New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no mainstream press any longer, and has not been for a long time.

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no mainstream press any longer, and has not been for a long time.

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no mainstream press any longer, and has not been for a long time.

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't read Robert as being uncertain as to whether the new history will be fictional or non-fictional. The only one here who appears to be confused on that point is you.

These histories can still be historically factual and in story form, correct?  That's what I was clarifying and I do understand they won't be fiction. I'm hopeful they'll be thorough and include details regarding church history.

Edited June 11, 2017 by JulieM

[longview]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no mainstream press any longer, and has not been for a long time.

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I certainly do, and would feel that way even if you hadn't repeated it five times.

In the profession, we call it pack journalism.

Sorry about that.  I pressed the submit button and got a message (in red) saying I needed to wait a few seconds.  I tried again and again.  No change so I went to weed for a couple hours in my backyard.  When I got back, the red message was still showing.  I clicked several more times but it was unresponsive.  So I clicked on "unread content" to browse further when I saw the icon indicating that you responded to my replicated posts.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

These histories can still be historically factual and in story form, correct?  

Yes, so long as the stories themselves are fact, not fiction, certainly not like The Work and the Glory, which uses fictional characters to weave a fictional narrative around historically factual events.

Quote

That's what I was clarifying and I do understand they won't be fiction. I'm hopeful they'll be thorough and include details regarding church history.

 

Fair enough.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

Sorry about that.  I pressed the submit button and got a message (in red) saying I needed to wait a few seconds.  I tried again and again.  No change so I went to weed for a couple hours in my backyard.  When I got back, the red message was still showing.  I clicked several more times but it was unresponsive.  So I clicked on "unread content" to browse further when I saw the icon indicating that you responded to my replicated posts.

Your repeated posts are still showing up. I'm afraid you've created a monster.

 

[longview]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your repeated posts are still showing up. I'm afraid you've created a monster.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

The print and broadcast outlets you mention have existed tor a long time, but their audience is not the same as it once was (before the internet), and they have never moved in lockstep together.  Indeed, you left out several major outlets, which were also much more influential before recent decades --  such as the Wall Street Journal, NPR, PBS, Fox, etc.  Moreover, those who follow print  journalism are a very different group from those who follow broadcast journalism, not to mention that the range of choices has broadened so much in the past 20 years.  Public opinion is so diffuse now precisely because the available news sources (both fact and fake) are so much more diffuse.  In addition, we now have to contend with Russian desinformatziya and agitation and propaganda right here on our home turf.  Vlad Putin is certainly gleeful.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

...................................................................... But I didn't like how you label the anti's.

Honestly, the anti's aren't what cause people to become unfaithful. The anti information usually never phased the faithful, because they knew they couldn't trust what the so-called anti's said.

The anti-Mormon jackals and hyenas often portray themselves as friendly and well-meaning, but their deliberate misinterpretations belie that mask they put on.  They lie in wait to deceive.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's when members read the church essays or FairMormon that the trouble begins. Or even Richard Bushman's RSR. It's not the fault of FM or Bushman, it's that they see where the narrative was not told accurately in the first place.

In a way it was the leaders who chose to hide certain aspects that become anti in a way. Why weren't they open? If something is true or right or God inspired, what is the need to hide? Unless some of these leaders weren't sure of it themselves. 

If that were so true, why then would Richard Bushman say the opposite -- that the LDS leadership knew no more than ordinary members?  FAIRMORMON, the Church Essays, and Rough Stone Rolling may be hard for some people to digest, but they are accurate and no one needs to express sorrow for their publication.

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe Richard Bushman was recorded in that meeting without his knowledge, I've no facts to back this up, but I think if he'd known he was recorded, he may have worded what he said in a way that wouldn't cause such a stir. I appreciate his wanting to help members like me. He and others like him have kept me in for such a long time, and help members feel like they can accept the faults of leaders that messed up because they have allies like Bushman etc. 

I disagree.  It is clear that Richard and Claudia Bushman were recorded with their permission, and were certainly not afraid of any blowback on what they might say.  I agree with what they said, overall.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  It is clear that Richard and Claudia Bushman were recorded with their permission, and were certainly not afraid of any blowback on what they might say.  I agree with what they said, overall.

My memory is when the video first came out it had something like 10 minutes where they were positioning it, etc. and then walking around waiting to start.  Obvious that everyone knew it was going to be recorded.  The video I found has been trimmed, but I am pretty sure it was mentioned in the previous thread.

Added:

And I was the one who mentioned it:

"Bushman talks at these kinds of gatherings all the time.  It would be ridiculous for him not to expect to be recorded and for that then to be shared.  For one thing it looks like it was recorded with a laptop by one of the people involved in organizing as he was being asked questions while he was setting it up and Bushman and his wife were sitting right there the entire time while it was being set up.

It might have been released early since there was no trimming of it, they could have lost the first 15 or more minutes of it, and the audio is horrible (don't know if they can do anything with that), but Bushman's stuff would hardly be edited for something like this."

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean Minnesota?

No.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Thou shalt not confuse ' reading grade level ' with ' age group ' . They are entirely different. They  probably shouldn't be but they are, as calm has so correctly linked to above. Most major newspapers have been written at an elementary reading level for the various readers comprehensions.

Every society faces this problem of a large part of the population reading at a low level of comprehension, and the media respond in kind.  For example, in Israel, several Hebrew language newspapers are written quite simply (Yediot Aharanot), while one newspaper is written at a high literary level (Ha'aretz).  Thus, in advanced modern Hebrew classes at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, we regularly read and discussed articles from the better quality newspaper.

