Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy

[Avatar4321]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the John Dehlin video, where he was explicitly "picked on" for "his skin color?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I found Dehlin completely condescending.

and found it ironic that after that video he called the police & FBI on a black man for retweeting a lame meme

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I found Dehlin completely condescending.

and found it ironic that after that video he called the police & FBI on a black man for retweeting a lame meme

Well, he also called the police on the other two guys, and they are white.

But then the video doesn't call specific attention to and critique them based on their race (which Dehlin's co-contributor does).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 11, 2020 by smac97

[Robert J Anderson]

I don't think racism had anything to do with it.  I think Dehlin over-exaggerated the supposed threat for attention.  The video in question was pretty childish and I don't think any reasonable person would think such was a threat as Dehlin portrayed, without more.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I don't think racism had anything to do with it. 

I have some real qualms with ignorant, knee-jerk accusations of "racism."  It has become a heavily weaponized word, which is truly unfortunately because racism, real racism, exists and is an ongoing problem.  But it is being overused.  It is being used not because it is appropriate, but because it is an easy way to silence, coerce, shun, humiliate.

That said, the John Dehlin video where his guest "went there," where she specifically critiqued Kwaku relative to his skin color, is troubling.  

I should probably watch the entire video.  I don't even know who Dehlin's guest is.

22 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

I think Dehlin over-exaggerated the supposed threat for attention.  The video in question was pretty childish and I don't think any reasonable person would think such was a threat as Dehlin portrayed, without more.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maureen]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the points that I have repeatedly tried to make in this forum is that there was nothing in the First Vision experience to 'cure' Joseph of his Trinitarianism. Imagine my surprise tonight to see the The Show guys make this very point as well. Well done!

Begins at 2:27.

This video of the Trinity is awful. The hillbilly pastor is made to look ridiculous and he is. Kwaku and Brad have no cool how to explain the trinity and honestly they could care less. The Book of Mormon has hints of trinity mixed with modalism in it. I'm sure even Joseph Smith was trying to figure out the trinity but couldn't help but confuse it with modalism and it shows in the Book if Mormon.

M.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Maureen

[Robert J Anderson]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have some real qualms with ignorant, knee-jerk accusations of "racism."  It has become a heavily weaponized word, which is truly unfortunately because racism, real racism, exists and is an ongoing problem.  But it is being overused.  It is being used not because it is appropriate, but because it is an easy way to silence, coerce, shun, humiliate.

That said, the John Dehlin video where his guest "went there," where she specifically critiqued Kwaku relative to his skin color, is troubling.  

I should probably watch the entire video.  I don't even know who Dehlin's guest is.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess I didn't see the John Dehlin video you talk about.  Could you provide a link?  Did Dehlin approve of whatever his guest did when the guest "went there?"  I have a hard time thinking LGTBQ Dehlin would allow racist comments to stand but I could be wrong.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I do. I have given lectures to the soon to be missionaries and missionaries I know to always remember what they are asking investigators to put aside. And I know a number of other members who talk about investigators and converts the same way. I would like to see more recognition of it, but I don’t think these days there is a complete cluelessness. Especially when we talk about early pioneers and the sacrifices they make and then relate this to new converts. 

Yes the pioneer stories always seemed so silly to me frankly because guess what- we ALL have ancestors who went through major trials, and a lot of them for their faith.  I mean we have the little gems like the inquisition, the 30 years war, and all religious wars, and that is only in EUROPE.   We are not even taught the history of the rest of the planet unless we specialize in it.

Poland is a relatively small country of peaceful Catholics (the most Catholic country in the world) stuck between two historically warlike nations- Russia on one side and Germany on the other.  It is in the middle of a flat plain- think of Kansas.  The armies march east, the armies march west.  That national anthem of Poland- no joke- look it up- starts with the words "Poland is not yet lost!".  Can you imagine having that for a NATIONAL ANTHEM?  Talk about thinking positive..... - my great grandfather was drafted into Bismark's army and did not want to be a slave to the Germans- which is what that meant to him at the time, and got out essentially as a "refugee" before they caught him as a deserter. 

Incidentally I know most of my family history not from Polish records because Poland did not exist- I have to read German (which I do) to do research.

And the stories from Asia?  And Africa?  I cannot even imagine.   But Utah USA has a whole culture dedicated to pioneers.  It's quite insular really.

Thanks for listening to the rant.  It's been a tough year for all of us but nothing compared to what our ancestors have been through.

