Mormon Expression Episode 2 Available

[_KimberlyAnn]

I've been working on a new tag line for the show:

Mormon Expression…it’s like poison for your ears, but awesome poison that is really candy. Not sissy candy like Pixie Sticks but cool ninja candy like Pop Rocks mixed with Coke.

What do you think? Maybe I should switch careers and start to write copy.

I think it ought to be: Mormon Expression: But she has such a sweet spirit!

Or, Mormon Expression: Oh my heck!

I know that Mormon Expression is true and that John Larsen was chosen to bring forth the Podcast in the latter-days. And I love my family. InthenameofJesusChristamen.

KA

[_Ray A]

I think Mormon Expressions is a very interesting concept with lots of potential. It was nice to hear actual voices of those who post here and elsewhere, and I was particularly interested in Jim's views.

However, I have to admit I couldn't listen to the podcasts all the way through. For me there was nothing new, and I've heard all of these topics discussed just about from every (ex-Mormon) angle, ad nauseam. It wasn't difficult to anticipate what was coming next by way of comment, though I did receive some clarification from Shades about his Chapel/Internet Mormon concept.

That's hopefully a contructive criticism. To quote Nibley, I need something "new", something that makes me think in alternative directions, not the same things that are rehashed over and over on forums. Then, maybe that's just my problem. I won't offer criticism without offering some alternative ideas. I'd like to hear Mormons express their views about those who "leave the Church but can't leave it alone". The panel was all ex-Mormon or sympathetic to the ex-Mormon side. Having a Mormon or two on the panel would have made it a lot more interesting, and I probably would have listened all the way through. Although it was interesting to hear Dr. Shades speak, it would have been even more interesting to have him dialogue/debate with someone critical of the Internet/Chapel Mormon view. It needs to be more balanced. I realise it's very new, and perhaps this will occur later anyway, or maybe I missed something. (Mormon Expression: "We try to straddle the position between defense and criticism of the faith, and look at it from all points of view.")

That's my take, and the reality is that I gave up halfway through the podcasts.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Excellent! I enjoyed this very much. I've always thought that Shades's observations were very insightful and interesting. This is fantastic stuff, you guys. Hopefully, I will be able to be a guest one of these days.

[_John Larsen]

However, I have to admit I couldn't listen to the podcasts all the way through. For me there was nothing new, and I've heard all of these topics discussed just about from every (ex-Mormon) angle, ad nauseam. It wasn't difficult to anticipate what was coming next by way of comment, though I did receive some clarification from Shades about his Chapel/Internet Mormon concept.

That's hopefully a contructive criticism. To quote Nibley, I need something "new", something that makes me think in alternative directions, not the same things that are rehashed over and over on forums.

As opposed to the boards for freshness? ;)

I appreciate the criticism and I understand the concern. But in all fairness, someone with 10,000+ posts on the boards is not exactly our intended audience.

Having a Mormon or two on the panel would have made it a lot more interesting, and I probably would have listened all the way through.

Possibly. However, if you think about it, what incentive do they have? Mormons are strictly trained to not engage in the kind of dialog we are pursuing. It has been long observed that many of the apologists and defenders don't want to engage in a fair fight (this is not true for everyone). I am working with apologists to try to get them on, but it is a much harder fight.

Although it was interesting to hear Dr. Shades speak, it would have been even more interesting to have him dialogue/debate with someone critical of the Internet/Chapel Mormon view.

Once again, I am not sure the universal appeal. If I can get two to slog it out on tape, I will be happy to record it, but it is difficult to get both sides. I would love to record such a debate. However, even then, I think the wide appeal of that would quickly wear off.

It needs to be more balanced. I realise it's very new, and perhaps this will occur later anyway, or maybe I missed something. (Mormon Expression: "We try to straddle the position between defense and criticism of the faith, and look at it from all points of view.")

The welcome mat is out. I cannot force them to stand up and defend their faith, but most do not want to be subjected to what is normal intellectual inquiry.

I joked with the panelists in one of our early meetings that we will probably be on target when the defenders tell us we are being too hard and the critics tell us we are not being hard enough.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[_Absolutist]

The panel was all ex-Mormon or sympathetic to the ex-Mormon side. Having a Mormon or two on the panel would have made it a lot more interesting, and I probably would have listened all the way through. Although it was interesting to hear Dr. Shades speak, it would have been even more interesting to have him dialogue/debate with someone critical of the Internet/Chapel Mormon view. It needs to be more balanced. I realise it's very new, and perhaps this will occur later anyway, or maybe I missed something. (Mormon Expression: "We try to straddle the position between defense and criticism of the faith, and look at it from all points of view.")

