Monetize ponderize

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Themis »

Brad Hudson wrote:
lostindc wrote:
Thanks Brad, terrible as it may be, we are not in court. Brad, humor me, what do you think went down with Elder Durrant and the monetization of ponderize?


See, that's a very good question. ;-)

I think there is a reasonable range of interpretations of the evidence we have to date. I've outlined some of my own biases upthread.

I have no firm opinion on your question because I am missing an important piece of data: did Durrant the Elder know that his son intended to make a profit off the website? I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that the primary purpose of the talk was to make money. I also don't think it is reasonable to conclude that Durrant the Elder expected to share in whatever profits the website might generate. I also suspect that Durrant the Younger had a mix of motives. Clearly, he had a choice at where to price the items and he chose to do it at a level where sales would generate a profit. But that doesn't mean the idea for the website was motivated by profit. I don't see any evidence that would let me conclude anything about how the idea for the website originated or when Durant the Younger decided to make a profit on it.

Within the range of reasonable interpretations, this looks to me like an idea that evolved over time. "Ponderize" had been a term used by Durrant the Elder with his family and it had become part of family lore. I think he likely thought it was unique. I'm assuming he was informed a couple months back to give him enough time to prepare. When he was chosen to speak at General Conference, somebody had the idea to use it as the theme of his talk. The motives for the choice were undoubtedly mixed. He and family members likely thought the concept would be helpful to other Latter-Day Saints. The idea of giving a talk with a theme that would stand out and be remembered would likely be appealing. And the notion of making a good impression on leadership could have been in play. I find all of these reasons more than sufficient to explain why he selected Ponderize as the theme of his talk. I don't need a profit motive, and there is no evidence that would support a profit motive at the outset.

At some point, either Durrant the Elder or a family member may have suggested that, because the term was unusual, it might be a good idea to reserve domain names to prevent their use by others. People with ideas reserve domain names all the time. Domain registration companies actively promote the concept. For a guy of his vintage, .com, .org and .net may have seemed to be the most common choices. He registered two, but .com was taken. One of things I would want to know before reaching firm conclusions is whether he looked up the owner of the .com URL and went to the website. If he had, he would have known that someone else had published a book using the term.

At some point, someone (probably Durrant the Younger) got a bright idea to sell branded merch on a website. Again, I suspect the motives were mixed -- promotion of the talk, promotion of Dad's reputation, and at some point, profit. The fact that Durrant the Younger registered the .us domain several weeks after Durrant the Younger registered the others and so close to the conference talk indicates to me that the idea was evolving over time and the idea to sell the merchandise was not pursued until late in the process. To me, the timing also supports the notion that profit was not the original motive for choosing the topic of the talk.

I did check to see if anyone had claimed a copyright or trademark/tradename on "ponderize." I couldn't find any evidence that anyone had.

I hope my answer indicates why I thought the original yes or no question was a terrible one. When it comes to people and their motives, yes or no questions are not adequate.

TL/DR I don't think there is sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude on the evidence we have that Durrant the Elder chose his topic because he intended that he or his son would profit, that Durrant the Elder knew his son intended to earn a profit, or that Durrant the Younger's sole or even primary motivation for creating the website was profit.

Has Durrant the Younger offered an apology or made any other kind of statement?


I really really disagree with your conclusions. It's very very obvious he was trying to ensure the brethren would never ask him to speak in conference again. :mad:
42
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Quasimodo »

Whatever else, clearly, this whole thing could be seen as a conflict of interest. That is grounds for dismissal in most corporations. It's a matter of integrity.

For a Church that prides itself on the morality of it's members, this must be troubling.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _sock puppet »

Quasimodo wrote:Whatever else, clearly, this whole thing could be seen as a conflict of interest. That is grounds for dismissal in most corporations. It's a matter of integrity.

For a Church that prides itself on the morality of it's members, this must be troubling.

The question then is whether the Church will demonstrate as high a level of morality as a for-profit corporation does.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Quasimodo »

sock puppet wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:Whatever else, clearly, this whole thing could be seen as a conflict of interest. That is grounds for dismissal in most corporations. It's a matter of integrity.

For a Church that prides itself on the morality of it's members, this must be troubling.

The question then is whether the Church will demonstrate as high a level of morality as a for-profit corporation does.


