Monetize ponderize

[_Sethbag]

I have new word describing what happened to Durrant's stupid monetization idea:

pwnderized!

The gamers among us should recognize this.

[_maklelan]

If you look at the comments to the story in the DN, most of the commenters are fine with it.

And most of the commentators here are fine with calling him a shithead. Imagine that, people invested in the power structures on each side of an imaginary line are asserting the superiority of their end of that power structure. Tale as old as time, and yet everybody still treats it like an insight of some kind.

[_I have a question]

If you look at the comments to the story in the DN, most of the commenters are fine with it.

If the membership in general was fine with it (and I think they probably were) and if it was an honourable enterprise (the jury is out on that but the chances are the intentions were honourable)....why take it down? Why not go ahead as planned and disregard the offended but vocal minority who may or may not pitch up at Church on any given Sunday?

The Church lives in fear of negative PR, in my opinion.

[_Sethbag]

If you look at the comments to the story in the DN, most of the commenters are fine with it.

And most of the commentators here are fine with calling him a ****head. Imagine that, people invested in the power structures on each side of an imaginary line are asserting the superiority of their end of that power structure. Tale as old as time, and yet everybody still treats it like an insight of some kind.

An apt observation, I will concede.

Do you think Durrant's nonpology was self-motivated, or do you think he had help in deciding to do it? Do you believe the decision to take the website down and stop selling ponderize merchandise was self-motivated, or did he have help making that decision?

I'm not asking what you know, because unless you've got inside information, I'd expect we're all just making our best guess here. What's yours?

I'm guessing he was graciously assisted in making these two decisions by his superiors in the church, in a way similar to that by which Elder Poelman decided to make some small edits to his infamous conference talk, in order better to clarify his original intent.

[_maklelan]

An apt observation, I will concede.

Do you think Durrant's nonpology was self-motivated, or do you think he had help in deciding to do it?

If you're asking if I think someone above him told him to apologize, I don't. It wouldn't be terribly surprising if they did, but I don't see any reason to think his apology was not sincere and his own doing.

Do you believe the decision to take the website down and stop selling ponderize merchandise was self-motivated, or did he have help making that decision?

Same.

I'm not asking what you know, because unless you've got inside information, I'd expect we're all just making our best guess here. What's yours? I'm guessing he was graciously assisted in making these two decisions by his superiors in the church.

Usually that kind of thing takes more time to filter up and then back down. I know several managers and directors with online presences who were totally unaware of the entire thing until I told them about it on Monday.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Sunday's and Monday's events were sort of like the elephant in the room started stomping about and the obvious demanded attention. Ergo, this thread started by annie.

[_lostindc]

If you look at the comments to the story in the DN, most of the commenters are fine with it.

And most of the commentators here are fine with calling him a ****head. Imagine that, people invested in the power structures on each side of an imaginary line are asserting the superiority of their end of that power structure. Tale as old as time, and yet everybody still treats it like an insight of some kind.

What is the count on the number of posters in this thread? How many called Durrant a shithead in this thread?

You continue to paint the posters of MD as some sort of pack of wolves.

At this point, I don't think any involved Durrants are idiots, just that that the monetization of ponderization is a shithead thing to do.

As Mayan pointed out, this is hardly a new phenomenon in the Church, but I think Mayan did not emphasize how blatantly dumb this particular venture was.

[_Themis]

Nobody objects to making money out of a leaderships role.

I object. I don't mind if they get paid but they shouldn't be making their family and friends money through their role. Money from the organization they represent.

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

[_Sethbag]

An apt observation, I will concede.

Do you think Durrant's nonpology was self-motivated, or do you think he had help in deciding to do it?

If you're asking if I think someone above him told him to apologize, I don't. It wouldn't be terribly surprising if they did, but I don't see any reason to think his apology was not sincere and his own doing.

Thanks for the response. I'm curious about it, though. Evidently Brother Durrant thought his idea was just fine during the weeks leading up to conference. I mean, he surely meant to use the word the way he did in his talk, he registered some domain names himself and has admitted he at least knew that his son was setting up the site to sell merchanise based on it, and the timing of the sites going live corresponds perfectly with the conference talk, so it was a coordinated effort, all of which Brother Durrant was fine with.

So, between the days and weeks when he thought this was a fine idea, and his coming to believe that the site not only should be taken down, but that he should appear to be apologizing for it, what do you think made him change his mind? Further internal reflection?