Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[churchistrue]

I've watched the Patrick Mason talk now a couple times.  I plan to write a blog post on it when it comes out.  I think DB Mormon's summary was reasonably accurate and more true to the presentation than the summaries I've read from Scott Lloyd and Robert Smith.  The talk was pretty bold in terms of traditional LDS Apologetic approaches.  You wouldn't really get that reading Lloyd and Smith's summary.  You do, reading DB Mormon's.  If i have one quibble to DB's summary, I think he might be overstating what appears to be criticism of the brethren from Mason's talk.  There was criticism from Mason, but I don't think he aimed it at church leadership so much as Mormonism in general.  I think he takes a view of the brethren similar to Richard Bushman, where to some extent the current leaders are figuring out how to deal with these new paradigms at the same time the membership of the church is, and the emphasis is OK how do we move forward?  Not, who do we blame?

  

 

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I recommend that you listen to Mason for yourself, then see which of our summaries is most accurate.  Compare our statements and see which agrees or disagrees, and to what extent.  I take pretty good notes.  Got me a 3.9 gpa in my years at UCLA (100 hours of tough courses).  I placed my summary on this board immediately following the FairMormon conference.  Bill would have been well advised to compare his notes with those of others (including the DN summary), before going off half-cocked.  I think that his agenda got the better of him, which would be true to form.

Okay, I yield. You can't argue with a 3.9 gpa from UCLA. Especially when the courses were tough. 

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I've watched the Patrick Mason talk now a couple times.  I plan to write a blog post on it when it comes out.  I think DB Mormon's summary was reasonably accurate and more true to the presentation than the summaries I've read from Scott Lloyd and Robert Smith.  The talk was pretty bold in terms of traditional LDS Apologetic approaches.  You wouldn't really get that reading Lloyd and Smith's summary.  You do, reading DB Mormon's.  If i have one quibble to DB's summary, I think he might be overstating what appears to be criticism of the brethren from Mason's talk.  There was criticism from Mason, but I don't think he aimed it at church leadership so much as Mormonism in general.  I think he takes a view of the brethren similar to Richard Bushman, where to some extent the current leaders are figuring out how to deal with these new paradigms at the same time the membership of the church is, and the emphasis is OK how do we move forward?  Not, who do we blame?

  

 

 

Now that's helpful. Thanks.

[cinepro]

53 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Surprised there's so much condemnation of DBMormon.  How many of us regularly verify copyright ownership before sharing YouTube links on FB and the internet?

Sounds like it was an honest mistake.  And he's paid for it now.  And Juliann has expressed appreciation for his donation. 

Can't we move on from it and move to the exploring the issues as they become available, instead of further personal attacks, which are below the scope of this board...?

Sorry if everyone has moved on, but it should be pointed out that if sharing a link to "pirated" content constituted "piracy", then Google would be sued out of business in about 10 seconds.  Unless DBMormon was hosting the file, he isn't guilty of "piracy."

The only exception to this is sites that systematically compile links to pirated content.  So unless DBMormon started a webpage called "FairTalks.com" and published a list of links to unauthorized copies of the talks, it's hard to classify his infraction as being on par with a torrent or similar site.

And the info in the OP would almost certainly constitute fair use.

 

(Ba-da-dum).

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, John, careful research has shown that, within the United States, Utahns (both Mormon and non-Mormon) have more cultural attributes in common than Utah Mormons have with Mormons outside Utah.  I don't know whether we should speak of this as a kind of intermountain west cultural (or socio-political) mentality, but it is certainly there, and I see it all the time on many levels now that I live in Utah Valley.  I recall visiting a ward in Utah Valley back in the 1980s on a Fast Sunday.  One very perceptive woman got up and told those of us who did not come from Utah:  "Please don't let us drive you out of the Church."  I smiled broadly, because it was so true.

I have not seen that research, so I'm not sure what cultural attributes you mean. In my experience, there isn't a huge difference between Utah Mormons and other Mormons, at least in terms of how they approach the gospel, the church, and life in general. Perhaps Utahns do share cultural aspects that those who live elsewhere don't. About a week ago, I posted something on Facebook from my past in California, and an LDS friend said to me, "I keep forgetting that you didn't grow up in Utah." Maybe I don't notice the cultural differences as much because I'm so thoroughly Mormon culturally. 

