Jump to content

Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Cardon is trying to be like Joe Rogan, IMO. I watched a little of part two's video. I don't like how he lumps everyone on reddit as haters of LDS. And likens John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnells as such evil people and devils, and he sounds like the hater. This just didn't come off well. I'm sorry but I think both sides remind of the political strife we've been living in for the last year or so. The division is getting tiresome. Also, just saw this letter to FairMormon: https://joetippetts.medium.com/dear-fair-mormon-cf332cc3fe43 Someone who was recently re-baptized I guess.

 

And yet here you are, daily bringing in your divisive tiresome cut and paste from your critic sites making sure the strife is here. No, it doesn't come off well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Still 200-300 messages a day, give or take, on a busy day?

It was never that busy, though could feel like it at times. Even I couldn’t read that many, if it were so high. I have the emails still, so I will go and doublecheck if yahoo gives me access to them (sometimes they don’t for some reason, technical perhaps, but usually they have titles and numbers even if no content) in a bit to be sure my memory is correct. 

Added:  checked a bit back in 2012, was taking too long to scroll to go farther back, looks like if very busy might get up to over 100, but I am guessing it would be quite, quite rare we got up to 200 just skimming through the days, if ever

additional...got back to 2010, looks like that was busier than 2012, but still not seeing anything close to 200, more approaching 100 though. 

Are you talking about the internal discussions we have among ourselves about our own interests and projects or the answering of questions sent in by people (yes, we still do AtA as Ask FairMormon, see here:  https://www.fairmormon.org/contact )?

Is it as busy whatever the numbers...I don’t read all the chat like I used to, so I really couldn’t say. If I have the inclination later I will do a few random counts to compare....assuming yahoo cooperates. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I think FAIR is trying to appeal to a wider audience and reach out to more young people.  They need someone with more charisma than the typical apologists.  Turning to Kwaku makes them look desperate.

I've never heard of this kid until this thread but FAIR's use of his product doesn't strike me as desperate.

It reminds me more of the general "Go Fast" approach in business these days that looks to get products and content out quickly with the idea that they can upgrade or fix any issues they may find. Mobile aps are a prime example of this. Instead of waiting for the perfect product or approach they go with what they have and make adjustments along the way.  There is some wisdom to this in many cases. It also reminds me of how many businesses are adopting an edgy social media presence in response to customer comments. It's not unusual to see a company Twitter feed slap back at a customer making a rude comment. In the past this would have been unheard of and considered totally inappropriate. Many people still find it inappropriate but the benefits outweigh the cost for the company so they do it. That's what FAIR is doing but I suspect it is far too early to know how the cost/benefit analysis measures out.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post

It feels to me like a return to old styles and tactics, wherein the responses are filled with bravado, strawmen and ad hominem.  It may be the Fairmormons decided the old style was best.  Even though it sends some people packing, it also gives others a false sense of hope, shaming those who might otherwise explore their thoughts.  Maybe there's reason to think these old tactics reprised in a new package work better in the long run than efforts to engage thoughtfully.  Interesting play on Fairmormons part.  It'll be interesting to see the Church and it's many affiliates as each youthful generation comes along finding more and more reason to exit the Church.  

Link to post
14 minutes ago, juliann said:

What increasingly becomes the focus for me is not the videos, they are of mixed quality and I'm waiting for more. Time will tell.  It is the over the top outright hysteria that I am becoming fascinated by. There are all kinds of undercurrents here.  First and foremost.....

The critic's French Laundry moment:  Hypocrisy and double standards. Rules for thee, but not for me. 

That anybody would be defending Dehlin, who has a history of misogyny, dishonesty, and racism,  while demonizing a Mormon young man is kind of...laughable. As is the wave of the hand approach to the nonstop mockery of Mormonism by their cohorts.

Let's see similar outrage directed to everyone who does what you claim these videos do. Who wants to be first? Or who wants to be a French Laundry hypocrite.

For myself, I don't feel hysterical.  I am, however, concerned about the tone of these videos.

As for "hypocrisy and double standards" from critics who regularly deride and profane our faith and our Church, well, yes.  We ought not respond in kind.  Tu quoque doesn't work for me.

