Webcast and download.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I was under the impression there was a rule against posts like these. :-/
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Not exactly. We've had a few threads on various religious sects, many threads on religion, and far far more which contain religious reasoning applied to secular concerns. The ban is on proselytizing. The program is ecumenical in nature: doesn't push any particular religious belief, not even theism in the most general sense. The webcast is informational, and highly relevant considering the sectarian attacks upon Romney for being a presidential candidate.
[ January 27, 2008, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The sectarian attacks?
Like what, he's being attacked for being religious at all?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
For being Mormon. Listen to the first couple of minutes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"lifelong member of the Church of Latter-day Saints"
Way to leave out the "Jesus Christ" part of the name there, announcer lady. This is lame. That was either a sloppy error of epic proportions, in which case everything they say is suspect, or else it was a deliberate omission, in which everything she says is so slanted and biased as to be an absolute joke.
This is uber-tacky, aspectre. I don't get what your point is unless it is to engage in a little recreational trolling.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kat--
Listen some more. After the first break, she does start to use the full name of the Church.
I got through about half of it, and I thought it was very well done-- even complimentary.
BTW-- did you know that Dallin H. Oaks apparently did a LOT of work with NPR?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Kat, I see it left out a lot. In each situation I can't tell if they are ignorant, mean-spirited, or simply historical (the Church sometimes left out the name in its early years, probably as a short form) when they do that. Context and the rest of the article can sometimes determine intent.
As for the inclusion here at Hatrack, I don't know what aspectre wants. Be nice if there was maybe discussion questions or something. Otherwise, it seems like a typical link.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not surprised it's left out (generally speaking -- I didn't watch the video). The full name is awfully long.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1) Go into this forum's search 2) Type LDS into Search Words: 3) Type 827 or katharina into Member Number or Public Display Name: 4) Read the results. 5) Type LDS into Search Words: 6) Type 5280 or Occasional into Member Number or Public Display Name: 7) Read the results. 8) Castigate the authors of those remarks for using a shortened form rather than the full name.
My guess would be that KristaTippet was asked to use the full name by RobertMillet during a breaktime discussion. Might even find his correction through the Complete, Unedited Interview link.
As for the inclusion here at Hatrack... Googled up the webcast after having time to hear only a portion on radio. Thought others would be interested in a conversation on the topic with a scholar of the faith; which made posting it as a topic appropriate also as a reminder to myself to listen to the rest. Speaking of Faith is one of the better programs on the air, and this gave me an excuse to share.
[ January 28, 2008, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If it was not intentional, I apologize for misunderstanding you. Since one of the prime accusations from a whole lot of people is that Mormons are not Christian, leaving the name of Christ out of the name of the church is often done deliberately.
I am happy to learn it was not the case in this case.
If it was ignorance, I still think it was careless.
Maybe I'll listen to it later.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: For being Mormon. Listen to the first couple of minutes.
Most of the political attacks on his mormonism these days are not secular. They're .. well, they're christian.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...sectarian attacks upon Romney..."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My impression of the interview so far is a polite sparing. The person who was doing the interview over-emphasises the destinctives of Mormonism (sometimes presenting it in ways that Mormons wouldn't themselves). Mr. Millet, as is his style, sometimes minimize them more than needed to counter the over-emphasis.
An example for her would be talking about Mormon "sacraments" in practice. She kind of implies there are similar sacraments such as baptism and communion. Yet, she goes right into Temple practices and specifically baptism for the dead. It is as if those similarities (and there are also differences with them) are just not worth a discussion.
An example for him would be a discussion of deification.He downplays the nature of God in relation to eternal progression. True he is following precident, but there is an inter-religious discussion right now about how literal the "Snow Couplet" should be taken.
In the end, I think she talks too much and makes sweeping declarations that Mormons would disagree with. For instance, her comment about women not having leadership roles (she implies no roles) and the DNA proves the Book of Mormon false. Unless it is done in the longer version, she doesn't let Mormons or Millet in this case answer to her statements.
I get the feeling she is trying hard to sound objective, but just doesn't take the subject seriously. That is the same way I feel about the PBS "Mormons" show. Journalists can't seem to do the religious subject without a wink and nod attitude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I disagree. I think she does a good job of being as objective as a non-believer can be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'll second Scott's opinion.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
This has to be about the best interview I have ever heard. Its also well worth it to download the entire interview. Lots of good stuff there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I got through about half of it and found it just fine. Maybe the venom spews forth in the second half? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "...sectarian attacks upon Romney..."
aaaughgshfsghsogdh
forgive my massive brain fart
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think this article about living Mormons is great. It also, I think without the writer knowing it, contrasts lifelong and convert/Utah and "mission field" Mormons in some ways. I think this is one of my fave top 3 or 4 best articles on Mormonsism (with the rest far behind).
It does a few things correct. 1) It lets Mormons speak for themselves, 2) beliefs are part of the story, but not the center and mostly gets them right, 3) journalistic opinions are kept to a minimum. My hope is that someone will eventually write a story that examines how Mormon theology can be accepted by believers and how it influences their lives. This comes close.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)