Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that the call went something like this:

Operator: "911. Is this an emergency?"

John: "No."

Operator: "How can I help you?"

John: "I'd like to file a police report."

Operator: "Please hold."

At that point, the call was transferred to the P.D.'s non-emergency line where an officer took his statement and filed a report. I don't know whether this is a crime or not.

 

 

That is just crazy town to call the emergency line to say no to an emergency.

You don't "file a police report" over the phone and "make a statement" That is straight out of TV. You probably can do it online or go into the station and fill out a form. I know, I did it.  I am now fairly convinced he is making this up. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

I think one of the big problems here is that apologists seem to operate independently of the church. I could not imagine the church allowing or dismissing as "no big deal" with the acronym "TITS" if the videos were produced by CES insted of FM. And certainly I could not imagine apologists reposting and doubling down on violent and graphic videos against its critics if apologists were directly accountable to CES, the bishop, or the stake president for their calling. 

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

They would have to build a new church office. Any bets on what they would name it?

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

Nope as long as there are persons like me that has specifically kept this site independent and alive will not ever be under anyone’s thumb or oversight.  I’m not even subjected the the oversight of the boards participants.  It’s refreshing.  Perhaps you would enjoy another gd or rs class to sit in . 
 

Nemesis

Link to post
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, the takeaway for me is that the videos aren't particularly good, and John Dehlin somehow manages to become the main topic. 

Isn’t he always the main topic?  

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that the call went something like this:

Operator: "911. Is this an emergency?"

John: "No."

Operator: "How can I help you?"

John: "I'd like to file a police report."

Operator: "Please hold."

At that point, the call was transferred to the P.D.'s non-emergency line where an officer took his statement and filed a report. I don't know whether this is a crime or not.

May I ask where you are getting this?  Mr. Dehlin mentioned nothing about it in his FB post, which says nothing about a "non-emergency line" or "an officer {taking} his statement and fil{ing} a report."

Instead, we have Mr. Dehlin saying this:

Quote

I took everyone’s advice. I called 911 and reported the following people:

Kwaku El
Cardon Ellis
Braden Herrmann

I told the dispatcher that at least two of the three are (as I understand it) employees and/or contractors of non-profits subsidized by the Mormon church (that being the More Good Foundation and FairMormon).

I’m waiting to hear back from the police. 

So what is the source of your alternative narrative?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

That is simply false--I introduced Dehlin's: "friend who happens to be an attorney" into the conversation.

Right.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Surely you know I didn't type "friend who happens to be an attorney" if I meant to imply that he was Dehlin's legal representative. 

You said: "My understanding is that he called the police on the advice of a friend of his who happens to be an attorney."

But that advice wasn't legal advice?  If so, what sort of advice was it?  And why did you go out of your way to point out that the person giving it is an attorney?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

An attorney told Dehlin to call 911 about a video meme?  Color me skeptical about that.

Why wouldn't an attorney know that transferring calls to a non-emergency line is routine for 911 dispatchers?

I have a hard time envisioning an attorney giving the advice described here.  I could envision something like this: "Hey, John.  What?  Someone posted an offensive meme about you?  Well, if you think it was a real threat, then call 911.  If not, ignore it."

But that would contravene your "{Dehlin} didn't construe the video as an 'actual and legitimate threat to your safety'" explanation of what happened here.

Did a lawyer give advice to Dehlin?

Was the advice "legal advice?"

Was the advice to call 911 to report an emergent threat to the safety of Mr. Dehlin?

Did Mr. Dehlin call 911?

Did Mr. Dehlin speak with a 911 "dispatcher?"

Did Mr. Dehlin, while reporting this serious threat to his physical safety, go out of his way to tell the 911 dispatcher "that at least two of the three are (as I understand it) employees and/or contractors of non-profits subsidized by the Mormon church (that being the More Good Foundation and FairMormon)?"

Did Mr. Dehlin thereafter publicly post all this drivel on Facebook?

Is including this last little tidbit indicative of someone genuinely concerned about a threat to his physical safety?  Or is it more indicative of someone with an axe to grind?  Someone trying to gin up a controversy?  Someone trying to foment ill will against the Church of Jesus Christ?  Someone trying to generate attention and sympathy and revenue for himself?

We report, you decide!