Again, I think the "Saints Unscripted" videos provide a good template for creating content that appeals to the younger crowd, but that is far less likely to trigger distracting complaints and criticisms (some of which are, frankly, understandable).

The image of John Dehlin's face superimposed onto the body of Satan will now be with us for years.  It will make the "Metcalfe is butthead" acrostic pale in comparison.

I certainly object to any racially-tinged criticism of Kwaku , but I don't think any self-appointed defender of the Church should have a published-to-the-world-on-social-media picture of himself surrounded by a bevy of bikini-clad women.  For pete's sake, the "Hugh Hefner 2.0" look is never going to be appropriate for a representative of FAIR.

I am a huge fan of FAIR, and very much appreciate its efforts.  But I think these videos need to be taken down and re-considered.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It feels to me like a return to old styles and tactics, wherein the responses are filled with bravado, strawmen and ad hominem.  It may be the Fairmormons decided the old style was best.  Even though it sends some people packing, it also gives others a false sense of hope, shaming those who might otherwise explore their thoughts.  Maybe there's reason to think these old tactics reprised in a new package work better in the long run than efforts to engage thoughtfully.  Interesting play on Fairmormons part.  It'll be interesting to see the Church and it's many affiliates as each youthful generation comes along finding more and more reason to exit the Church.  

Yet your critic friend's use and applaud those very things. Do they do that because it doesn't work? Seriously, French Laundry peeps, get your stories straight. 

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

Yet your critic friend's use and applaud those very things. Do they do that because it doesn't work? Seriously, French Laundry peeps, get your stories straight. 

Which friends are you accusing of what, exactly?  Where'd you get the idea I said it doesn't work?  

Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For myself, I don't feel hysterical.  I am, however, concerned about the tone of these videos.

As for "hypocrisy and double standards" from critics who regularly deride and profane our faith and our Church, well, yes.  We ought not respond in kind.  Tu quoque doesn't work for me.

Again, I think the "Saints Unscripted" videos provide a good template for creating content that appeals to the younger crowd, but that is far less likely to trigger distracting complaints and criticisms (some of which are, frankly, understandable).

The image of John Dehlin's face superimposed onto the body of Satan will now be with us for years.  It will make the "Metcalfe is butthead" acrostic pale in comparison.

I certainly object to any racially-tinged criticism of Kwaku , but I don't think any self-appointed defender of the Church should have a published-to-the-world-on-social-media picture of himself surrounded by a bevy of bikini-clad women.  For pete's sake, the "Hugh Hefner 2.0" look is never going to be appropriate for a representative of FAIR.

I am a huge fan of FAIR, and very much appreciate its efforts.  But I think these videos need to be taken down and re-considered.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Knowing what I know about FM, I'm sure that there is thoughtful evaluation going on. That is, in fact, the difference between the two parties. Serious critique from LDS is warranted and needed. I draw the line at the critics and antis, though. They are not credible and they are hypocrites of the highest order. And like Tacenda's tearful love letter to Dehlin  spam, it doesn't take long to see where the hypocrites true allegiance lies. 

The difference between Butthead and this is FARMS was out of BYU. You will note the increased effort to make FM a church paid and controlled entity. That is very important to the French Laundry diners' agenda. Unfortunately, this is on FM, not the church. 

I am still trying to figure out why those who traffic in mockery are engaging in such faux outrage. They obviously, obviously don't mind mockery or anything these videos are doing. They even like it more when vulgarity and doxing is included. So what is the gripe? Is this only about whose ox is being gored being their sole standard? Or are their feelings really hurt? Or are they afraid that the videos will be effective? 

Link to post

In addition to the "Saints Unscripted" videos, I also think the Book of Mormon Central videos(particularly the "Know Why" entries) are good examples of media content that competently and clearly explains and defends the doctrines of the Church, that does so in a more engaging way than dry "academic" stuff, but that also maintains decorum, civility, and so on.

For example, look at this one, which is narrated/hosted by Kwaku:

And this one:

Man, this stuff is good.  Candid.  Engaging.  Coherent.  Thoughtful.  Good production values.  And utterly devoid of controversial content that is triggering the criticisms of the "This Is The Show" videos.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, juliann said:

Knowing what I know about FM, I'm sure that there is thoughtful evaluation going on. That is, in fact, the difference between the two parties. Serious critique from LDS is warranted and needed. I draw the line at the critics and antis, though. They are not credible and they are hypocrites of the highest order. And like Tacenda's tearful love letter to Dehlin  spam, it doesn't take long to see where the hypocrites true allegiance lies. 