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I also recall the huge mistake made by the Dialogue board in bringing the journal to SLC for a number of years.  I did my best to remonstrate with the board not to do that, but they ignored my (and others') pleadings, and it very nearly destroyed the journal.  Why?  Due to the overwhelming bipolar disorder characteristic of the State.  The editors lost any sense of perspective and forgot what true Dialogue is all about.  I never subscribed again.

I wouldn't know anything about that. I haven't been a regular Dialogue reader for many years (not since BYU, when I would read it in the library on occasion). I do know that Ken and Deon Price were in our ward in Inglewood when Dialogue was first published, and my parents were good friends of theirs. Other than that, I have no idea how the magazine would have been ruined by moving to Utah. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, John, careful research has shown that, within the United States, Utahns (both Mormon and non-Mormon) have more cultural attributes in common than Utah Mormons have with Mormons outside Utah.  I don't know whether we should speak of this as a kind of intermountain west cultural (or socio-political) mentality, but it is certainly there, and I see it all the time on many levels now that I live in Utah Valley.  I recall visiting a ward in Utah Valley back in the 1980s on a Fast Sunday.  One very perceptive woman got up and told those of us who did not come from Utah:  "Please don't let us drive you out of the Church."  I smiled broadly, because it was so true.

I also recall the huge mistake made by the Dialogue board in bringing the journal to SLC for a number of years.  I did my best to remonstrate with the board not to do that, but they ignored my (and others') pleadings, and it very nearly destroyed the journal.  Why?  Due to the overwhelming bipolar disorder characteristic of the State.  The editors lost any sense of perspective and forgot what true Dialogue is all about.  I never subscribed again.

I take the train to and from work, Robert, and this, I believe, affords me the chance to observe what I think is a fairly broad cross-section of Utahns -- at least those in the greater Salt Lake City area. It's quite easy to tell the active Mormons apart from the rest, just going by general appearance, manner, behavior, etc., enough so that i would have to question your "careful research".

[Storm Rider]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nah, not all that different.

It is the difference of being the predominant religion and being a very small group among some very large religious groups.  Such as the Southern Baptists in the southern US and the Catholic Church in Europe.  In these two, very different environments there is a world of difference in some of the problems they face.

It is true that there is a diaspora of Utah Mormons throughout the US and the world.  That fact does bring with the a cultural correlation among all LDS congregations.  However, it absolutely does not ensure a uniformity of LDS culture.  I grew up in the military and then after my dad retired we settled in the south.  I attended BYU for a year before transferring to the U and then lived in Utah for several years before moving to the Seattle area.  I then lived in the Middle East for five years.  Each of those geographic areas had their own Mormon culture and were different from one another.  

I am not saying that one is bad or one is good - there is no value judgment - they are simply different.   

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take the train to and from work, Robert, and this, I believe, affords me the chance to observe what I think is a fairly broad cross-section of Utahns -- at least those in the greater Salt Lake City area. It's quite easy to tell the active Mormons apart from the rest, just going by general appearance, manner, behavior, etc., enough so that i would have to question your "careful research".

That's interesting. I find it's often a function of our biases and expectations that leads us to mentally categorize people into "active Mormons" and "the rest." For a while I saw a therapist in Provo, a Hispanic guy with a long ponytail and beard, tattoos, a skull ring, and a big, loud Harley. He was a high priest and in the bishopric of his ward. My guess is that, if he was on the train, you and I both probably wouldn't have taken him for an active church member.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I've watched the Patrick Mason talk now a couple times.  I plan to write a blog post on it when it comes out.  I think DB Mormon's summary was reasonably accurate and more true to the presentation than the summaries I've read from Scott Lloyd and Robert Smith.  The talk was pretty bold in terms of traditional LDS Apologetic approaches.  You wouldn't really get that reading Lloyd and Smith's summary.  You do, reading DB Mormon's.  If i have one quibble to DB's summary, I think he might be overstating what appears to be criticism of the brethren from Mason's talk.  There was criticism from Mason, but I don't think he aimed it at church leadership so much as Mormonism in general.  I think he takes a view of the brethren similar to Richard Bushman, where to some extent the current leaders are figuring out how to deal with these new paradigms at the same time the membership of the church is, and the emphasis is OK how do we move forward?  Not, who do we blame?