Yep, I wonder where they will go from here. Will he lose his position or will he be given a pass? Will we hear about his demotion or will it delayed far enough into the future that it won't make the news?

I think his biggest sin, in the eyes of the lesders, is not what was done, but that he was caught.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

jesus this entire conversation has gone off the rails.

the church has been doing this for hundreds of years now. they say things, from a pulpit, to make money. they announce the construction of malls and conference centers and temples, from the pulpit. they open this up to contractors to - make MONEY! their friends and family make money off of this. they build and develop commercial, residential and religious centers to, wait for it.... MAKE MONEY!

they have been putting apostles and seventies on the boards of companies to get them paid, and to make more money.

all this durrant nonsense is a conversation about piddly craps from a small bird on their otherwise pretty landscape. he did NOTHING unusual, except that he was a moron and tried to turn a catchy little phrase into cash. he is not the first to say something stupid in conference and have it run its course in 48 hours. hell, nelson got up in conference and waxed stupid about using the word "Mormon", or not using it. and hinckley got up the same day and basically said, "eff that guy."

durrant is a twit, but so are all the other guys in suits up there. and all their kids are cashing in on the money train. durrant was a weenie, he was not an outlier at all. and his weenienesses are not going to sway one single tbm twit that wants their self-medicating religion to get as much traction on the Twitter and instagram as the kardashians. jesus.

durrant is a shithead. that makes him about as unique as, well, nobody. and this fiasco is silly, but not relevant to a goddamn thing. priestcraft? yeah, sure. only if you think the priesthood is an authority or law. which it ain't. so there is no priestcraft.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

and more. does anyone think that jeffrey holland's son would be where he is today if jeff was not an apostle? gimme a goddamn break. the entire system is set up for this. the offense is not that the durrants tried it, it is that they picked a stupid word and stupid method for doing it. they all do it.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hey Elephant! :smile:

Mayan Elephant wrote:jesus this entire conversation has gone off the rails.


:lol:


Peace,
Ceeboo
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Chap »

Mayan Elephant wrote:and more. does anyone think that jeffrey holland's son would be where he is today if jeff was not an apostle? gimme a goddamn break. the entire system is set up for this. the offense is not that the durrants tried it, it is that they picked a stupid word and stupid method for doing it. they all do it.


That's about it.

Nobody objects to making money out of a leaderships role.

But the important thing is not to be stupid enough to make it obvious, and then get caught.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Quasimodo »

Mayan Elephant wrote:and more. does anyone think that jeffrey holland's son would be where he is today if jeff was not an apostle? gimme a goddamn break. the entire system is set up for this. the offense is not that the durrants tried it, it is that they picked a stupid word and stupid method for doing it. they all do it.


I'm more than willing to give you a break, Mayan Elephant. I'm not so sure about Joseph Smith.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Monetize ponderize

Post by _Maksutov »

Mayan Elephant wrote:jesus this entire conversation has gone off the rails.

the church has been doing this for hundreds of years now. they say things, from a pulpit, to make money. they announce the construction of malls and conference centers and temples, from the pulpit. they open this up to contractors to - make MONEY! their friends and family make money off of this. they build and develop commercial, residential and religious centers to, wait for it.... MAKE MONEY!

they have been putting apostles and seventies on the boards of companies to get them paid, and to make more money.

all this durrant nonsense is a conversation about piddly s***s from a small bird on their otherwise pretty landscape. he did NOTHING unusual, except that he was a moron and tried to turn a catchy little phrase into cash. he is not the first to say something stupid in conference and have it run its course in 48 hours. hell, nelson got up in conference and waxed stupid about using the word "Mormon", or not using it. and hinckley got up the same day and basically said, "eff that guy."

durrant is a twit, but so are all the other guys in suits up there. and all their kids are cashing in on the money train. durrant was a weenie, he was not an outlier at all. and his weenienesses are not going to sway one single tbm twit that wants their self-medicating religion to get as much traction on the Twitter and instagram as the kardashians. jesus.

durrant is a ****head. that makes him about as unique as, well, nobody. and this fiasco is silly, but not relevant to a goddamn thing. priestcraft? yeah, sure. only if you think the priesthood is an authority or law. which it ain't. so there is no priestcraft.


If you look at the comments to the story in the DN, most of the commenters are fine with it. :redface:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply