Patrick Mason at FairMormon

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Well Fair got money out of Bill for his linking of the video, or whatever he did.  So no big deal.  And no one was hurt, but it's possible more people got more intrigued and wanted to give money to Fair to watch the presentation.  No harm and no foul. 

So everything's cool. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 

[Calm]

Glitch above.

Jack, I edited my first post, see if that makes it clear enough.  Thanks for the feedback.

[churchistrue]

What I didn't like about this episode (which had nothing to do with Bill) was that Jeremy Runnels and John Delhin shared the video, and when it was taken down, several people including Jeremy, said it was probably because the church is suppressing the truth.  Sigh.

 

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

I had for gotten about the lawsuit and now know better what piracy is.  Very educational day.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

Then which of Calm's posts gave you the impression that Bill had pirated the material himself as opposed to receiving the link, watching it and passing it on to others?

[juliann]

5 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Patrick Mason recently spoke at FairMormon and gave a very progressive Mormon speech.  I thought it would be good to have a dialogue about the actual points he raises.  the video and audio is behinds Fairmormon's paywall so you will have to take my word for it.  But here is a list of things he says.

1.)  He flatly says we have defined Prophets incorrectly.

2.)  That there is valid reason to doubt.

3.)  That belief is "plausible" (his words) 

4.)  That We made up much of our theology and have put way more in the truth cart then belongs there.

4.) That we should not blame the doubters and that we would be better looking at ourselves for our problems rather than secularists, feminists, intellectuals, and even Satan

5.) That the CES letter was an inevitable response to the false dominant narrative we have taught.  And that said narrative is not his mormonism nor the Mormonism that can flourish in the future.

6.)  He expressed that we must do better to support gender equality and our LGBT brothers and sisters.   He says we aren't loving or inclusive enough

7.)  He says our culture and leadership have sadly adopted a non-apologizing posture towards its mistakes

8.)    He says we need to repent as a church and apologize for our serious errors.

9.)  He says we need to Incorporate more diversity into our church ( race, gender, economic status. sexual orientation, and other differences)

 10.)  He concludes that he is scared of a immature faith never growing up and giving space for nuance and complexity and he fears a fundamentalist takeover

All this at Fairmormon and strangely this is the very same stuff I say and get blasted for.  I also have it on good account that FairMormon's leadership has said behind the scenes this kind of Mormonism and perspective is where they want to head.  Any comments from FairMormon would be appreciated on whether you liked and agreed with Patrick perspective.

 

Mason frames everything he says with a story of a man who is barely holding on. He went from full activity to anger and bitterness within months after finding websites.  Now he feels like Humpty Dumpty who can't be put back together again. So the point of Mason's talk is to give "all the King's Men and Women" ideas on how to keep people on the wall, or at least understand and act with compassion. 

 

"No one narrative is representative of the whole. Everybody has a different story" Mason says.  "It is essential to hear the voices of those who are struggling." Mason's friend tells him after their meeting, "If only I had reconnected with you first." His friend says, "Most of the stuff I've read online that attacks . . . tend to spin the quotes and facts they use pretty hard. It's amazing how good they are at lulling you away into not critically examining or doing research yourself. There are people out there who have mastered the craft of presenting their information as infallible and their opinions as iron clad." He labels that "toxic." He says "but once the seed of doubt has been planted and you lose trust in what you have always believed, the stigma [of those toxic websites] fades."

Again, this is within the first 8 minutes of his talk. This is how he sets up what follows, it all points back to this central point.  You will not hear this from the critics, obviously. What Mason is actually doing is using the "same things" but in a context that gives believers a way of keeping people on the wall. That is why so many stood and applauded.

But Reel presents a tender and very complex analysis as a list of exaggerated pokes at the Church Mason supports. I'll say it again, critics are going to have a very hard time with Hardy and Mason. When someone cannot acknowledge the central point of a talk, their rendition of it is likely to follow the pattern Mason's friend relates. Again, this is what Hardy and Mason are advocating against for all, thus, the mentions of the problems the believer faces along with those of the nonbelievers. For a critic to appreciate what they are saying, the critic must accept that first. 

 

  

Edited August 16, 2016 by juliann

[Calm]

Just now, churchistrue said:

What I didn't like about this episode (which had nothing to do with Bill) was that Jeremy Runnels and John Delhin shared the video, and when it was taken down, several people including Jeremy, said it was probably because the church is suppressing the truth.  Sigh.

Yeah, like Youtube is the Church, lol.

And like we aren't going to post a transcript of it as soon as Brother Mason clears it.  Either they know nothing about how Youtube or FM operates or they just want to complain...or both.

Fairmormon submitted a complaint of copyright infringement to Youtube, they agreed it was.  My understanding is if you don't act on infringement you may lose the right to complain later on, but I am no expert on it.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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

Always check for author/distributor in everything, news articles as well as videos.

[DBMormon]

.