That's my take, and the reality is that I gave up halfway through the podcasts.

So it's a bad thing for an active Mormon to be sympathetic to ex-Mormon views? I don't get that. So if I actually understand and don't get terribly upset and lay down a verbal defense in the cause of Mormonism, that is a bad thing and makes for an unbalanced panel? Personally I like that there isn't too much debating on this podcast. Because we all know that heated debates more often than not leads to bickering and personal attacks which in turn can lose an interested audience. It sounds like you are looking for a panel set for a verbal fight each week. I'm sure if you listen long enough to this podcast, you will get your wish.

I can't speak for John, but I think it wouldn't be too productive if each podcast was a constant debate between "believers vs. non-believers" the topic would most likely get derailed on a weekly basis. Now if that is what you are looking for in a podcast, then start your own podcast strictly for debating. I would probably listen to that podcast for a while, but as you witness on many of these Mormon boards, it is the often the same debates, over and over again. You would probably lose me after an episode or two.

I do appreciate the criticism none the less.

-Tom

[_Ray A]

So it's a bad thing for an active Mormon to be sympathetic to ex-Mormon views? I don't get that. So if I actually understand and don't get terribly upset and lay down a verbal defense in the cause of Mormonism, that is a bad thing and makes for an unbalanced panel? Personally I like that there isn't too much debating on this podcast. Because we all know that heated debates more often than not leads to bickering and personal attacks which in turn can lose an interested audience. It sounds like you are looking for a panel set for a verbal fight each week. I'm sure if you listen long enough to this podcast, you will get your wish.

There is no need for bickering and personal attacks if there's a good moderator. Debates like this commonly occur in the media. That's what makes them more interesting. In fact, if such debates were to occur in person, without the shield of anonymity, it might even be possible to find some common ground, in face to face conversation.

I can't speak for John, but I think it wouldn't be too productive if each podcast was a constant debate between "believers vs. non-believers" the topic would most likely get derailed on a weekly basis. Now if that is what you are looking for in a podcast, then start your own podcast strictly for debating. I would probably listen to that podcast for a while, but as you witness on many of these Mormon boards, it is the often the same debates, over and over again. You would probably lose me after an episode or two.

I do appreciate the criticism none the less.

I'm not saying it should be constant. I also like the human interest element in podcasts, that is hearing someone I know (from long forum association or otherwise) expressing their views. I guess we can't always have this, but I'd be interested to hear from someone on this board, or others I've posted on, who is willing to disclose their identity.
I'm only saying what would make it more interesting for me. I'm not suggesting that others don't find it very interesting and entertaining, nor that it should change (just for me).

[_John Larsen]

Ray, I am surprised. You seem to be falling for a common fallacy in the US media. Namely that there are two sides to every debate. This is of course, absurd. There are 100s of sides. The media loves to do point counter point.

If some scientist is explaining why it is unlikely that bigfoot exists, they will search high and low to find the one scientist who disagrees. They will then play them back to back with equal time making it seem like the two ideas carry the same weight. This is partly why the American political system is so absurd.

Of course, in Mormonism, it is much more complicated than critics vs. apologists--although the apologists love to paint it that was. Us vs. Them. I don't believe that is the way it is and the experience and opinions people have are much more nuanced and complicated. That is why I think it is better to explore peoples ideas. Let Shades speak his peace. Then let Peterson, or Ash, or whomever come on and explain their theory.

Like I said, if people want to debate I will record it and put it on, but I think their is more to be learned in other forums, and it gives a false view of the reality of Mormonism and how people perceive it.

[_Ray A]

If some scientist is explaining why it is unlikely that bigfoot exists, they will search high and low to find the one scientist who disagrees. They will then play them back to back with equal time making it seem like the two ideas carry the same weight.

You mean Bigfoot doesn't exist?

Just kidding, John. Do it which way you deem best.

[_Gazelam]

I listened to this one today and really enjoyed it. It was nice to hear the voice of Shades.

I think it was nice to hear each of your panel members explain who they are and where they are in terms of the gospel. That made me care about their opinions a little more, although I still have a little trouble distinguishing who is who. It will probably take a while to learn who is who by voice recognition.

I'll volunteer to come on. I think it would be fun. I would just ask to be forewarned about the topic. I might not fare well since my memory of sources is weak, and Im sure people would want sources and not my just spouting "Cause I said so.."

Fair warning though. On recording I tend to sound like Kermit the Frog to my ears. And no.. I wont sing Rainbow connection for you.

[_Dwight Frye]

"God was just speaking as a man."

Brilliant!

Congrats to John and Shades and the other panelists for keeping me interested and entertained for a full hour! Loved it! Can't wait for #3!