Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I saw your protracted lecturing and essentially scrolled on past it without reading. Just letting you know. 

You don’t like scriptures?

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

BUT I think a lot of younger people will really enjoy this style. In todays society kind communication is less important than sticking it to the other guy and showing how tough and smart you are, which these videos do. The presenters are certain. They wave aside any problem with their hand and a smirk and that will honestly be enough for many youngsters who are really just looking for a little validation that it's ok to believe what they believe. These videos won't convince anyone but don't underestimate the value of validation. It could make all the difference in steering youngsters away from delving into difficult topics which could result in faith crisis.

You may well be right. Good thing they disabled the comments, then, since the dislikes on the videos were a lot less validating.

I'm astonished that some people I respect here think the videos are just good clean fun, not mean-spirited at all.

Me, I'm going to keep clutching my pearls. The barbarians are at the gates. If this is what the youth of the Church respond to, we're doomed.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Me, I'm going to keep clutching my pearls. The barbarians are at the gates.

Me, I am finding I am really bad at predicting how people are going to respond to this. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

I can see how people who think that critics of the Church deserve to be mocked would really like these TITS videos. But how would somebody react who is having sincere doubts? Would they feel they are the ones being mocked?

Edited by Analytics
  • Like 2
Link to post
35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I can see how people who think that critics of the Church deserve to be mocked would really like these TITS videos. But how would somebody react who is having sincere doubts? Would they feel they are the ones being mocked?

He says mockingly.....

Really you guys? Maybe it is having come out of one of the nastiest, ickiest elections ever that just leaves me gagging over the righteous indignation.

Can't you find anymore voters of the wrong persuasion to demonize or something? 

It's a few probably experimental videos of varying quality. Get a grip. The exmo/postmo/whatever crowd will survive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, Nevo said:

You may well be right. Good thing they disabled the comments, then, since the dislikes on the videos were a lot less validating.

I'm astonished that some people I respect here think the videos are just good clean fun, not mean-spirited at all.

Me, I'm going to keep clutching my pearls. The barbarians are at the gates. If this is what the youth of the Church respond to, we're doomed.

I just watched this one where it bleeped him swearing. For the life of me after watching it over and over again i can't see him saying any other word but the f-word. How is this okay? Please watch at the 1:59 mark! I can't get over FairMormon falling for this, if I didn't know better I'd think these two or Kwaku is really anti. Remember when we'd get the lessons or taught to act as if the Saviour was in the same room? How would we act if it was Pres Nelson watching these, do you think he'd be okay with these videos? I wonder if the church is still funding FairMormon. Also, I wonder how long people will support FairMormon if they see these? 

 

 

Link to post
53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

For the life of me after watching it over and over again i can't see him saying any other word but the f-word. How is this okay?

He is however not actually saying the f word. 
 

But the fact almost everyone will ‘hear’ it that way matters more imo than the technical fact that he is not actually swearing. 
 

This was a poor decision imo and my opinion has not been changed by knowing the background unlike some of the other stuff. I am as interested in seeing what will happen with this instance as anyone. :)  
 

Quote

wonder if the church is still funding FairMormon. 

Still?  Really?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Calm said:

He is however not actually saying the f word. 
 

But the fact almost everyone will ‘hear’ it that way matters more imo than the technical fact that he is not actually swearing. 
 

This was a poor decision imo and my opinion has not been changed by knowing the background unlike some of the other stuff. I am as interested in seeing what will happen with this instance as anyone. :)  
 

Still?  Really?

I guess I thought at one time there was funding when they were on BYU campus, but wondered if they still got some kind of help. 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I thought at one time there was funding when they were on BYU campus, but wondered if they still got some kind of help. 

We were never on BYU campus. You are thinking of FARMS. 
 

I don’t think we have even had a conference at BYU because we couldn’t have our bookstore (that has been a major source of funding over the years, we couldn’t have survived without it).  We had one or two at UVU before they got picky about that as well. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I saw your protracted lecturing and essentially scrolled on past it without reading. Just letting you know. 

Oooooh! Burn!

Next time, try the acronym TL;DR. More pithy.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to post
9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s what I do whenever I see your name. Just letting you know. 

ZZZZAAAAPPP!

I'm enjoying the laser tag, guys!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm enjoying the laser tag, guys!

