stemelbow Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, USU78 said: Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? Well, because they aren't. 1
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well, because they aren't. And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion on that there subject
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? Just to be clear, that is your adaptation of my point. 3
Popular Post Wiki Wonka Posted July 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, USU78 said: Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? We do NOT consider those who produce podcasts with which we might disagree to be "virulent bigots." I find such a characterization offensive. Just because someone no longer believes the same things that I do does not make them a "virulent bigot" in my eyes. The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people to that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. Edited July 15, 2016 by Wiki Wonka yet another typo 9
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2016 Author Posted July 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said: We do NOT consider those who produce podcasts with which we might disagree to be "virulent bigots." I find such a characterization offensive. Just because someone no longer believes the same things that I do does not make them a "virulent bigot" in my eyes. The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. Think of it this way, It may draw someone to Mormonstories who patronizes FAIRMormon, sure, but it could also help MS patrons to understand those whom they often fight against. It could actually help smooth over hurt feelings and help encourage open and thoughtful dialogue across the chasm that seems to be built. In the long run it could actually cause MS to change their goals and become a place you can agree with. BTW, thanks for clarifying on the bigot issue. 2
cinepro Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Wiki Wonka said: We do NOT consider those who produce podcasts with which we might disagree to be "virulent bigots." I find such a characterization offensive. Just because someone no longer believes the same things that I do does not make them a "virulent bigot" in my eyes. The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. That's certainly a much better reason than USU78's theory, but I'm not sure I see how doing an interview with MormonStories would "draw people" to their site. Certainly, if you promoted it on your own site and newsletters there might be some FAIR patrons who journey over and start to explore the MormonStories site, but if you didn't, then 99% of the audience would be MormonStories subscribers and supporters. I don't see what the collateral damage would be. 2
Jeanne Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Wiki Wonka said: We do NOT consider those who produce podcasts with which we might disagree to be "virulent bigots." I find such a characterization offensive. Just because someone no longer believes the same things that I do does not make them a "virulent bigot" in my eyes. The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. Thank you for this. I so appreciate this kind of understanding and now I understand FAIR/Scott's response a whole lot better . I am an ex-mormon who I promise is not a "virulent bigot"..
jkwilliams Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 43 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Thank you for this. I so appreciate this kind of understanding and now I understand FAIR/Scott's response a whole lot better . I am an ex-mormon who I promise is not a "virulent bigot".. Speak for yourself. 1
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 4 hours ago, USU78 said: Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? I think that's what folks said about Jesus . . .
Wiki Wonka Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 59 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Thank you for this. I so appreciate this kind of understanding and now I understand FAIR/Scott's response a whole lot better . I am an ex-mormon who I promise is not a "virulent bigot".. Thanks Jeanne. I am one of those who always tends to assume that the world is full of good people who are doing their best to live according to what they believe. Most of the folks I know who have left the Church (family members among them) have their own reasons for doing so. I try to respect them, and they try to respect me. Upon occasion I get burned for being that way when I encounter someone who disrespects me simply because of the fact that I am not only LDS, but a member of FairMormon. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not a cynic - I'm a "glass half full" person rather than a "glass half empty" person. It doesn't matter to me if they are Mormon, ex-Mormon or non-Mormon. 1
Wiki Wonka Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Speak for yourself. Well...that's what happens when you read too much "Condorito". 1
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think that's what folks said about Jesus . . . Who precisely? Let's look behind the glib and see who, either individual(s) or group(s), you think would have said such a thing about the Master? Do you even think before you run off at the keyboard?
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said: The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. I heartily admit that my opinion about that site and its owners/denizens is wholly my own. You know the old saying: there's no worse anti-Semite than a self-hating Jew. I adapt that to our circumstances here.
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said: We do NOT consider those who produce podcasts with which we might disagree to be "virulent bigots." I find such a characterization offensive. Just because someone no longer believes the same things that I do does not make them a "virulent bigot" in my eyes. The reason that Scott Gordon (or any other member of FairMormon) would never agree to be on a podcast such as Mormon Stories is because we do not wish to draw people that venue, because we disagree with their goals and purpose. That's it. That's the only reason. Thank you for clarifying, I was getting interrupted when I read this and you did it much better anyway.
jkwilliams Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said: Well...that's what happens when you read too much "Condorito". ¡Reflauta!
