DiscussMormonism.com

Tom wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:38 pm

I prepared the remarks that I’ll present on Friday (again, “Sincerity and Reality”) at FAIR as a presentation for BYU Education Week that I expected to follow fairly closely after the 2020 FAIR conference on “Variety and Complexity.” But, owing to the coronavirus pandemic, the 2020 BYU Education Week was made entirely virtual. I recorded the talk under the auspices of BYU Continuing Education for eventual release online. And then came a problem: The talk was already recorded, with its images, and we came up against an intractable copyright issue that we could not resolve in time for it to be broadcast. (The apparent holder of the copyright could not be located.)

So we eventually decided not to put that talk online. And then the brilliant idea came to me of presenting it this year, at FAIR 2021. So that’s what I’m going to do.

I assume that any copyright issues were resolved prior to the September 14, 2020 Lethbridge YSA stake FHE presentation of the same name. I wonder why he doesn’t mention that presentation in his blog post.

I’m confused. I’m not sure Peterson’s explanation of what happened here is accurate. If Peterson wrote the talk, he still holds the copyright on it, unless he transferred it to someone else. As he plans to give the presentation this year, it doesn’t sound like transferred his rights,

A person who records the talk doesn’t get any IP in the talk. Whoever created the visuals would have a copyright on the visuals. But the act of recording, in and of itself, doesn’t transfer any rights in the works that are recorded.

Now, if someone (presumably with permission) combined Dan’s talk and the visuals into an audio visual presentation, that could be a new work, with the person who created it having a copyright on the new work. Like, if Dan provided Res Ipsa Productions with text and images and we produced a presentation of the talk (complete with POW side effects), absent any agreement to the contrary, I think we would hold a copyright in the presentation we created, but not the text or the individual images.

But it sounds like Peterson made a new recording of the talk through CES. So why not use different visuals? And does Peterson usually have some guy that’s hard to track down do production work for him? And why wouldn’t he structure the deal so that he ended up with the copyright to a production of his own talk?

I don’t think there’s anything shady about it. It’s just odd.

kairos wrote:n an effort to cover Russell M. Nelson ‘s lying ass, DCP will announce he willleas a fund raising and monument building effort to have a memorial to the miracle of recovery from a death dive airplane incident involving Russell M. Nelson that occurred at Delta Utah in 1976.

How does one "willleas" something?

Tom wrote:. . . I see that FAIR has started a Facebook group for full-time missionaries (“since full-time missionaries can’t get access to answers on the Internet”).

Should someone tell FAIR that Facebook itself is on the Internet, too?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:37 am

But it sounds like Peterson made a new recording of the talk through CES. So why not use different visuals?

All the good visuals of the Witnesses hoisting the Book of Mormon aloft to get the blessing of the moon had already received dibs, as had the crescendo of Thus Spake Zarathustra from that space movie.

FAIR fans and watchers may be interested in viewing Dr. Gee’s recent FAIR conference address: “Lessons on Doing Apologetics.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5f-DJwxKS0

Apparently, he was a last-minute substitute for another speaker. Viewer discretion is advised.

Tom wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:33 am

FAIR fans and watchers may be interested in viewing Dr. Gee’s recent FAIR conference address: “Lessons on Doing Apologetics.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5f-DJwxKS0

Apparently, he was a last-minute substitute for another speaker. Viewer discretion is advised.

Omg. I was a solid Mormon for several decades, and one of the main things I was well trained to do as a good Mormon was to step in, anytime, anywhere, for any length of time and given any topic, and PRODUCE. I could preach forever. About ANYTHING.

Maybe he is from a younger generation or something, but John Gee is an embarrassment. That was horrifying

The graphs of promiscuity, homosexuality, and their relation to belief in one true church… just wow. Save the video because I’m sure it will go down the memory hole when the church realizes how bad it makes them look.

What did I just watch?

Can someone please take a look at the 28:10 mark in the video and explain to me what in the hell is going on?

This can’t be real. This can’t be what mopology has finally come to. This has to be a parody?

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:27 am

What did I just watch?

Can someone please take a look at the 28:10 mark in the video and explain to me what in the hell is going on?

This can’t be real. This can’t be what mopology has finally come to. This has to be a parody?

That was, uh, something. Gee reminds me of the gospel doctrine teacher who’s bored to death by the manual and decided to go rogue. Anyway.

tl;dc - If you believe in a One True Faith or Church you won’t be a sexual deviant. Go to church and take your vitamins.

- Doc

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:27 am

What did I just watch?

Can someone please take a look at the 28:10 mark in the video and explain to me what in the hell is going on?

This can’t be real. This can’t be what mopology has finally come to. This has to be a parody?

28:16
sociologists have noted that
28:19
people define promiscuous as having had
28:22
sexual relations with more person than
28:25
the individual who is saying whether
28:28
it's promiscuous or not

More…

i'm defining it as
28:43
voluntary sexual relations with more
28:45
than one partner
28:48
so
28:49
the second graph there shows
28:53
over the lifetime and
28:55
those who don't believe one church is
28:57
true are much more likely to have
29:01
been promiscuous in that definition

But this…

30:25
uh sexual orientation
30:28
sorry i don't
30:30
i don't make up the data this is just
30:32
what it says
30:33
that if you don't believe one church is
30:35
true you are much more likely to either
30:37
be homosexual or bisexual
30:39
that's what the data says