u.com/Discussions/howtoinvestigate.htm

Link to comment

So, according to you, it is typical for naive teenagers to fail to see through the self-promotional blurb and veneer of civility to the actual anti-Mormon agenda.

Pahoran seeth not as neither man nor the Lord seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance and the Lord looketh on the heart, but Pahoran looketh on the demons that only exist in his own mind.

Link to comment

I do not comment, in this forum, about anything that I may or may not have done elsewhere under my IRL name.

However, as I read the review in question, I am puzzled that you should fail to see the significant differences.

The review itself is very brief, and its quotations from the book itself are much briefer. I see one quote of a couple of lines of the back-cover blurb; one quote of an entire three-line paragraph from the book; and a few quotes of single sentences or part sentences.

By contrast, "Analytics," by his own admission, quoted the entirety of the material that the missionaries routinely taught in six lessons.

A review that did not quote from the book under review would be no review at all; however, a review that quoted all of the text except the footnotes and supplementary material would go far beyond a review, and would also go far beyond "Fair use." Just IMHO, of course. A reader, having read the text in the so-called "review" or "commentary" would have no reason at all to go to the original, would he?

Certainly the review disagrees with Holding's book. But it does not give the reader any reason to suppose that he has read everything Holding has to say, and therefore he does not need to read the original.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from on this issue. I suppose I do disagree with you on the central question of the morality of critiquing published material. I don't see that either Russell McGregor or Analytics fundamentally misrepresented the writings upon which they were commenting -- something which, if done, would have been *clearly* immoral. I simply see two reviewers expressing their opinion on openly published material (you could buy the missionary discussions at the distribution center back then, I believe).

In any case, thanks again for clarifying your position.

Seth

BTW -- just for the record my IRL name is Ruprecht Crunchberry, just in case anyone cares.

Link to comment
That isn't quite true. The missionaries taught much more than the left-hand column of the left-hand pages. The right-hand column of that page and the right-hand page were both integral to the discussions as well. That is why that material was there.

Analytics,

Once again you are trying to tone down what you originally said, which was:

If you are familiar with those old pastel discussions, what I quoted was the left-hand column of the left page, where each principle of each discussion had the verbiage of what the missionaries were supposed to teach.

Now it happens that I am familiar with those old discussions. The other stuff that you now try to say was "integral" was not part of the formal presentations. The missionaries were supposed to study it and refer to it if necessary, but it fell pretty much under the heading of "supplementary material."

Ah ha! The reason that evil site quoted the discussions so extensively was to discourage investigators from talking to the missionaries! Clearly that was the point. After all, the prominent section of the website entitled “How to Investigate Mormonism” says the following:

I'm sure it does. It's called "lip service."

And again, I'm sure it fulfilled its purpose of fooling naive teenagers into thinking that your site really was "impartial," as if anyone would go to the trouble of setting up a website that had no POV at all.

Link to hate site snipped.

Pahoran seeth not as neither man nor the Lord seeth, for man looketh on the outward appearance and the Lord looketh on the heart, but Pahoran looketh on the demons that only exist in his own mind.

What a wonderfully substantive contribution to the thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Secondly, I have not denied "that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all", once again should we be offended by your "distortions and misrepresentations". I have only commented on one situation where Fair Use comes into play.

It is really hard to take you seriously when in every other post you contradict yourself, either distortions and misrepresentations are offensive - which means you should not use them either, or distortions and misrepresentation are not offensive which means Analytics is entitled to use such against the Church. It is interesting how much you rail against what he did while you do the same.

paharon, care to comment on why your use of distortion and misrepresentations is seemingly acceptable but Analytics is not?

Link to comment
Pahoran,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from on this issue. I suppose I do disagree with you on the central question of the morality of critiquing published material.

I don't have a problem with the morality of critiquing published material. I have a problem with the morality of quoting great slabs of published material and then trying to hide behind the skirts of "Fair use" as if it were a legitimate review or critique.