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Think of it this way, It may draw someone to Mormonstories who patronizes FAIRMormon, sure, but it could also help MS patrons to understand those whom they often fight against. It could actually help smooth over hurt feelings and help encourage open and thoughtful dialogue across the chasm that seems to be built. In the long run it could actually cause MS to change their goals and become a place you can agree with. BTW, thanks for clarifying on the bigot issue. You need to understand that there has been a lot of interaction prior to and behind the scenes (as mentioned before John Dehlin being invited to join FM, for example). The decision has been based on history, what has resulted from such inteactions as well as what we have seen resulting from others going on podcasts with MS as well as what generally happens when people get into the site. 2
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 33 minutes ago, USU78 said: Who precisely? Let's look behind the glib and see who, either individual(s) or group(s), you think would have said such a thing about the Master? Do you even think before you run off at the keyboard? I would think my meaning was obvious, but sometimes things get confused with multiple comments, I know. You said: Quote Calm's point remains : Why imply by your participation that the venue and its denizens are anything other than virulent bigots? I replied: Quote I think that's what folks said about Jesus . . . The Pharisees were famous for denigrating Jesus because of the company he kept. You seem to be saying a similar thing about Scott Gordon not wanting to talk to John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. It's not that complicated.
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 25 minutes ago, Calm said: You need to understand that there has been a lot of interaction prior to and behind the scenes (as mentioned before John Dehlin being invited to join FM, for example). The decision has been based on history, what has resulted from such inteactions as well as what we have seen resulting from others going on podcasts with MS as well as what generally happens when people get into the site. I know there is a lot of history, but I want to mention something that played out publicly. JD had Brant Gardner on his show to talk about the translation process of the Book of Mormon. JD was a bit confrontational and sometimes too pointed in his questions. It was obvious there was some friction going on. Not a huge amount. But noticeable. The next show, JD started off by saying he had gotten some feedback--others had noticed exactly what I had noticed about his being a bit confrontational. You know what JD did? He didn't deny it. He didn't try to brush it under the rug. He didn't blame it on Brant. He apologized. And he committed himself publicly to doing better in the future. I think that says something.
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Did he actually do better? Public commitment is only the first step. 3
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I would think my meaning was obvious, but sometimes things get confused with multiple comments, I know. You said: I replied: The Pharisees were famous for denigrating Jesus because of the company he kept. You seem to be saying a similar thing about Scott Gordon not wanting to talk to John Dehlin on Mormon Stories. It's not that complicated. Then you're just simply wrong. They thought a lot of things about him, but that he was excessively exclusionary was not among them. He, rather, criticized them for being too exclusionary, coming down hard on their failure of recognition of the possibility of repentance.
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 minute ago, USU78 said: Then you're just simply wrong. They thought a lot of things about him, but that he was excessively exclusionary was not among them. He, rather, criticized them for being too exclusionary, coming down hard on their failure of recognition of the possibility of repentance. Exactly! You say Scott Gordon was being exclusionary but refusing to mingle with "virulent bigots" because it might imply by Scott's participation that they weren't "virulent bigots." This sounds like what the Pharisees accused Jesus of. Sound familiar?
consiglieri Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Did he actually do better? Public commitment is only the first step. I am a pretty frequent listener, and yes, I think I can frankly say that John did do better. In fact, he did much better in that very next show.
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: Exactly! You say Scott Gordon was being exclusionary but refusing to mingle with "virulent bigots" because it might imply by Scott's participation that they weren't "virulent bigots." This sounds like what the Pharisees accused Jesus of. Sound familiar? Exactly wrong. You don't appear to understand the positions of the players. And I never said Scott thought they were virulent bigots. I do. I went a step [at least] farther than he or Calm would go in describing those unrepentent haters of their former co-religionists.
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 I am not blaming John Dehlin (in the sense that he is a jerk or too confrontational etc.) He has chosen different goals and purposes that fundamentally don't work with FM. Nothing inherently wrong with that. People have a right to disagree and promote that disagreement in an appropriate context. I do disagree significantly with some of his choices in how he goes about it, but my personal appraisal is completely separate from FM's decision not to do MS podcasts...I wasn't even part of that decision process not being part of those doing interviews or setting them up.
Calm Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Can't edit...not involved means I refrained from giving input iirc because I would never be doing an interview or arranging such things or have any familiarity with such, so I don't believe I should give my uninformed opinion on what to do for such.
Recommended Posts