Can you imagine approaching one of those folks and saying- "I am sorry to put you through such a great trial,  but you have to wear a mask over your nose and mouth for a year or two."

An actual cuss word in Polish translates to "cholera".   You want plagues?  We have NOTHING so far!  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/polish-english/cholera

They would have a good chuckle over that one!!

Edited December 11, 2020 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Maureen said:

This video of the Trinity is awful. The hillbilly pastor is made to look ridiculous and he is. Kwaku and Brad have no cool how to explain the trinity and honestly they could care less. The Book of Mormon has hints of trinity mixed with modalism in it. I'm sure even Joseph Smith was trying to figure out the trinity but couldn't help but confuse it with modalism and it shows in the Book if Mormon.

M.

I'm guessing you aren't a member Maureen, is that right?  It doesn't matter, I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from so I can understand your posts better.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Quote

I have some real qualms with ignorant, knee-jerk accusations of "racism."  It has become a heavily weaponized word, which is truly unfortunately because racism, real racism, exists and is an ongoing problem.  But it is being overused.  It is being used not because it is appropriate, but because it is an easy way to silence, coerce, shun, humiliate.

That said, the John Dehlin video where his guest "went there," where she specifically critiqued Kwaku relative to his skin color, is troubling.  

I should probably watch the entire video.  I don't even know who Dehlin's guest is.

I guess I didn't see the John Dehlin video you talk about.  Could you provide a link? 

I did (see above).  Here's another link.

And another:

Here is my transcript of the remarks about Kwaku made by Dehlin's guest:

Quote

"...is that he doesn't speak like a, like many black people do.  He has a very English vernacular.  He doesn't have a black dialect.  So he speaks like a proper white person raised in Utah.  So he's the perfect figure for Mormonism, because he's basically like, seems like a white person with dark skin.  The way he talks.  The things he likes.  The way he dresses.  So, yeah..."

I'd like to see this quote in context, but yeesh...

19 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Did Dehlin approve of whatever his guest did when the guest "went there?"  I have a hard time thinking LGTBQ Dehlin would allow racist comments to stand but I could be wrong.

I'm not sure how to get to Dehlin's podcast (though I'm not sure it came from there, since I can't find it...).

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And the stories from Asia?  And Africa?  I cannot even imagine.   But Utah USA has a whole culture dedicated to pioneers.  It's quite insular really.

I truly appreciate the pioneers for preserving the Church, and Utah's insularity is understandable given a century or more of isolation in the mountains. The Internet is changing that, though.

In the Eastern USA, we had a perhaps now-outmoded saying, "It's a "Utah" thing," to try to keep some perspective on the pressure for Utah cultural mores to come across as doctrine or "The Zion" identity. There was always something the Brethren were trying warn about that seemed particularly problematic in Utah: financial scams in the 80s, excessive debt in the 90s, pyramid schemes at some point, plastic surgery in the 2000s... Plus the weird prophecies of dubious origin being circulated, underground taboo clubs at BYU and self-righteously bad drivers. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but always things "we" -- perhaps in our own insular way -- weren't challenged with or thought much about as far as living the Gospel goes.

I find this current contest between the competing apologetic and critical groups to be quite insular in the same way. But there it is right on my MDDB! Oh, for the good old days when it could stay there in the mountains and not all over the Internet LOL

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I find this current contest between the competing apologetic and critical groups to be quite insular in the same way. But there it is right on my MDDB! Oh, for the good old days when it could stay there in the mountains and not all over the Internet LOL

Completely agree.

I really find this whole thing with Fair Mormon very disturbing and a little sickening frankly.  Between covid, the politics this year, the unresolved election matters, the civil unrest, and now the loss of a great voice for good being replaced by Mickey Mouse, AND as you say, it's right here IN YOUR FACE. 

It's like sticking your head in a bucket of ....   nevermind.

I am really starting to appreciate the joys of growing old.   One does not have to put up with it for much longer.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did (see above).  Here's another link.

And another:

Here is my transcript of the remarks about Kwaku made by Dehlin's guest:

I'd like to see this quote in context, but yeesh...

I'm not sure how to get to Dehlin's podcast (though I'm not sure it came from there, since I can't find it...).

Thanks,

-Smac

If that is real, and it seems to be as there is a shift between her and him, I strongly suspect it was pulled down the minute the clip started circulating.  The guy who posted this also has him interviewing Zelph on the Shelf saying he better not meet Elder Oaks on the street because he would clock him. Dehlin isn't the least bit disturbed by that very direct violent threat.