Edited August 16, 2016 by DBMormon

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

I think a much better approach would be for you to provide Mason's actual words. In full sentences.

The transcript will be up very soon, BTW.

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by juliann

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Mason frames everything he says with a story of a man who is barely holding on. He went from full activity to anger and bitterness within months after finding websites.  Now he feels like Humpty Dumpty who can't be put back together again. So the point of Mason's talk is to give "all the King's Men and Women" ideas on how to keep people on the wall, or at least understand and act with compassion. 

 

"No one narrative is representative of the whole. Everybody has a different story" Mason says.  "It is essential to hear the voices of those who are struggling." Mason's friend tells him after their meeting, "If only I had reonnected with you first." His friend says, "Most of the stuff I've read online that attacks . . . tend to spin the quotes and facts they use pretty hard. It's amazing how good they are at lulling you away into not critically examining or doing research yourself. There are people out there who have mastered the craft of presenting their information as infallible and their opinions as iron clad." He labels that "toxic." He says "but once the seed of doubt has been planted and you lose trust in what you have always believed, the stigma [of those toxic websites] fades."

Again, this is within the first 8 minutes of his talk. This is how he sets up what follows, it all points back to this central point.  You will not hear this from the critics, obviously. What Mason is actually doing is using the "same things" but in a context that gives believers a way of keeping people on the wall. That is why so many stood and applauded.

But Reel presents a tender and very complex analysis as a list of criticisms of the Church as a list of exaggerated pokes at the Church Mason supports. I'll say it again, critics are going to have a very hard time with Hardy and Mason. When someone cannot acknowledge the central point of a talk, their rendition of it is likely to follow the pattern Mason's friend relates. Again, this is what Hardy and Mason are advocating against for all, thus, the mentions of the problems the believer faces along with those of the nonbelievers. For a critic to appreciate what they are saying, the critic must accept that first. 

 

  

That's helpful too. I'm still waiting to read the transcript, but it makes sense that Mason would first demonstrate the fallibility of the approaches of many critics as a precursor to demonstrating similar errors committed by defenders of the faith (both unofficial and GAs). Just as critics go overboard in their attacks, defenders too often employ scotched-earth approach. Hence, the importance of Mason pointing out that there are good reasons to doubt, that defenders would do better to recognize and admit errors rather than attack feminists, LGBTs, and intellectuals, and the rightness of not only acknowledging the fallibility of leaders, but of formally apologizing for gross mistakes. 

Juliann, while Bill's list may lack the nuance and overall theme, can you confirm whether the factual claims Bill makes are correct? Whatever the context, did Mason state that the church needs to repent and apologize? Did he say that he feared a fundamentalist take-over? Did he say that we have defined prophets incorrectly? And so forth? You are correct that context matters. But so do the actual statements Mason made. So far I've haven't seen any substantive discussion in this thread as to whether Mason made any of the statements that Bill reports. After 6 pages of discussion, it would be nice to finally just get the facts straight. Then we can talk context and meaning.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

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

I think I'll just wait until there is an accessible transcript that I can link and refer to and quote from -- which is what I've been suggesting everybody do.

Meanwhile, people have Robert's summary and the newspaper story that they can compare to your rendition.

[juliann]

16 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

What I didn't like about this episode (which had nothing to do with Bill) was that Jeremy Runnels and John Delhin shared the video, and when it was taken down, several people including Jeremy, said it was probably because the church is suppressing the truth.  Sigh.

 

 

And yet people swear by whatever he says. LOL

[churchistrue]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'll say it again, critics (TBM)'s are going to have a very hard time with Hardy and Mason. When someone cannot acknowledge the central point of a talk, their rendition of it is likely to follow the pattern Mason's friend  (random conservative Apologist) relates. Again, this is what Hardy and Mason are advocating against for all, thus, the mentions of the problems the believer faces along with those of the nonbelievers. For a critic (TBM) to appreciate what they are saying, the critic (TBM) must accept that first. 

  

fify  

Mason and Hardy's talks were powerful and will likely get a lot of attention.  There is going to be some argument over what they exactly meant.  Both Progressive Mormons and Conservative Mormons will likely try to declare victory.  But I think it's pretty plain they both go about destroying some of the favorite sacred cows of conservative Apologists of the past.  They each (and throw in Bushman and to lesser extent Givens in with them) have radically different views of scripture and prophets than conservative LDS do.  This will get interesting.  Stay tuned!