Perhaps you remember a few years back when a certain anti-Mormon outfit published the CHI, a confidential document, on the web. They were then legally forced to take it down, much to the horror of their claque. One internet anti-Mormon then cited the same "Fair use" definition that Analytics has used here, and started putting up the CHI on their website, section by section. Each paragraph was followed by their own spiteful misrepresentations, presented as "commentary." This person's stated intention was to put up the entirety of the CHI, and their "commentary" would allow them to exploit "Fair use" as a mere loophole.

I find that substantially indistinguishable from what Analytics did with the missionary discussions.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I don't have a problem with the morality of critiquing published material. I have a problem with the morality of quoting great slabs of published material and then trying to hide behind the skirts of "Fair use" as if it were a legitimate review or critique.

Fair point. But I don't know enough about "fair use" to know if what Analytics did was a violation or not so I don't feel I can formulate a strong opinion one way or the other.

Perhaps you remember a few years back when a certain anti-Mormon outfit published the CHI, a confidential document, on the web. They were then legally forced to take it down, much to the horror of their claque. One internet anti-Mormon then cited the same "Fair use" definition that Analytics has used here, and started putting up the CHI on their website, section by section. Each paragraph was followed by their own spiteful misrepresentations, presented as "commentary." This person's stated intention was to put up the entirety of the CHI, and their "commentary" would allow them to exploit "Fair use" as a mere loophole.

You must be referring to the Tanners. Their tactics over the years have often lacked ethics and their commentary has always been sophomoric at best.

I find that substantially indistinguishable from what Analytics did with the missionary discussions.

I will respectfully disagree -- at least in terms of the content of Analytics' commentary. Unlike the Tanners, Analytics seems to have a keen mind and makes an effort to be fair. Certainly you disagree with him but to put him in the same boat as the Tanners is pushing it, methinks. At least you didn't compare him to Ed Decker. :P

Link to comment
You must be referring to the Tanners. Their tactics over the years have often lacked ethics and their commentary has always been sophomoric at best.

Yes, the Tanners were the original offenders. The person who then tried the "Fair use" loophole was a different person (I've forgotten her name) who was enraged that the Church should have any rights in its intellectual property.

I will respectfully disagree -- at least in terms of the content of Analytics' commentary. Unlike the Tanners, Analytics seems to have a keen mind and makes an effort to be fair. Certainly you disagree with him but to put him in the same boat as the Tanners is pushing it, methinks. At least you didn't compare him to Ed Decker. :P

No, I wouldn't go that far.

Perhaps there's something of a continuum here. If we follow on Analytics's own idea of "demons," then if Decker is Beelzebub, Analytics might be Screwtape.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
paharon, care to comment on why your use of distortion and misrepresentations is seemingly acceptable but Analytics is not?

CFR that I have distorted or misrepresented anything you said.

In the meantime, on the subject of distortions and misrepresentations, you previously wrote:

That you can not understand the need to protect the rights of another person is really no suprise to me.

That was you, wasn't it Mr Pot?

Regards,

Kettle.

Link to comment

Pahoran,

In response to how you haven't yet compared me to Ed Decker, you said,

No, I wouldn't go that far.

Perhaps there's something of a continuum here. If we follow on Analytics's own idea of "demons," then if Decker is Beelzebub, Analytics might be Screwtape.

That's the kindest thing you've ever said about me. Are you getting soft?

Link to comment

CFR that I have distorted or misrepresented anything you said.

Regards,

Kettle.

From post #112 Pahoran: Thank you for admitting that you don't find anti-Mormon distortions and misrepresentations offensive.

I admitted nothing. I made no statement about my own opinions; you have distorted and misrepresented my posting (along with succumbing to a logical fallacy)

the second distortion

Pahoran, on 07 April 2011 - 07:52 AM, said: post #117 That you will assiduously protect the "rights" of deceitful men to frighten people away from the Church of Jesus Christ ...