I was under the impression they are getting into the youthful spirit of the videos...lacks the humorous touch though. 

I am eagerly awaiting more pithy rejoinders like ‘’talk to the hand ‘cos the face ain’t listening’ or “whatever”.

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
8 hours ago, Calm said:

We were never on BYU campus. You are thinking of FARMS. 
 

I don’t think we have even had a conference at BYU because we couldn’t have our bookstore (that has been a major source of funding over the, we couldn’t have survived without it).  We had one or two at UVU before they got picky about that as well. 

I was thinking of Farms and lumped them together, I apologize. I appreciate all of the volunteers at FairMormon! I read on Wiki about it late last night to see where I went wrong in thinking it was funded by the church at one time. So to you and others, who have helped me, thanks so much. My helper was the famous Gregory Smith (still have his emails) at the time I sent my questions. Thanks goodness it wasn't Kwaku! Of course Greg's answers were very deep, so maybe Kwaku's would be easier to understand, and not take much thought, since his promotion's company is called: Young/Dumb. ;) https://universe.byu.edu/2020/09/05/young-dumb-dance-party-bookends-first-week-of-classes/

Link to post
12 hours ago, juliann said:

He says mockingly.....

Really you guys? Maybe it is having come out of one of the nastiest, ickiest elections ever that just leaves me gagging over the righteous indignation.

Can't you find anymore voters of the wrong persuasion to demonize or something? 

It's a few probably experimental videos of varying quality. Get a grip. The exmo/postmo/whatever crowd will survive.

Since oblique references to politics are apparently okay, I will confirm that I do in fact have unending righteous indignation for the current occupant of the white house and for those who support him. I’ll own that.

But I don’t feel anything remotely similar towards FAIR or the kids in the video.  I thought the Saints Unscripted video was classy, and I thought the TITS video was not. But that doesn’t mean I have righteous indignation over it.

What this discussion has made clear is that whether or not somebody finds something mocking depends upon whether it is their ox that is being gored.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since oblique references to politics are apparently okay, I will confirm that I do in fact have unending righteous indignation for the current occupant of the white house and for those who support him. I’ll own that.

But I don’t feel anything remotely similar towards FAIR or the kids in the video.  I thought the Saints Unscripted video was classy, and I thought the TITS video was not. But that doesn’t mean I have righteous indignation over it.

What this discussion has made clear is that whether or not somebody finds something mocking depends upon whether it is their ox that is being gored.

Are you saying that the reason you find the FAIR videos mocking is because you, as a critic of the church, are an ox that is being “gored” by it?

Asking for clarification because I’m not sure I’m reading you right. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What this discussion has made clear is that whether or not somebody finds something mocking depends upon whether it is their ox that is being gored.

Are you referring to this entire thread?  It seems that many faithful Latter-day Saints have voiced their dislike of the tone of the "This Is Our Show" vids because they are seen as "mocking" or otherwise inappropriate for defenders of our faith.

In other words, plenty of people seem to disregard whose ox is being gored.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that the reason you find the FAIR videos mocking is because you, as a critic of the church, are an ox that is being “gored” by it?

Asking for clarification because I’m not sure I’m reading you right. 

Yes, that is my point. I've listened to a couple Infants on Thrones podcasts, and I found them funny and clever. But apparently faithful saints find it mocking and offensive. In contrast, many faithful Saints find the TITS videos to be great fun, while I find it to be mocking people who think the CES letter makes some really good points.

I looked up the cliche on Quora, and this is what somebody says it means:

It depends on whose ox is gored” is a metaphor whose image comes from an agricultural setting.

Imagine that two oxen get in a fight, and one injures or kills the other with his horns. (That is, gores the other ox.) What is the proper compensation to the owner of the injured ox that should be paid to the owner of the other one? The person who lost his ox might argue for a higher amount than a disinterested observer would.

The implication of the phrase is that while there are rules that everyone should follow, people might be less willing to follow the letter of the law when their own interests are at stake.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you referring to this entire thread?  It seems that many faithful Latter-day Saints have voiced their dislike of the tone of the "This Is Our Show" vids because they are seen as "mocking" or otherwise inappropriate for defenders of our faith.