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

I could not imagine the church allowing or dismissing as "no big deal" with the acronym "TITS" if the videos were produced by CES insted of FM

Perhaps.  But it would improve Seminary & Institute attendance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
40 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

I think one of the big problems here is that apologists seem to operate independently of the church.

There really isn't a "seem to" angle here.  Apologists do "operate independently of the church."  

But I'm not sure that's a problem, let alone a "big" one.

40 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

I could not imagine the church allowing or dismissing as "no big deal" with the acronym "TITS" if the videos were produced by CES insted of FM.

Did FM produce the videos?  Did Kwaku et all produce them and FM agreed to post them?  Does FM have editorial control over these videos?

And who came up with the acronym?  It seems like only the critics and provocateurs are using it.

40 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

And certainly I could not imagine apologists reposting and doubling down on violent and graphic videos against its critics if apologists were directly accountable to CES, the bishop, or the stake president for their calling. 

Well, you're probably right.  Members of the Church can do things in their private lives that do not reflect well upon themselves as members of the Church, or on the upon the Church generally.

Nevertheless, there's no way for the Church to monitor and manage all of us.  We need to be agents unto ourselves, and keep an eye out for each other.

In this thread there has been plenty of negative feedback on the videos.  Plenty has been communicated to FAIR.  

40 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

I quite disagree.  And I don't see this happening, either.

I think apologists need to govern themselves, and need to provide checks on each other.  If and when an individual says or does something manifestly inappropriate, his or her local leaders should be apprised, and they can work with the individual within their stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
50 minutes ago, Ian Law said:

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

There is no way this dude is for real.  When trolling you don't want to be so aggressive in your opening post. You were almost Poe, but jumped the shark.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

They would have to build a new church office. Any bets on what they would name it?

I am sure the church would put careful thought and prayer into the name. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, there's no way for the Church to monitor and manage all of us.  We need to be agents unto ourselves, and keep an eye out for each other.

I am not stating every apologist should report directly to the First Presidency or even to the CES office. 

But certainly a structure for apologists can be put in place at the ward/branch or stake level. And CES could be put in charge of coordinating and publishing apologetics materials. This way the church could exercise much greater accountability from apologists and apologetics. 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

You were almost Poe, but jumped the shark.

That's quite the mixed metaphor!

However, it does not answer my question why CES cannot be in charge of overseeing apologetics materials and apologists report to the bishop or stake president as a calling.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that the call went something like this:

Operator: "911. Is this an emergency?"

John: "No."

Operator: "How can I help you?"

John: "I'd like to file a police report."

Operator: "Please hold."

At that point, the call was transferred to the P.D.'s non-emergency line where an officer took his statement and filed a report. I don't know whether this is a crime or not.

 

That is simply false--I introduced Dehlin's: "friend who happens to be an attorney" into the conversation. Surely you know I didn't type "friend who happens to be an attorney" if I meant to imply that he was Dehlin's legal representative. 

 

Why wouldn't an attorney know that transferring calls to a non-emergency line is routine for 911 dispatchers?

Why is that your impression of the phone call? Is that what he said or are you assuming this? His own words say he told the dispatcher that the people he was reporting ‘are financed by the Mormon church.’

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ian Law said:

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

I disagree. Teaching true principles and allowing people to govern themselves is a better option, even when they decide not to govern themselves at all. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did Kwaku et all produce them and FM agreed to post them? 

Edit: Cardon Ellis approached FM with the idea per Calm not the other way around as I originally thought  

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  It seems like only the critics and provocateurs are using it.

Kwaku fits into the latter category quite nicely. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ian Law said:

I think one of the big problems here is that apologists seem to operate independently of the church. I could not imagine the church allowing or dismissing as "no big deal" with the acronym "TITS" if the videos were produced by CES insted of FM. And certainly I could not imagine apologists reposting and doubling down on violent and graphic videos against its critics if apologists were directly accountable to CES, the bishop, or the stake president for their calling. 

The big takeaway from these incidents is that the time has come for the church to exercise direct oversight over apologetics and apologists. 

And give the critics even more ammunition to support their claim that church leaders control us and not let us think and act for ourselves?
Unless the apologists are directly employed by the church or are in a top leadership position, that's not going to happen,  I hope it doesn't. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It sounds like they were produced for FairMormon at the request of FairMormon. 

 

Kwaku fits into the latter category quite nicely. 

I thought Calm said that Kwaku approached FAIR, not the other way around?

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...