  

 

I have not made any summaries of Patrick Mason's talk, here or anywhere else. I'm tempted to issue a CFR, but I already know you will search in vain for it.

But I was present for it, and Reel's laundry list strikes me as sensationalistic and agenda-driven -- what I have come to expect from him. Robert's, on the other hand is a good rundown of what was said. I thought so I when I first read it, and I continue to think so.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry if everyone has moved on, but it should be pointed out that if sharing a link to "pirated" content constituted "piracy", then Google would be sued out of business in about 10 seconds.  Unless DBMormon was hosting the file, he isn't guilty of "piracy."

The only exception to this is sites that systematically compile links to pirated content.  So unless DBMormon started a webpage called "FairTalks.com" and published a list of links to unauthorized copies of the talks, it's hard to classify his infraction as being on par with a torrent or similar site.

And the info in the OP would almost certainly constitute fair use.

 

(Ba-da-dum).

How about aiding and abetting?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Now that's helpful. Thanks.

I wonder how helpful it is when he claims to cite a summary from me that I didn't even write. Makes me question his observational skills as pertaining to watching the Mason talk.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Surprised there's so much condemnation of DBMormon.  How many of us regularly verify copyright ownership before sharing YouTube links on FB and the internet?

Sounds like it was an honest mistake.  And he's paid for it now.  And Juliann has expressed appreciation for his donation. 

Can't we move on from it and move to the exploring the issues as they become available, instead of further personal attacks, which are below the scope of this board...?

I'm all for moving on, but I still say it would be better to wait until we can all have a verbatim transcript to work with.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is the difference of being the predominant religion and being a very small group among some very large religious groups.  Such as the Southern Baptists in the southern US and the Catholic Church in Europe.  In these two, very different environments there is a world of difference in some of the problems they face.

It is true that there is a diaspora of Utah Mormons throughout the US and the world.  That fact does bring with the a cultural correlation among all LDS congregations.  However, it absolutely does not ensure a uniformity of LDS culture.  I grew up in the military and then after my dad retired we settled in the south.  I attended BYU for a year before transferring to the U and then lived in Utah for several years before moving to the Seattle area.  I then lived in the Middle East for five years.  Each of those geographic areas had their own Mormon culture and were different from one another.  

I am not saying that one is bad or one is good - there is no value judgment - they are simply different.   

I think there are differences, but I don't think they are as major as some people believe. Certainly, being in the minority affects a lot of things. A good example is that, when I was growing up in a largely Jewish neighborhood, most church members I knew were adamantly against prayer in school. It wasn't anti-Semitism at all, just an understanding that, besides the Constitutional issues, it was just one other way to make us cultural and religious outliers. Similarly, ward members in Texas were equally opposed to school prayer, and while we were there, two Mormon families were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against prayers at football games in the Santa Fe school district. But when we lived in Utah, we knew quite a few people who were pushing for school prayer. 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry if everyone has moved on, but it should be pointed out that if sharing a link to "pirated" content constituted "piracy", then Google would be sued out of business in about 10 seconds.  Unless DBMormon was hosting the file, he isn't guilty of "piracy."

 

I don't remember if I accused DB of pirating it himself.  My apologies if it came across that way.  I meant use of stolen property...kind of like a fence.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Surprised there's so much condemnation of DBMormon.  How many of us regularly verify copyright ownership before sharing YouTube links on FB and the internet?

Sounds like it was an honest mistake.  And he's paid for it now.  And Juliann has expressed appreciation for his donation. 

Can't we move on from it and move to the exploring the issues as they become available, instead of further personal attacks, which are below the scope of this board...?

Yeah, this was a shameful dogpile.

I appreciate the few people who have actually attempted to address the issues raised in the OP. And in 6 pages it is FEW. People seem more interested in discrediting Bill and creating distractions about what he did on Facebook. It's as if FAIR has a standing order to attack Bill's character whenever possible. Good diversion.

Seriously, this thread is a shambles and it's not because of the OP.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't remember if I accused DB of pirating it himself.  My apologies if it came across that way.  I meant use of stolen property...kind of like a fence.

Yes, in your 20 posts about Bill and piracy it came across that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's interesting. I find it's often a function of our biases and expectations that leads us to mentally categorize people into "active Mormons" and "the rest." For a while I saw a therapist in Provo, a Hispanic guy with a long ponytail and beard, tattoos, a skull ring, and a big, loud Harley. He was a high priest and in the bishopric of his ward. My guess is that, if he was on the train, you and I both probably wouldn't have taken him for an active church member.

One can -- and should -- allow for exceptions, of course. But that does not negate the fact that there are readily apparent cultural differences among the passengers on an average light-rail train ride between downtown Salt Lake City and its suburbs. It's only being honest to acknowledge this.

[juliann]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sorry if everyone has moved on, but it should be pointed out that if sharing a link to "pirated" content constituted "piracy", then Google would be sued out of business in about 10 seconds.  Unless DBMormon was hosting the file, he isn't guilty of "piracy."

The only exception to this is sites that systematically compile links to pirated content.  So unless DBMormon started a webpage called "FairTalks.com" and published a list of links to unauthorized copies of the talks, it's hard to classify his infraction as being on par with a torrent or similar site.

And the info in the OP would almost certainly constitute fair use.

 

(Ba-da-dum).

Nope. Piracy is distribution of copyrighted material. It is linked to trade law, however, requiring commercial gain. Just because no one goes after you doesn't mean it isn't piracy. Bill is in a precarious position because it can be argued he is distributing the link as promotion for commercial gain. He sells stuff. Thus, he would be well advised to become acquainted with internet law, such as it is. I speak from experience, Sandra Tanner sued FAIR. And soundly lost, but not before she dragged it to the 10th Circuit where her name is now forever attached to the losing end in case law that closed a loophole in that Circuit. So don't ever think that looking innocent is any kind of protection. 

[churchistrue]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have not made any summaries of Patrick Mason's talk, here or anywhere else. I'm tempted to issue a CFR, but I already know you will search in vain for it.

But I was present for it, and Reel's laundry list strikes me as sensationalistic and agenda-driven -- what I have come to expect from him. Robert's, on the other hand is a good rundown of what was said. I thought so I when I first read it, and I continue to think so.

My bad. I was thinking of the newspaper write up I saw. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't remember if I accused DB of pirating it himself.  My apologies if it came across that way.  I meant use of stolen property...kind of like a fence.

I understood you clearly enough. Being a consumer of pirated material -- and passing it on to others -- supports and abets the wrongdoing, even if doing so is not strictly illegal.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, in your 20 posts about Bill and piracy it came across that way.

If it came across that way to you, you weren't paying attention.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, this was a shameful dogpile.

I appreciate the few people who have actually attempted to address the issues raised in the OP. And in 6 pages it is FEW. People seem more interested in discrediting Bill and creating distractions about what he did on Facebook. It's as if FAIR has a standing order to attack Bill's character whenever possible. Good diversion.

Seriously, this thread is a shambles and it's not because of the OP.

I think part of the problem was that Bill early on seemed rather cavalier about what he had been caught doing. Like a quick apology and saying "now let's move on" were sufficient. He didn't really seem to get it until a page or two into the thread.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it came across that way to you, you weren't paying attention.

I guess I wasn't paying attention either, because I agree with Happy on this one.  

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My bad. I was thinking of the newspaper write up I saw. 

The thing to understand about news stories is that generally they are by nature brief and can only contain a fraction of what could be said.

In this case, we are talking about a few hundred words to convey the gist of an hour-long presentation. Add to that the fact that the reporter is concerned about including enough direct quotes to make the story interesting and readable while paraphrasing enough to condense a lot of material into a small space, all the while including essential context.

I think the Deseret News writer, Tad Walch, did a generally good job, but that Robert's summary was perhaps more thorough in terms of touching on more points that were made in the talk.

I do believe that both were better than Bill's which, again, struck me as agenda-driven spin.

[DBMormon]

Scott,

I'm curious if you could name 2-3 items in my list that Patrick simply didn't say or imply since I am quite inaccurate? Call it a CFR

Edited August 16, 2016 by DBMormon