Flagrant hypocrisy sets my teeth on edge, but sometimes a hypocrite nevertheless has a valid point.

Quote

The difference between Butthead and this is FARMS was out of BYU. You will note the increased effort to make FM a church paid and controlled entity. That is very important to the French Laundry diners' agenda. Unfortunately, this is on FM, not the church. 

Okay.  But I don't think FM can really rely on "this is on FM, not the church" as a viable justification for the videos at issue.  Yes, these are not published by the Church, but I don't think FAIR can "compartmentalize" in this way.  Consider this bullet point from the "Radical Orthodoxy" manifesto:

Quote
  • Integrity. We do not believe in compartmentalizing the Gospel from our professional pursuits, politics, scholarship, social interactions, or hobbies.

I cannot think of any circumstance in which it would be appropriate for a Latter-day Saint to publish an image of John Dehlin's face superimposed onto the body of Satan.  That just seems beyond the pale.  That's just not who we are, not who we are supposed to be.  

There are many, many instances of the Church exhorting us to be able to "disagree" without being "disagreeable."  That concept is repeated over and over on the Church's website.

Elder Ballard:

Quote

While it is true we declare to the world that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith and we urge our members to share their faith and testimonies with others, it has never been the policy of the Church that those who choose not to listen or to accept our message should be shunned or ignored. Indeed, the opposite is true. President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly reminded us of this special obligation that we have as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I quote just one:

“Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences. …

“… We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 661, 665).
...
I now speak to all those who are not of our faith. If there are issues of concern, let us talk about them. We want to be helpful. Please understand, however, that our doctrines and teachings are set by the Lord, so sometimes we will have to agree to disagree with you, but we can do so without being disagreeable. In our communities we can and must work together in an atmosphere of courtesy, respect, and civility.

Then-Elder Nelson:

Quote

What can we do to combat this canker of contention? What steps may each of us take to supplant the spirit of contention with a spirit of personal peace?

To begin, show compassionate concern for others. Control the tongue, the pen, and the word processor. Whenever tempted to dispute, remember this proverb: “He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.” (Prov. 11:12; see also Prov. 17:28.)

Bridle the passion to speak or write contentiously for personal gain or glory. The Apostle Paul thus counseled the Philippians, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Philip. 2:3.)

Such high mutual regard would then let us respectfully disagree without being disagreeable.

Then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

{T}he spirit of our balance of truth and tolerance is applied in these words of President Hinckley: “Let us reach out to those in our community who are not of our faith. Let us be good neighbors, kind and generous and gracious. Let us be involved in good community causes. There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.”

I am concerned that the "This Is The Show" videos, while well-intentioned, have elements in them that are contentious, disrespectful, or otherwise fail to adhere to the foregoing counsel.

Quote

I am still trying to figure out why those who traffic in mockery are engaging in such faux outrage. They obviously, obviously don't mind mockery or anything these videos are doing. They even like it more when vulgarity and doxing is included. So what is the gripe? Is this only about whose ox is being gored being their sole standard? Or are their feelings really hurt? Or are they afraid that the videos will be effective? 

To be candid, they probably think we are the ones being hypocritical.  We preach one thing ("disagree" if necessary, but do so with respect, courtesy, forbearance, civility, etc.) but then comes FAIR posting a video that superimposes John Dehlin's face onto the body of Satan.

I'm something of a hypocrite in this regard, I'll own that.  But I will also own that I can and do reconsider and retract and apologize for things I have said and done that are incompatible with the foregoing counsel given to us by the leaders of the Church.  It sounds like FAIR is in that process, and I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4
Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

And yet here you are, daily bringing in your divisive tiresome cut and paste from your critic sites making sure the strife is here. No, it doesn't come off well. 

Yeah whatever

Link to post
15 hours ago, Calm said:

Check out the tax forms.  If there were donations, they will be there.

Well, I think it would be money well spent for all the hours spent to help us who question. I'll have to donate! I'm serious, I give you and others tons of credit for your time. 

Link to post
43 minutes ago, juliann said:

Knowing what I know about FM, I'm sure that there is thoughtful evaluation going on. That is, in fact, the difference between the two parties. Serious critique from LDS is warranted and needed. I draw the line at the critics and antis, though. They are not credible and they are hypocrites of the highest order. And like Tacenda's tearful love letter to Dehlin  spam, it doesn't take long to see where the hypocrites true allegiance lies. 

The difference between Butthead and this is FARMS was out of BYU. You will note the increased effort to make FM a church paid and controlled entity. That is very important to the French Laundry diners' agenda. Unfortunately, this is on FM, not the church. 

I am still trying to figure out why those who traffic in mockery are engaging in such faux outrage. They obviously, obviously don't mind mockery or anything these videos are doing. They even like it more when vulgarity and doxing is included. So what is the gripe? Is this only about whose ox is being gored being their sole standard? Or are their feelings really hurt? Or are they afraid that the videos will be effective? 

I assume you probably include me in the category of "those who traffic in mockery are engaging in such faux outrage". Maybe not. Doesn't really matter

But you seem to be blind to something here. I haven't really seen any critic who is outraged by the videos. I don't think I've expressed any kind of outrage. The argument I'm seeing is that the mockery of the FAIR videos won't win people over. Making fun of others (especially if you represent a church) is going to win a group supporters. I think the arguments are more about the efficacy of the strategy in using this type of material to further a religious pursuit, than it is about anyone really being offended.

"Serious critique from LDS is warranted and needed. I draw the line at the critics and antis, though. They are not credible and they are hypocrites of the highest order"

You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. You seem to be saying that only LDS are allowed to critique as long as its a serious critique, but critics and antis aren't credible enough to even listen to. Again, this approach isn't going to help anyone make friends or influence others.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I think it would be money well spent for all the hours spent to help us who question. I'll have to donate! I'm serious, I give you and others tons of credit for your time. 

That would be great. :) 

Link to post
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

. I think the arguments are more about the efficacy of the strategy in using this type of material to further a religious pursuit, than it is about anyone really being offended.

There are quite a few of the outraged that I have been seeing.  Unfortunately since they were sent privately can’t post them. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post

In reading through the comments it seems some objected to content, others to style, and others to the personalities involved.  Do you think that is a resistance to change? Do discussions of spiritual matters outside of the reverent style of conference speakers make people uncomfortable?

Phaedrus

Link to post
Just now, phaedrus ut said:

Do discussions of spiritual matters outside of the reverent style of conference speakers make people uncomfortable?

There has always been a significant portion of the membership who believe we shouldn’t even be doing apologetics if the percentage of letters we receive over the years is reflective of the percentage in the overall membership. However, I am guessing this has decreased as time goes on. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Flagrant hypocrisy sets my teeth on edge, but sometimes a hypocrite nevertheless has a valid point.

Okay.  But I don't think FM can really rely on "this is on FM, not the church" as a viable justification for the videos at issue.  Yes, these are not published by the Church, but I don't think FAIR can "compartmentalize" in this way.  Consider this bullet point from the "Radical Orthodoxy" manifesto:

I cannot think of any circumstance in which it would be appropriate for a Latter-day Saint to publish an image of John Dehlin's face superimposed onto the body of Satan.  That just seems beyond the pale.  That's just not who we are, not who we are supposed to be.  

There are many, many instances of the Church exhorting us to be able to "disagree" without being "disagreeable."  That concept is repeated over and over on the Church's website.

Elder Ballard:

Then-Elder Nelson:

Then-Elder Oaks:

I am concerned that the "This Is The Show" videos, while well-intentioned, have elements in them that are contentious, disrespectful, or otherwise fail to adhere to the foregoing counsel.

To be candid, they probably think we are the ones being hypocritical.  We preach one thing ("disagree" if necessary, but do so with respect, courtesy, forbearance, civility, etc.) but then comes FAIR posting a video that superimposes John Dehlin's face onto the body of Satan.