You assert in this sentence that my actions are intended to frighten people away from the Church. I do not protect rights "to frighten people away from the Church...", I protect rights because my rights and everyone else are inseparably connected. I have stated several times my intent.

the third distortion

, while denying that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all, is really no surprise to me.

You distort and misrepresent my position by stating that I deny the Church has ANY right AT ALL in its IP. I have not denied "that the Church has any rights in its intellectual property at all". I have only commented on one situation regarding the Church IP.

------------

as for the statement of "its not suprising". It really is not surprising to me, and I mean no offense by that. Based on your English i.e. colour (Queens English) I presume you are in Europe, possibly NZ or Australia. Though many Western countries say there is "freedom of speech" in the respective country, that speech is very restricted, I would say that only on American soil is there the greatest freedom of speech. In the United States the holocaust can be denied with fear of arrest and imprisonment. In the United State "hate groups" can hold rallies in the public square and yell racial slurs, without fear of arrest and imprisonment. There are other issue of speech restriction in otherwise "free speech" countries, now I can understand to a degree why these countries would have so much restriction on free speech, and I can understand that someone who is raised in a restricted free speech environment would not see free speech as Americans do. Thus, being that you were not raised under free speech as is had in the United States, I understand and it is of no surprise that my support of free speech is different than yours. Additionally, equality laws in the United States mandate that every voice (very few and limited restrictions) be given the same opportunity, once I agree to trample someone else right to free speech, what ground do I have to claim free speech when someone what to silence my speech?

Link to comment

Is it just me... or is this topic really.... bitter.

Yes, LDSGuy should have removed it... and he did, with Minos's guidance.

But as Lehi says, it is intended to prevent bad publicity of the logo, and I am pretty sure the church will not press charges versus people innocently using it.

For example, I occasionally post several of Pres. Monson's experience excerpts from one of his books. But I do not think he would mind in the least, I think he built the stories to be shared, that he did =). And I provide the reference to the book just in case (in addition, he shares some of these stories in GC talks which are not posted under a license as well, so technically I could get them from another source pretty easily).

Quoting passages from a book or a public speech while providing proper attribution and citation, something that is both legally and ethically acceptable, is not at all the same thing as using a logo or trademark in obvious violation of an explicit directive not to do so. I'm puzzled that you appear not to see the difference.

Link to comment

as for the statement of "its not suprising". It really is not surprising to me, and I mean no offense by that. Based on your English i.e. colour (Queens English) I presume you are in Europe, possibly NZ or Australia. Though many Western countries say there is "freedom of speech" in the respective country, that speech is very restricted, I would say that only on American soil is there the greatest freedom of speech. In the United States the holocaust can be denied with fear of arrest and imprisonment. In the United State "hate groups" can hold rallies in the public square and yell racial slurs, without fear of arrest and imprisonment. There are other issue of speech restriction in otherwise "free speech" countries, now I can understand to a degree why these countries would have so much restriction on free speech, and I can understand that someone who is raised in a restricted free speech environment would not see free speech as Americans do. Thus, being that you were not raised under free speech as is had in the United States, I understand and it is of no surprise that my support of free speech is different than yours. Additionally, equality laws in the United States mandate that every voice (very few and limited restrictions) be given the same opportunity, once I agree to trample someone else right to free speech, what ground do I have to claim free speech when someone what to silence my speech?

For what it's worth, I'm a born-and-bred Yankee with a deeply ingrained reverence for the pillars of freedom enshrined in the First Amendent; nevertheless, I think Pahoran's points are valid.

Link to comment

For what it's worth, I'm a born-and-bred Yankee with a deeply ingrained reverence for the pillars of freedom enshrined in the First Amendent; nevertheless, I think Pahoran's points are valid.

what points?

The distortions and misrepresentations?

The fallacy he used?

That the Church should get a free pass from criticism?

That people should not defend the rights of others?

Are you concerned with your use of Daffy Duck; that an image from the Sistine Chapel - a work with copyright - is being used as an avatar; picture of the Tabernacle choir (could be a personal photo could be a copyright photo); or other copyright works being used as avatars? Wouldn't integrity mandate not using said copyright works as avatars? And wouldn't the teachings of the Church mandate such as well i.e. avoid the appearance of evil? The board guideline instruct not to post copyright works, the board guideline do not include a fair use exception to using copyright materials.

As was stated "As members of the Church in good standing, we are expected to do better than merely keep to the minimal standards of behaviour represented by avoiding the prohibitions of secular law." (good point you made Pahoran)

---------------

Pahoran, concerning your statement "I support the Church's right to carry out its mission without evil people constantly trying to interfere." would you extend this same right to all religions?

Here is what Joseph Smith said: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Section 134 is also instructive.

Link to comment

what points?

The distortions and misrepresentations?

The fallacy he used?

That the Church should get a free pass from criticism?

That people should not defend the rights of others?

Are you concerned with your use of Daffy Duck; that an image from the Sistine Chapel - a work with copyright - is being used as an avatar; picture of the Tabernacle choir (could be a personal photo could be a copyright photo); or other copyright works being used as avatars? Wouldn't integrity mandate not using said copyright works as avatars? And wouldn't the teachings of the Church mandate such as well i.e. avoid the appearance of evil? The board guideline instruct not to post copyright works, the board guideline do not include a fair use exception to using copyright materials.

As was stated "As members of the Church in good standing, we are expected to do better than merely keep to the minimal standards of behaviour represented by avoiding the prohibitions of secular law." (good point you made Pahoran)

I'll leave it to Pahoran to make his own arguments. My response was specifically to your jingoistic attitude that Pahoran is not a United States citizen and therefore incapable of truly understanding and reverencing free speech.

Link to comment

My response was specifically to your jingoistic attitude that Pahoran is not a United States citizen and therefore incapable of truly understanding and reverencing free speech.

I admit I do have extreme patriotism concerning the First Amendment free speech.

What is your opinion on the other mentioned uses of copyright materials as avatars on these boards?

Link to comment

I admit I do have extreme patriotism concerning the First Amendment free speech.

What you appear to have is extreme nationalism leading to an unseemly disdain for people who aren't your countrymen. That strikes me as distinct from patriotism.

What is your opinion on the other mentioned uses of copyright materials as avatars on these boards?

Off-hand, I'm not aware of other copyright infringements (I don't believe your musings necessarily make it so). I was only alerted to the matter about use of the Church logo by my casual perusal of the new Church handbook, and as I've indicated, I've been more concerned by what seemed to be a cavalier disregard of Church policy and directive than about the legal aspects.

Link to comment

What you appear to have is extreme nationalism leading to an unseemly disdain for people who aren't your countrymen.

I have no disdain for non-US Citizens. I have disdain for the way many Countries go about with their "Freedom of speech" laws/policies. As I explained I mean no disrespect for Pahoran and how he views free speech.

Off-hand, I'm not aware of other copyright infringements (I don't believe your musings necessarily make it so). I was only alerted to the matter about use of the Church logo by my casual perusal of the new Church handbook, and as I've indicated, I've been more concerned by what seemed to be a cavalier disregard of Church policy and directive than about the legal aspects.

so much for integrity. The law can be disregarded or is of little concern, while a Church Policy, which does not override the law is more important.

Link to comment

so much for integrity. The law can be disregarded or is of little concern, while a Church Policy, which does not override the law is more important.

I'm not disregarding the law; I'm doubting whether the law has been violated as you claim. I'm not persuaded you know what you're talking about here.

Moreover, I'm selective about my discussions here, and this is one I don't choose to engage in.

Link to comment

I'm not disregarding the law; I'm doubting whether the law has been violated as you claim. I'm not persuaded you know what you're talking about here.

I think it is fair to say the USU78 does not own rights to Princess Bride, that Mordecia does not own rights to Princess Bride, that William S. does not own rights to Wizard of Oz. Secondly it does not take long to type "who owns *insert movie" in google and do some research.

------------------------------

Pahoran I fullfilled your CFR, now waiting for you response?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...