Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
This series is very enlightening. I wish Jim could understand how utterly small a demographic he represents. Probably less than 1000 members (total) share his nuanced, elevated, refined view of the church institution and leaders. To me, it felt like he is in the last stage(s) of sophistication before the whole thing collapses. He is not the type of member current leadership want to encourage or develop. His experience in and with the church is not at all representative of a typical BIC member or convert. But he most definitely IS the type of member that will help perpetuate the current dysfunctional trajectory of the church. In the same way that Sam Harris criticizes moderate Christians as giving cover for the harmful effects of religion, people like Jim give cover for the shameful tactics of our highest church leaders. This is so much more than letting imperfect men be imperfect. It is giving cover for those men to cause actual harm for the sake of protecting the tax free status or financial health of the institution. For money.
A great example of a debate. Jim reminds me of Greg Prince, they both go to extreme lengths to defend the church. I was happy to hear Jim disagreed with the November 2015 policy, I think he earned credibility for this stance. I want Jim to be correct because I hope that what the church teaches in terms of eternal life is true. I think Jim makes good arguments on most of these topics in isolation. The problem for me is all of these arguments in the aggregate. Kinda like a combination lock. It’s almost impossible to come up with the correct sequence of three numbers to open a lock. In regards to the church there’s not just three things to defend there’s hundreds of things to defend (more than 12+ hours of defense, 6 part series). Think about how difficult it would be to open a lock with a much longer sequence of numbers.