- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following Facebook PM thread is a conversation with Randall Brown, the guy who does the “ChurchIsTrue” blog. As you can see, I told him I would run everything past all of you and get your input. Frankly, I don’t want a podcast using our exact name. Maybe something like “Staying LDS” that links to us and to which we can link – and delete the link if it goes off the rails at any point?
I also don’t want to have to manage a Facebook group. Staying on top of it would be a hassle. If any of you are willing to be the primary moderator(s), I am fine with the idea – but the original group still exists, I think. It should be easy to resurrect it, if we want to do that.
Anyway, here is the conversation thread:
Quote:Quote:I do the churchistrue blog and I have posted occasionally on StayLDS. I posted there under a different username a little bit way back when the board was more active about six or seven years ago, then I came back again for a while a few years ago. I have always loved the concept of StayLDS. I think it’s a shame the articles on the home page haven’t changed since 2011. I have had in my mind I’d love to manage that and try to build up StayLDS to be more visible. I know you run the forum, and I don’t want to step on your toes there. but I’d like to maybe create a blog there like wheat and tares or by common consent, where there is a group of bloggers that post regularly. or maybe push it on facebook or twitter. maybe create a facebook StayLDS private group. right now the ATF (A Thoughtful Faith) facebook group has about 3,000 members, but there’s a lot of issues with it, and with Gina Colvin the public face of it, and her getting excommunicated, and with John Dehlin owning it and the moderators needing to get his permission for everything, that’s not ideal. I’m also starting a podcast and I’d like to use the name StayLDS for my podcast. and use that also as a way to bring people to the website and promote it. I talked to john dehlin and he basically agreed to let me do this, but then he hasn’t answered his emails, and he doesn’t seem to care. do you have any influence with John? what do you think of this kind of plan? I’m going to publish my first podcast episode in January, so I need to finalize on a name pretty quickly.
my personal philosophy and approach is that I am extremely nuanced with my beliefs, ie I don’t believe book of mormon is historical, I don’t believe LDS church is exclusively true, things like that. but I love the church and am extremely committed and loyal to it and to the brethren. my goal is to appeal to those who have lost faith in literal beliefs but still love church and want to engage. I am not combative with church leaders or traditional Mormons. I am only reaching out to those that can’t believe to offer a different paradigm. I am sometimes combative with exmormons like john dehlin, jeremy runnels, mike norton, etc. but i try to do this with logic and level-headed.
Quote:A couple of quick thoughts: 1) John has had no interaction whatsoever with StayLDS for a long time. 2) I don’t run the site. I was the primary voice for quite a while, but we are more much more group-administered than we used to be. That has been a conscious choice.
Quote:Thanks for reply. like I said, I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes. I initially sent in an email to the email on the website for the contact us, and I talked to the IT guy that set it up many years ago but has not been involved for many years, and he forwarded me to John. Who runs the site, and who is the right person to talk to try to move something like this forward? also, I want to restate I have no plans to change how the forum is run. I’m simply interested in revitalizing the home page and using StayLDS for my podcast name and then maybe doing some facebook or other social media promotion.
What are your thoughts?
I agree with your suggestion of “Staying LDS.” Also, should we invite him in as a mod here? Would that help? He also blogs at W&T, so I know him from there. He’s about to start swinging for the fences to be the next face of middle way Mormonism, so there’s a bit of Don Quixote factor going on, but I don’t get a Bill Reel vibe at all from him. Also, I’m one of the handful of mods at ATF. The FB group is very active, but much more selective and posts are heavily modded. I actually think creating a FB alternative for StayLDS is a good idea, but I would not change how we do it. I’d do it the same way we do it here, but without John owning it. The ATF problem with Gina is that her podcast is the same name, and John set up both through Open Stories, but he isn’t involved in ATF really at all. Jeralee is the main dude there.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
…but I don’t get a Bill Reel vibe at all from him.
You’ve hit on the first thing that popped in my head. What if Bill Reel came here in 2012 wanting to label his podcast “StayLDS?” And when 2018 rolls around what happens? Was Bill Reel Bill Reel in 2012… if you follow my meaning?
I think the churchistrue guy has a bigger following than StayLDS. What if he changes and wants to keep the name?