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing you aren't a member Maureen, is that right?  It doesn't matter, I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from so I can understand your posts better.

Yes, that is correct, I am not a member. I am protestant who accepts the trinity. I'm curious what @MiserereNobisthinks of this video. 

M.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Maureen

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Yes, that is correct, I am not a member. I am protestant who accepts the trinity. I'm curious what @MiserereNobisthinks of this video. 

M.

I haven't watched the FAIR video in question yet, but I can't imagine that any video meant to repudiate a belief in the Trinity would be accepted as being a good video by someone who believes the doctrine of the Trinity is true doctrine. 

And while a correct understanding of the doctrines taught in the BOM does not support modalism, I've often been annoyed at how often members of my church refuse to see or acknowledge that modalism and trinitarianism are not the same thing and how they come up with arguments against modalism and think they take down trinitarianism, which isn't the case.  

If someone is going to speak out against a belief then they should first make sure they understand the belief accurately and not create a straw man argument about it.  

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't watched the FAIR video in question yet, but I can't imagine that any video meant to repudiate a belief in the Trinity would be accepted as being a good video by someone who believes the doctrine of the Trinity is true doctrine. 

Quite honestly when you look at some of the things WE believe- including yours truly, fully and completely- the philosophical basis of the trinity- which we really typically do not understand- should be the LAST thing we make fun of in the faith of others.   Just read "If You Could Hie to Kolob"- which IS one of my personal favorite hymns and which I take to be completely true and essential to our theological paradigm.   Yes it is accepted on faith and testimony alone- but as far as what are seen as "looney ideas" of the ordinary person, compared to the Trinity alone?

We definitely win the looney prize on that one.   The Trinity sounds like Einstein compared to that!

It just happens to be based on a semantic error.   Oops.   But who's going to notice that?  And why would one make such a big deal about it?

And yes, I have shown the logical flaws of Trinitarian beliefs here many times

Yet the concepts "Hie to Kolob" teaches are completely necessary projections of what would be the nature of an immanent, physical being who is God.   If God has a body where did it come from?   We MUST be able to answer that and the idea that "It's Gods all the way down" is certainly the best answer I can come up with for Everyone (neutral for "Everyman") if we want to take physical immanence literally.

It's as easy to believe as evolution.     We all came from our ancestors.   And yet we like to fight against the idea of Evolution (the church is officially neutral on that) but still want to keep Kolob.    Go figure on that one!

If we can progress to become like God, then we can reasonably suppose that others before us have as well.

 

Quote

 

1. If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly when you look at some of the things WE believe- including yours truly, fully and completely- the philosophical basis of the trinity- which we really typically do not understand- should be the LAST thing we make fun of in the faith of others.   Just read "If You Could Hie to Kolob"- which IS one of my personal favorite hymns and which I take to be completely true and essential to our theological paradigm.   Yes it is accepted on faith and testimony alone- but as far as what are seen as "looney ideas" of the ordinary person, compared to the Trinity alone?

We definitely win the looney prize on that one.   The Trinity sounds like Einstein compared to that!

It just happens to be based on a semantic error.   Oops.   But who's going to notice that?  And why would one make such a big deal about it?

And yes, I have shown the logical flaws of Trinitarian beliefs here many times

Yet the concepts "Hie to Kolob" teaches are completely necessary projections of what would be the nature of an immanent, physical being who is God.   If God has a body where did it come from?   We MUST be able to answer that and the idea that "It's Gods all the way down" is certainly the best answer I can come up with for Everyone (neutral for "Everyman") if we want to take physical immanence literally.

It's as easy to believe as evolution.     We all came from our ancestors.   And yet we like to fight against the idea of Evolution (the church is officially neutral on that) but still want to keep Kolob.    Go figure on that one!

If we can progress to become like God, then we can reasonably suppose that others before us have as well.

 

 

Agreed!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

haven't watched the FAIR video in question yet, but I can't imagine that any video meant to repudiate a belief in the Trinity would be accepted as being a good video by someone who believes the doctrine of the Trinity is true doctrine. 

The purpose of the video was to challenge the claim Joseph taught the traditional Trinity in the Book of Mormon.  I haven’t watched that one yet, it seems there may be some bashing (I understand they had someone dress up as a Protestant minister), but I was told the focus is not on bashing it as apostate doctrine, etc. 