In other words, plenty of people seem to disregard whose ox is being gored.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course. I commend the Saints who liked the unscripted video but didn't like the TITS video for their class and good taste. My comment was to briefly suggest what the perspective might look like on the TITS video of somebody who thought the CES Letter made some good points. Juliann's harsh reaction was a bit surprising, but I appreciate somebody being really sensitive to such things given the political climate.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Of course. I commend the Saints who liked the unscripted video but didn't like the TITS video for their class and good taste. My comment was to briefly suggest what the perspective might look like on the TITS video of somebody who thought the CES Letter made some good points. Juliann's harsh reaction was a bit surprising, but I appreciate somebody being really sensitive to such things given the political climate.

The "Golden Rule" seems particularly applicable here.  I dislike it when critics ridicule and profane my faith, which is important to me.  I think it takes a moment to consider that critics and members struggling with their faith might cherish their doubts and complaints about the Church, which are in some ways important to them.

But on a more fundamental level, nobody likes ridicule, and nobody likes a bully.  I'm not sure the "This Is Our Show" vids were intended to do this, but sometimes the perception is as important as the reality.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post

Back in 2015 Daniel Peterson wrote an article that may have some relevance here: What it feels like to be a Mormon 'apologist'

Quote

Few, if any, medicines cure every patient. Even the best pharmaceuticals can sometimes cause harm, hence the obligatory warnings. One in 7 flu vaccinations leads to coughing, abdominal pain or nausea. One in a hundred causes fever.

But this scarcely means that vaccinations are without value.

So, too, with “apologetics,” arguments marshaled to defend a (typically religious) position. Few arguments will convince everybody — otherwise, obviously, informed people wouldn’t still hold differing political, economic, philosophical and religious opinions. But that fact doesn’t, in itself, prove the arguments bad.

Some who’ve failed to benefit from apologetic arguments for Mormonism claim that the arguments are therefore worthless, or even worse. Of course, it’s difficult to know how well they understood the arguments — in my experience, many critics have plainly misunderstood the reasoning — or how much relevant material they’ve actually encountered in the first place.

But perhaps I can offer my own perspective, that of someone who’s been deeply involved in Mormon apologetics for nearly three decades.

Are there still debates? Absolutely. Just as there are about the authorship of the Homeric poems and of Shakespeare’s plays. Do problems remain? Certainly. Do some questions still lack answers? Absolutely. We would love, for instance, to find an inscription identifying the ruins of Zarahemla. It would also be nice to know whether horses, in the modern sense, existed in the Americas in Nephite times, or whether perhaps the Nephites called some unfamiliar other animal a horse — as the Greeks did when they encountered Egypt’s hippopotamus. (“Hippopotamus” is Greek for “river horse”; in German, a hippopotamus is a “Nilpferd,” or “Nile horse.”)

Years ago, my friend Louis Midgley alerted me to an anecdote that the eminent Protestant church historian Martin Marty once used to make a point about Mormonism: The famous 18th-century French hostess Marie de Vichy-Chamrond, the Marquise du Deffand, friend of Voltaire and other leading intellectuals of her day, was conversing with Cardinal de Polignac. He told her that the martyr St. Denis, first Christian bishop of Paris, had taken up his head and walked a hundred miles after his execution. Madame du Deffand replied, “In such a promenade, it is the first step that is difficult.” She meant, of course, that it’s not the claim that St. Denis walked a hundred miles that poses a difficulty. Maybe he really walked only 99 miles. Or perhaps he walked a hundred and two. Such differences mean little. The fundamental question is whether, after his beheading, he walked at all. If that essential point has been granted, the rest is merely a footnote.

In my judgment, which I know is shared by others in my “apologist” circles, there’s far more than enough evidence to justify confidence in that “first step” with respect to Joseph Smith, who restored The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and translated the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism.

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the complexity of its content and the speed of its dictation, the manifold ways in which it and other revelations given through Joseph Smith seem to fit the ancient milieu that they purport to reflect, the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character, the profundity of his teachings — these and many other things seem so striking that, for us, many other controversies resemble quibbles over whether St. Denis walked a hundred miles or only 99. (For reading suggestions on some of these topics, see my previous column "Some aids to nourish our faith.")