I’m also not of a mind to run a Facebook group, but if others want to I’m fine. I do agree that our landing page could use some beefing up and it is outdated but again I don’t feel like I have the time to oversee it – but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t do it as a group. And if it were a blog site where a few blogged, I might even do one occasionally during a school break. The similar name and linking to us and vice versa is OK with me also. To Nibbler’s point, I didn’t get a Bill Reel vibe (or John Dehlin vibe) from Bill Reel five years ago either – he definitely shifted over the past couple years, more or less correlating with his move to Utah (and away from true Zion
DarkJedi wrote:
…away from true Zion…
Pure in Heart, MO 64059
It doesn’t matter, but I’m pretty sure “Randall Brown” or “Randall Bowen” is just a pseudonym. I’ve heard a few other names associated with churchistrue but I can only say them at the veil. It is a pseudonym. Should I tell him he is welcome to name his podcast “Staying LDS” (with the space), link to our site from his podcast, form a Facebook group for his podcast, link to us from that group, and propose updates to our materials by sending suggestions to me? Should I tell him some of us would be willing to participate to whatever extent we can on his site(s), but that such participation is up to each of us as individuals?
We would be supportive groups with the option to disassociate whenever either of choose to do so.
I would prefer to wait to make him an admin or moderator here until we have a chance to see how his other stuff progresses.
Here is his latest message to me, after I shared our suggestions with him: Quote:I appreciate you being willing to work with me in that way. I think my preference would be to use the STAYLDS brand and get written permission from the person with legal rights to that. If not, then I would look for a different option, I guess.
I told him we can’t stop him from going to John to get permission to use the name, but that he would face the same issue we do now with regard to ultimate control. If he buys the site from John, that is a different story totally, and I simply asked him not to do anything without our cooperation that would change the spirit of the site we have built.
I will share his response with everyone.
I’m cool with it. He is a good dude. I wonder if he would help in any way to pay for some of our website costs. Donate to it or something. ?? I don’t know.
But his content seems good for a fit.
I like the chance to update the articles on the main page with some recent issues and how to work through them.
I am hesitant. Old Timer wrote:
I appreciate you being willing to work with me in that way. I think my preference would be to use the STAYLDS brand and get written permission from the person with legal rights to that. If not, then I would look for a different option, I guess.
Why does he want to coopt the “STAYLDS brand”? What is he looking to gain? What would we gain?
To me it sounds like we could get an influx of more participants, greater visibility, and some help refreshing the landing page with new content.
What we could lose is control of the brand. I am wary of that.
Old Timer wrote:
Should I tell him he is welcome to name his podcast “Staying LDS” (with the space), link to our site from his podcast, form a Facebook group for his podcast, link to us from that group, and propose updates to our materials by sending suggestions to me? Should I tell him some of us would be willing to participate to whatever extent we can on his site(s), but that such participation is up to each of us as individuals?
I support this option and the fact that Randall doesn’t like it only adds to my wariness.
I’m right there in the same boat with Roy for the exact same reasons. Roy wrote:
To me it sounds like we could get an influx of more participants, greater visibility, and some help refreshing the landing page with new content.For this reason…I say Yes.
Red flag to me that he’s seeking John’s approval rather than working with you. Here’s a thought, one I like even better. As he rightly points out, we don’t own this name. Why don’t WE create a FB group called Staying LDS and try to direct people there? The downside to a FB group is that it is not anonymous, so we would have to get the privacy settings right, and there are people here who won’t want to go there for that reason. Plus, we have historical threads here that are of great value, IMO. I do think eventually we are going to have a brand problem.
Quote:I do think eventually we are going to have a brand problem.
I think we are already there. John does own this site. He enjoys having it in his back pocket. I went to an Open Stories event this August. John was hosting. TBF – I think he is trying to help people stuck and transitioning. He really did try to steer clear of church bashing or letting others go that way. However, when he found out who I was, he spent most of the day making a point to tell everyone about this site, about how he created it and ya da, ya da, ya da. I kept my eye rolls to myself.
On the Facebook side, it can be a closed group and have an admin. Only the people in the group can see what’s posted. You can’t share out, unless you copy and paste. There’s no way to stop that from happening. If you find someone who does that you can ban them.
I like the immediacy of Facebook, but the privacy factor, and the randomness of it is a downside. It can easily become a discordant thread problem, everyone venting, ranting, raging. But no track ability, no order of conversation.
I use Facebook a lot, I run 4 sites. 2 for books, 1 for an author fan group, 1 for an interfaith homeless shelter.
I actually prefer that we not hitch our wagon to his star. Even if it’s moderate now or even remains that way. He may remain balanced, but history of others haunts me enough to be wary. My concern is always for the lurker. The people we don’t know, don’t see, but who really need our conversation. He is welcome to put a link to us on his page, but I’d prefer we not mingle beyond that.
Honestly, at this point, I hope John tells him no and that he decides to go a different route. I don’t want us to lose control of this site, and I like what we are doing. I have no visions of expanding our reach exponentially. If it happens naturally, and if we can can control the atmosphere and tone, fine; if not, fine. More than anything else, I don’t want to lose what we have become.
We shall see.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.