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.
Wow. “Radio Free Mormon” nails another topic. Keep it coming!
While I find the sarcastic alarmist tone amusing with the sound clip of broadcasting behind enemy lines… I think it would be kind if we can cut the brethren some slack.
While the policy/revelation needs to be challenged, the church needs a doctrinal narrative going forward to help it rightfully stand. It’s intention is to stand for scriptural traditional values.
I hope people like you can help move the church forward, but hopefully not by abandoning it, but by helping us reason with the Lord and come to a more perfect understanding where each of us receive our own revelations.
I found this episode incisive. When the policy came out, my co-workers (all attorneys) and I sat down and analyzed the actual language of 16.13 and came to the exact conclusions as your guest podcaster. It is the only way one could reasonably read the plain language of the policy. If the quorum intended it to be interpreted in the limited fashion announced in the “second” clarification by the First Presidency, they fell woefully short of the mark. Poor draftsmanship. If that were dictated by God or given by revelation, something got lost in translation. But the point that it was never identified as being revelation until Elder Nelson’s talk raises significant issues of credibility. This “private” change to the Handbook, once made public (by third parties), exposed this policy and its development as being closer to sausage-making than revelation.
I’m no friend to the policy, but I think the Radio West (though maybe it was Mormon matters) show on the policy did a really good job of showing how the policy update occurred following the typical release pattern with some exceptions. Per usual the policy update went live and emails were sent out informing leaders an update occurred. In other words, it’s a little misleading to call it a “secret” update as it occurred in quasi-typical fashion.
typical or not can you see any issue with releasing a policy change where only a small small minority of membership can access and become aware of said change?
Yeah, transparency isn’t our strong suit for sure.
I hate the policy but find it funny that your guest repeatedly says that something released to tens of thousands of bishops and stake leaders via email notice as is the case for all policy changes is “secretly inserted” or “leaked”. Otherwise I liked most of the points made. Thanks.
I think his point stands in that when you release a policy change and only a small small minority of membership can access and become aware of said change, even in its most charitable view you have done something that can be questioned.
Hi Bill. Thanks for your reply. From what I’ve heard on other podcasts it wasn’t done any differently than other policy changes. So if I understand you correctly you question all policy changes and their lack of publication? I certainly do. I’ve never had access to read the policies and I’ve been a member for 50 years! I learn about them by bishops or other leaders saying “well this is church policy”. I say “oh really?” then wonder who made that rule up. That said, I never thought to call them “leaked” before.
They’re leaked because the manual is not meant for lay members to be read unless they specifically ask their bishops to do so. It’s not in the ward’s library, and only bishops have access to it through their LDS.org account. So, if it’s not meant for the members but they members read it, it’s a leak.
Loved it.
Amazing! Thank you! He packs so much information within a short episode.
Bill, about a year ago I stumbled onto your podcast, and it has been my favorite of the many great related podcasts out there. Thank you so much for your work, commitment and care.
These “Radio Free Mormon” episodes are fantastic. They address critically important issues (so far!) and are articulated with clarity and sophistication. It would be easy for these topics, content and approach to become petty, glib and biased. But somehow I don’t sense that at all. In fact, though the premises and conclusions tend to be pretty harsh for the church and probably sobering for many members, it’s done in such a way that seems, again, impartial and fair. Please keep these coming!
thanks. I too have been enjoying the material our guest host is producing!
“I think it would be kind if we can cut the brethren some slack.”
Lol. I don’t think you understand this podcast at all.
This is, by far, my new favorite Mormon-themed podcast. It seems that you read your material, any chance you can share your transcripts? I’d even be willing to pay for it on Patreon or something. It’s so well researched!