 

 

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

My first post definitely needed clarifying so I did, I haven't checked my other ones yet as the laptop I borrowed to edit died.  I will probably clarify those to ensure that there is no standing claim on my part that DB stole FM property himself but I reserve the right to continue my generic disapproval of knowingly continuing any use of contents of pirated property until appropriate efforts to seek permission or to get the information from legitimate channels including payment when required for legitimate service have been made and even then if unable to, in most cases all 'fruit of the poisonous tree' should be removed.  I can see life threatening or essential information that is needed immediately as possible justifications, but if all one has to do is wait a few days or even a week, I think the act of integrity is to do so and not take advantage of another's illegal or immoral action even with good intentions.  I know of a case where a small family production company went bankrupt because a very few people bought their development program and then passed the whole to anyone who wanted it, xeroxing the manuals, etc--back before the internet,even easier to do today---justifying their illegal and immoral copying because it was in a good cause and surely the creators would want to help people...which they did, but losing all that investment made it so they couldn't continue helping anyone in that way.  Perhaps I am highly sensitive due to having watched this family lose their home because of the carelessness of others who never cared enough to checked to see if copying it was appropriate.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

fify  

Mason and Hardy's talks were powerful and will likely get a lot of attention.  There is going to be some argument over what they exactly meant.  Both Progressive Mormons and Conservative Mormons will likely try to declare victory.  But I think it's pretty plain they both go about destroying some of the favorite sacred cows of conservative Apologists of the past.  They each (and throw in Bushman and to lesser extent Givens in with them) have radically different views of scripture and prophets than conservative LDS do.  This will get interesting.  Stay tuned!

 

 

I think I will likely disagree with your definition of "radical" or I have a significant different definition of "conservative than you do.  We will have to wait till the scripts are up to see.

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think a much better approach would be for you to provide Mason's actual words. In full sentences.

He said I was inaccurate and I asked for a CFR and I have to prove his CFR?  I don't think that is how board rules work. 

[juliann]

1 hour 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.

Piracy is distribution. It doesn't matter where he got it from.

Internet law needs to be firmed up. The Ralph Nader group offered FAIR help because it was so eager to close the 10th Circuit loophole Tanner was profiting from. And it still left questions. 

It's nice that so many can ascend their high horses because they don't have intellectual property at risk but this is a growing problem worldwide. I'm still kind of flabbergasted that someone who does pay for play podcasts would be so dangerously unaware. One unhappy person and you can lose your house.  Is Bill a 501c now?

[juliann]

1 minute ago, DBMormon said:

He said I was inaccurate and I asked for a CFR and I have to prove his CFR?  I don't think that is how board rules work. 

Bill, can you see how you jump to conclusions? I said it would be a better approach. How do you get CFR from that?

[DBMormon]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I'll just wait until there is an accessible transcript that I can link and refer to and quote from -- which is what I've been suggesting everybody do.

Meanwhile, people have Robert's summary and the newspaper story that they can compare to your rendition.

I assume you will also retract your statement that I am inaccurate till that transcript comes out?

[churchistrue]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think I will likely disagree with your definition of "radical" or I have a significant different definition of "conservative than you do.  We will have to wait till the scripts are up to see.

I'm including their books and podcasts and what not with that description not just their FairMormon presentations.      

Would you agree Bushman has a radically different view of scripture and prophets than the average conservative LDS?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

My first post definitely needed clarifying so I did, I haven't checked my other ones yet as the laptop I borrowed to edit died.  I will probably clarify those to ensure that there is no standing claim on my part that DB stole FM property himself but I reserve the right to continue my generic disapproval of knowingly continuing any use of contents of pirated property until appropriate efforts to seek permission or to get the information from legitimate channels including payment when required for legitimate service have been made and even then if unable to, in most cases all 'fruit of the poisonous tree' should be removed.  I can see life threatening or essential information that is needed immediately as possible justifications, but if all one has to do is wait a few days or even a week, I think the act of integrity is to do so and not take advantage of another's illegal or immoral action even with good intentions.  I know of a case where a small family production company went bankrupt because a very few people bought their development program and then passed the whole to anyone who wanted it, xeroxing the manuals, etc--back before the internet,even easier to do today---justifying their illegal and immoral copying because it was in a good cause and surely the creators would want to help people...which they did, but losing all that investment made it so they couldn't continue helping anyone in that way.  Perhaps I am highly sensitive due to having watched this family lose their home because of the carelessness of others who never cared enough to checked to see if copying it was appropriate.

The need for clarification notwithstanding, I stand by my affirmation that I got your correct meaning without any difficulty.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

fify  

Mason and Hardy's talks were powerful and will likely get a lot of attention.  There is going to be some argument over what they exactly meant.  Both Progressive Mormons and Conservative Mormons will likely try to declare victory.  But I think it's pretty plain they both go about destroying some of the favorite sacred cows of conservative Apologists of the past.  They each (and throw in Bushman and to lesser extent Givens in with them) have radically different views of scripture and prophets than conservative LDS do.  This will get interesting.  Stay tuned!

 

 

This is what was referred to as polemics. It has nothing to do with the labels you put on Mormons. It has nothing to do with apologetics. I'm just shaking my head that so many still want to turn a talk arguing against polemics into....polemics. 

Again, critics, who are typically polemicists, will have trouble with Hardy and Mason as has been well demonstrated here.

[juliann]

Here we go.....

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/courage-convictions