I'm something of a hypocrite in this regard, I'll own that.  But I will also own that I can and do reconsider and retract and apologize for things I have said and done that are incompatible with the foregoing counsel given to us by the leaders of the Church.  It sounds like FAIR is in that process, and I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

This is all very well said. And frankly, if we never listen to a hypocrite we'd never be able to listen to anyone. You're a hypocrite in some ways. So am I. Everyone is.

While I'm not bent out of shape about these videos I do feel they are counter productive except how they may serve the purpose of validating the feelings of some believers by speaking with a bravado that instills confidence. Stem said something similar.

Civility seems to be a lost value. I would hope that church's, and those supporting religion in general, would work towards raising the standard of civility instead of giving in to the baser instincts.

  • Like 2
Link to post

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are quite a few of the outraged that I have been seeing.  Unfortunately since they were sent privately can’t post them. 

This thread is my only frame of reference. If someone is going to characterize critics expressing their "faux outrage" it would probably be helpful for that poster to include an example, otherwise it sounds like an accusation to those on this thread. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprise be some overreactions out there, but I haven't seen any.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

This thread is my only frame of reference. If someone is going to characterize critics expressing their "faux outrage" it would probably be helpful for that poster to include an example, otherwise it sounds like an accusation to those on this thread. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprise be some overreactions out there, but I haven't seen any.

This board is unusual for its percentage of thoughtful, reasonable critics, imo. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
32 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

In reading through the comments it seems some objected to content, others to style, and others to the personalities involved.  Do you think that is a resistance to change? Do discussions of spiritual matters outside of the reverent style of conference speakers make people uncomfortable?

Phaedrus

That is what makes it so interesting to me. What is really going on with this.....

Link to post
25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

This thread is my only frame of reference. If someone is going to characterize critics expressing their "faux outrage" it would probably be helpful for that poster to include an example, otherwise it sounds like an accusation to those on this thread. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be surprise be some overreactions out there, but I haven't seen any.

I don't cross post. I'll give one example, there was a poster on my FB feed that called it "filth."  There are plenty of ex/post/whatever mo forums to check. I'm not exaggerating. 

 

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. You seem to be saying that only LDS are allowed to critique as long as its a serious critique, but critics and antis aren't credible enough to even listen to. Again, this approach isn't going to help anyone make friends or influence others.

You might have missed my thorough explanation that any of these critics who support people like Dehlin, or critics who are much worse in content than these videos, are the hypocrites aren't credible. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, juliann said:

I don't cross post. I'll give one example, there was a poster on my FB feed that called it "filth."  There are plenty of ex/post/whatever mo forums to check. I'm not exaggerating. 

 

You might have missed my thorough explanation that any of these critics who support people like Dehlin, or critics who are much worse in content than these videos, are the hypocrites aren't credible. 

No, I caught that explanation. Think about how broad that is. "Any critics who support people like Dehlin". It's not worth fighting over. I just think you're pressing a point that, even if true, doesn't lift your position.

Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Okay.  But I don't think FM can really rely on "this is on FM, not the church" as a viable justification for the videos at issue.  Yes, these are not published by the Church, but I don't think FAIR can "compartmentalize" in this way.  Consider this bullet point from the "Radical Orthodoxy" manifesto:

 

 

That was me not FM. And my comments are based on my experience at FM which ended a few years ago so my opinions are my own. However, as Calm pointed out and I can attest to, if FM paid attention to what the critics and antis demanded of us, it would have been over in 2000. This howling is nothing new, it is only distinguishable by it's over the top hypocrisy.

It reminds me of the early days in AOL when they allowed third party Christian sites to exclude "non" Christians by threat of expulsion from AOL. They allowed folders about Mormons (and others) but threw us out if we went in them and disagreed (we used documentation and were polite). When we wouldn't comply, they closed the folders. They only wanted to talk disrespectfully and dishonestly about Mormons without interference. Not much has changed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, I caught that explanation. Think about how broad that is. "Any critics who support people like Dehlin". It's not worth fighting over. I just think you're pressing a point that, even if true, doesn't lift your position.

And you have yet to admit that such sites are far worse, given the criteria I am seeing, than these videos. Yet they are not receiving equal condemnation. That doesn't lift your position either. (And the Christlike stuff implies that no critics believe in Christ nor are they subject to any moral or ethical standard which has always been a really bizarre "defense" of them.)

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...