Some critics claim to detect desperation in contemporary Mormon apologetics. For myself and, I think I can safely say, for others whom I know, this simply isn’t true. We’re excited and exhilarated by what we see. Of course, we try to defend the Restoration against attack. In this, we follow a remark from an essay on C.S. Lewis by the late Austin Farrer that long served as something of an unofficial motto for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and its successor, Brigham Young University’s Maxwell Institute:

“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

We’re much more thrilled, though, about positive arguments that, we believe, illustrate the credibility of Mormon claims. They can strengthen faith and, where necessary, create doubts about doubts.

I made some comments in a thread about the above article, which I think also has some relevance to this thread (emphases added) :

Quote

So this has been an interesting thread to read, for a few reasons. 

First, I suppose I am an “apologist”.  I didn’t give myself that label.  I didn’t aspire to it.  When I saw may faith’s doctrines, practices, leaders and/or members being profaned or unfairly or inaccurately criticized or slurred, I chose to defend rather than remain silent.  Hence I am an apologist.

Second, I think faithful, observant Mormons are, on the whole, a rather nice lot.  When fairly considered, adhering to the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church (love God, love your neighbor, serve others, focus on family, be kind and gentle and longsuffering, etc.) will naturally have that effect.  I should note that it was not without some wincing that I wrote the foregoing statement, as I could foresee any number of sneering, sarcastic responses to it from our more caustic critics.  However, the point is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.  I offer as “Exhibit A” the recent phenomenal success of “The Book of Mormon” musical, the basic premise of which is . . . you guessed it . . . Mormons are nice.  Clueless, deluded and stupid, yes, but also nice.  (For the record, I find this caricature to be more than a bit absurd.  American Mormons who serve missions abroad are well aware of the challenges faced in other parts of the world, having lived there fore substantial periods of time, usually in fairly spartan conditions.  Compared to the average American, I would dare say that RMs are more aware of problems in developing nations, not less.)

Third, faithful, observant Mormons are still flawed, imperfect human beings who can and do mess up.  So when they see their faith attacked, they may sometimes do more than merely “defend”, they may go on the offensive.  They may return slights and digs back upon the heads of the critics.  The line between “defense” (apologetics) and “offense” (anti-anti-mormonism) can be difficult to discern at times.  Or else Mormons, with strong emotions aflame from seeing their faith ridiculed or scorned or misrepresented, simply disregard or deliberately cross the line.  That line-crossing can be a sporadic or heat-of-the-moment kind of thing, but it can also become a habit, a default, a knee-jerk or hair-trigger response.

Fourth, some critics of the Church, particularly those who still claim membership in the Church, and who and trade on that membership to bolster their “street cred” (Grant Palmer was perhaps the most brazen example of this, but there are, sadly, many others – including some on this very board) have become quite good at combining two techniques: goading and victimology.  That is, a critic will profane or demean or substantially misrepresent an important and/or sacred aspect of LDS belief (sometimes phrasing the slur as a question or concern, a la the CES Letter), and do so with the design and intent of offending and angering any Latter-day Saint within earshot.  This conduct is repeated or maintained until the otherwise nice and easygoing Mormon gets fed up and lashes out in anger.  The critic then complains about being "victimized" by those mean 'ol apologists.  I think that's the most common origin of such stories (although fabricated/distorted stories about interacting with apologists are also fairly common).  I am reminded here of this classic scene from Disney’s Cinderella (skip to the 1:01 mark):

The antics of the aptly-named cat, and the unfortunate-and-inappropriate-but-also-understandable reaction of the dog, exemplify the dynamic by which the fatuous "the apologists drove me out of the Church" trope can arise.  The dog shouldn’t have menaced or snarled at the cat, it is true.  But that hardly makes the cat an innocent victim.  The dog, as a “good” character, is held to a higher standard, and rightly so.

Let me clarify here that the foregoing remarks do not reflect the only dynamic in play.  There are reasonable, decent people who, acting in good faith, investigate the truth claims of the LDS Church and find them wanting.  I do not agree with their conclusions (and, generally, the methodologies which lead to them), but we can and must allow for reasonable minds to disagree about all sorts of things, including important things like the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Finally, I think LDS “apologists” who go on the offensive are fighting a losing battle.  I include myself as among those “apologists” who occasionally cross the line from defense to offense, from explanatory exposition to vitriolic comeback.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...