[longview]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The print and broadcast outlets you mention have existed tor a long time, but their audience is not the same as it once was (before the internet), and they have never moved in lockstep together.

Most people would say our political culture is extremely polarized between the hard left (Democrats, Socialists, Communists marching in lockstep) and the traditional values crowd (conservatives, religious adherents, et al who are reeling and trying to unify and mount a resistance to the "social engineers").   The moderates and zany fringe parties make up the remaining third but are greatly outnumbered by both polar sides.  Elections are tilted by the middle group one way or the other depending on their mood or passion.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Indeed, you left out several major outlets, which were also much more influential before recent decades --  such as the Wall Street Journal, NPR, PBS, Fox, etc.  Moreover, those who follow print  journalism are a very different group from those who follow broadcast journalism, not to mention that the range of choices has broadened so much in the past 20 years.  Public opinion is so diffuse now precisely because the available news sources (both fact and fake) are so much more diffuse.

I used the term "et al" perhaps you missed that.   I agree that broadcasters may appeal more to the "rabble" (Rush Limbaugh refers to them as being the "low information voters").  And print media attracts more of the thoughtful and well educated segment of the population.  But even within both groups, the polarization is strong and very noticeable.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In addition, we now have to contend with Russian desinformatziya and agitation and propaganda right here on our home turf.  Vlad Putin is certainly gleeful.  

Could be.  I also believe MSM did support the disinformation campaign of the USSR in the aftermath of the JFK assassination to the point of trivializing the connection between Harvey Oswald and the KGB.

However, it has already been pointed out by several commentators that present day imperial Russia had more to gain with Hillary's election for the following reasons:  1- Democrats have a wishy washy approach to foreign policy (as proven by Carter, Bubba Clinton and Obama);  2- Obama did nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea (where Reagan would have responded much more vigorously);  3- Hillary gave Russia a sweet deal while Secretary of State in making possible the sale of a large supply of Uranium (and a subsequent large deposit in her Clinton Foundation coffers).

Putin had very little control over Hillary's illegal email server (it was leaked by a DNC insider) and disclosures of abhorrent behavior by Hillary, John Podesta and a whole raft of bad actors. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

On 6/10/2017 at 10:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yea, you are missing the context in which he said that, which I point up in my response to Tacenda.  By the way, I agree with Richard completely on this, but it is not clear to me that you understand what he has been saying.

I think it is easy to understand what he said because the narrative the church has been using doesn't comport with the actual history and it has to be changed.  Are you concerned that people might overreact to Bushman saying that any change to the narrative is necessary?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The anti-Mormon jackals and hyenas often portray themselves as friendly and well-meaning, but their deliberate misinterpretations belie that mask they put on.  They lie in wait to deceive.

 

The anti-mormon boogeyman strikes again, waiting to tell the unsuspecting sheep new facts about church history that the church will admit years later.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The anti-mormon boogeyman strikes again, waiting to tell the unsuspecting sheep new facts about church history that the church will admit years later.

Time, place and manner. They make a great deal of difference. Sometimes, all the difference. 

Which is why I won't trust anti-Mormons, even when what they are saying is factually correct. 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Time, place and manner. They make a great deal of difference. Sometimes, all the difference. 

Which is why I won't trust anti-Mormons, even when what they are saying is factually correct. 

Is an "anti-mormon" merely someone who disagrees with the church's conclusions or is it something more? How would you define "anti-mormon?"

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Time, place and manner. They make a great deal of difference. Sometimes, all the difference. 

Which is why I won't trust anti-Mormons, even when what they are saying is factually correct. 

I am so waiting Scott for you to have this rude awakening of admitting that most changes whether prophecy or whatever...are here today because someone else years ago spilled the beans!  I am scared for you when that day comes..!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Is an "anti-mormon" merely someone who disagrees with the church's conclusions or is it something more? How would you define "anti-mormon?"

anti-: a prefix meaning opposed to.

anti-Mormon: opposed to Mormonism.

It's really very simple.

And no, merely disagreeing with Mormonism does not make you opposed to it. I disagree with many of the precepts of Catholicism, for example, but I am not opposed to Catholicism. I am indifferent toward it. I would never go on a Catholic board, or any other board, to contend against the faith.

Förstås?

By the way, I reject the anti-Mormon sophistry that there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon. See the last line of my signature at the bottom of this post.

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I am so waiting Scott for you to have this rude awakening of admitting that most changes whether prophecy or whatever...are here today because someone else years ago spilled the beans!  I am scared for you when that day comes..!

Your fear is misplaced. I understand more than you think I do.

I'm not sure you understood my last post. I am saying that even "facts" can convey falsehood, depending on how they are expressed. Taking something out of context can be just as egregious as overtly telling a lie. So many people fail to understand this.

Maybe it's because of the profession I'm in, but I'm keenly aware of how deceptive slanted discourse can be. Until people understand this, they are very vulnerable to it.

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your fear is misplaced. I understand more than you think I do.

I'm not sure you understood my last post. I am saying that even "facts" can convey falsehood, depending on how they are expressed. Taking something out of context can be just as egregious as overtly telling a lie. So many people fail to understand this. Maybe it's because of the profession I'm in, but I'm keenly aware of how deceptive slanted discourse can be. Until people understand this, they are very vulnerable to it.

 

I hear you.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Is an "anti-mormon" merely someone who disagrees with the church's conclusions or is it something more? How would you define "anti-mormon?"

Good question, thanks for asking it!

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good question, thanks for asking it!

 

Thank you. I think it's an important question because "anti-mormon" is used so often to squelch discussion by improperly labeling the questioner as an "anti."