Added:  Hamba has watched it, trust his description instead of my thirdhand one. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly when you look at some of the things WE believe- including yours truly, fully and completely- the philosophical basis of the trinity- which we really typically do not understand- should be the LAST thing we make fun of in the faith of others.

Well, the good news is that the video doesn't make fun of the Trinity, at all. It makes two points, the first of which, in my opinion, is the most important:

1. Challenging the reality of the First Vision by arguing that Joseph couldn't have maintained Trinitarian beliefs thereafter is illogical because Trinitarians believe that one can see the Father and the Son as two persons as Paul did in Acts.
2. Pointing out that changes to the Book of Mormon text are perfectly acceptable within a Trinitarian understanding.

Really, people need to give these guys a bit more credit on content. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Joseph didn't know the actual nature of the Godhead until it was specifically revealed to him, which was years after both the First Vision and his edits to the Book of Mormon.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Which is precisely why they need to see it.

people shouldn’t be afraid to hear hard things

As the scriptures repeatedly teach, people can hear things that they don't really hear, but yeah.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Maureen said:

This video of the Trinity is awful. The hillbilly pastor is made to look ridiculous and he is. Kwaku and Brad have no cool how to explain the trinity and honestly they could care less. The Book of Mormon has hints of trinity mixed with modalism in it. I'm sure even Joseph Smith was trying to figure out the trinity but couldn't help but confuse it with modalism and it shows in the Book if Mormon.

M.

I think you, as others have done, are trying to superimpose sectarian dogma on Latter-day Saint theology. It won’t work. 
 

The only way to coherently grasp the Book of Mormon teachings on this topic is to understand, as Latter-day Saints do, that the Father and Son are so perfectly united in purpose and divinity that they share the title Father and that they are truly “one God” in every meaningful sense EXCEPT in the sense of being one in person. 
 

Think of the Latin slogan on our coins: “E pluribus unum.” It means “out of many, one.”  If you can conceive of that imagery, perhaps you can begin to grasp the doctrinal concept. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you, as others have done, are trying to superimpose sectarian dogma on Latter-day Saint theology.

Again, the video isn't an attack on the doctrine of the Trinity or on Trinitarians. It points out -- correctly -- what the CES Letter gets wrong about Trinitarianism and why, therefore, its attacks on the First Vision and Book of Mormon edits don't hold up.

And to be fair, many members of the Church have made similar mistakes in the past, arguing that young Joseph left the Sacred Grove with a perfect understanding of the nature of the Godhead. It's pretty easy to demonstrate from his own writings that this was not the case. We shouldn't be surprised because there is nothing in any of Joseph's descriptions of this vision that sits outside what a Trinitarian approach would require. (And let's not even get into the corporality of God!)

It's a really important argument, and the caricature of the Baptist preacher isn't an object of ridicule in any way, either; rather, he helps to make the point. If anything, the video suggests that we have far more in common with our Trinitarian Christian neighbours and friends than with ex-Mormon atheists hell-bent on destroying faith.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Challenging the reality of the First Vision by arguing that Joseph couldn't have maintained Trinitarian beliefs thereafter is illogical because Trinitarians believe that one can see the Father and the Son as two persons as Paul did in Acts.

While I agree with you, someone really needs to make this point to the folks running the church. 
 

see point 2 here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/02/eight-truths-from-the-first-vision?lang=eng

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

The guy who posted this also has him interviewing Zelph on the Shelf saying he better not meet Elder Oaks on the street because he would clock him. Dehlin isn't the least bit disturbed by that very direct violent threat.

That's not Zelph on the Shelf. That's Mike Norton, the temple videos guy.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

While I agree with you, someone really needs to make this point to the folks running the church. 
 

see point 2 here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/02/eight-truths-from-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I agree. That argument has always bugged me. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

While I agree with you, someone really needs to make this point to the folks running the church. 

I know! Church leaders sometimes make this mistake too.  I sincerely hope that increased awareness of the documentary record (and better understanding by the Saints of traditional Christian concepts*) will over time weed this falsehood out of the Church body and its literature.

But what should it tell us that this very point is showing up in a video series that people are labelling as superficial and ill-informed?

_____

* As noted above, I have written on this misunderstanding multiple times in this forum, including on a common Latter-day Saint misreading of 'one substance' in the Nicene Creed. Our 'heresy' is not that we reject the concept that the Father and the Son are separate persons made of the same substance; rather, it is that we insist that a) we are also made of the same substance and b) this divine substance can be -- and in fact ideally should be -- embodied. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan