Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[why me]

I am way too new here to know what the joke would be, but it seems that perhaps using a banhammer as a pre-emptive measure is unlikely. I can't imagine that would be a tolerable situation.

But maybe the moderators could try -- instead of banning -- some sort of "time out" deal? A few hours -- a day. In my experience this is a better way to correct behavior and does not lead to bitterness. Of course, bans have to occur from time to time -- after all, some folk are just egregious and unrepentant. (And I am not excluding myself from that group, I just hope I can fit in and not earn the Wrath of the Gods).

It is a nice group here. The people in question got a time out from this thread. But they can post on other threads. I think of us as one big family on this discussion board. A person just can't be too sensitive and the person needs to remember that the posters here are just people involved in a dialogue. But no one is perfect.

[caudicus]

Since when has decrying the censorship... I mean, moderation... around here gotten anyone anywhere?

This is all a totally uninteresting issue except for the fact that it is a logical culmination of all of the horrible ways in which Mormon apologetics has been handled by a select few people.

If the article exists and if a GA was called to look into it, who cares? If Daniel Peterson is mad because a GA wanted to censor him, who cares? He wants a lot of people to be censored. FAIR is fair, right?

Ultimately, the problem here is why this board had to be changed from what it was. People are leaving the church because they come here, become informed on some issues, and the seething underbelly of apologetics lays bare, for them, how ridiculous a lot of you participants can be. The board then changed, people were purged, and the image and tone are being controlled so that civil discussion can be attempted.

It is a failure, though. It isn't because LDS issues are hard to understand or because the apologetic arguments are stupid. A lot of the work done is very, very good. Everyone who has been here over the years has learned a great deal. The well is poisoned, though, because there are people who are still running around acting like children.who invalidate every decent argument ever made for the Mormon church.

I want all of you to think about this really hard. Every time you insult someone on this board, you are pushing away at least one person from the church. Probably more. Every time you get off point of civil discussion, you are hurting your cause, no matter which side you are on.

If you want this community to continue to be useful, you have to take it upon yourselves to conduct yourselves like civilized people in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, whatever knowledge you have to share will be ignored or attacked if you continue to be jerks.

The sad part is, that even the moderators can often be found playing in the mud. If you want this place to be different than the Great and Spacious Trailer Park, then don't act like them.

tl;dr Stop being jerks. It hurts you, it hurts this community and it ruins and invalidates the hard work and contributions of people who are sincere and know how to act like adults. Do what Jesus would do and transcend the negativity. Otherwise, you are all wasting your time. This goes for hit pieces, ad hominem attacks and useless sarcasm.

[Nomad]

Since when has decrying the censorship... I mean, moderation... around here gotten anyone anywhere?

This is all a totally uninteresting issue except for the fact that it is a logical culmination of all of the horrible ways in which Mormon apologetics has been handled by a select few people.

If the article exists and if a GA was called to look into it, who cares? If Daniel Peterson is mad because a GA wanted to censor him, who cares? He wants a lot of people to be censored. FAIR is fair, right?

Ultimately, the problem here is why this board had to be changed from what it was. People are leaving the church because they come here, become informed on some issues, and the seething underbelly of apologetics lays bare, for them, how ridiculous a lot of you participants can be. The board then changed, people were purged, and the image and tone are being controlled so that civil discussion can be attempted.

It is a failure, though. It isn't because LDS issues are hard to understand or because the apologetic arguments are stupid. A lot of the work done is very, very good. Everyone who has been here over the years has learned a great deal. The well is poisoned, though, because there are people who are still running around acting like children.who invalidate every decent argument ever made for the Mormon church.

I want all of you to think about this really hard. Every time you insult someone on this board, you are pushing away at least one person from the church. Probably more. Every time you get off point of civil discussion, you are hurting your cause, no matter which side you are on.

If you want this community to continue to be useful, you have to take it upon yourselves to conduct yourselves like civilized people in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, whatever knowledge you have to share will be ignored or attacked if you continue to be jerks.

The sad part is, that even the moderators can often be found playing in the mud. If you want this place to be different than the Great and Spacious Trailer Park, then don't act like them.

tl;dr Stop being jerks. It hurts you, it hurts this community and it ruins and invalidates the hard work and contributions of people who are sincere and know how to act like adults. Do what Jesus would do and transcend the negativity. Otherwise, you are all wasting your time. This goes for hit pieces, ad hominem attacks and useless sarcasm.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in the restored gospel and the Prophet Joseph Smith?

Because I have found that the people who object to apologetics the most are, generally speaking, those who believe in those things the least. Funny that, isn't it?

Anyway, it looks to me like Dehlin wised up and decided to stop digging his hole any deeper. In other words, it looks like he took his ball and went home.

If both him and Schryver are gone, then my interest in this thread goes with them.

Bye everybody. Have a great weekend.

[treehugger]

Since when has decrying the censorship... I mean, moderation... around here gotten anyone anywhere?

This is all a totally uninteresting issue except for the fact that it is a logical culmination of all of the horrible ways in which Mormon apologetics has been handled by a select few people.

If the article exists and if a GA was called to look into it, who cares? If Daniel Peterson is mad because a GA wanted to censor him, who cares? He wants a lot of people to be censored. FAIR is fair, right?

Ultimately, the problem here is why this board had to be changed from what it was. People are leaving the church because they come here, become informed on some issues, and the seething underbelly of apologetics lays bare, for them, how ridiculous a lot of you participants can be. The board then changed, people were purged, and the image and tone are being controlled so that civil discussion can be attempted.

It is a failure, though. It isn't because LDS issues are hard to understand or because the apologetic arguments are stupid. A lot of the work done is very, very good. Everyone who has been here over the years has learned a great deal. The well is poisoned, though, because there are people who are still running around acting like children.who invalidate every decent argument ever made for the Mormon church.

I want all of you to think about this really hard. Every time you insult someone on this board, you are pushing away at least one person from the church. Probably more. Every time you get off point of civil discussion, you are hurting your cause, no matter which side you are on.

If you want this community to continue to be useful, you have to take it upon yourselves to conduct yourselves like civilized people in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, whatever knowledge you have to share will be ignored or attacked if you continue to be jerks.

The sad part is, that even the moderators can often be found playing in the mud. If you want this place to be different than the Great and Spacious Trailer Park, then don't act like them.

tl;dr Stop being jerks. It hurts you, it hurts this community and it ruins and invalidates the hard work and contributions of people who are sincere and know how to act like adults. Do what Jesus would do and transcend the negativity. Otherwise, you are all wasting your time. This goes for hit pieces, ad hominem attacks and useless sarcasm.

excellent post, thank you for your contribution. Sarcasm, negativity, personal attacks, none have place in defending the Faith, when it is the Spirit which confirms the faith.

[Nemesis]

Besides the board nannying I really liked this.

The well is poisoned, though, because there are people who are still running around acting like children.who invalidate every decent argument ever made for the Mormon church.

It needs to be stated and re-stated over and over again.

Nemesis

[cinepro]

Since when has decrying the censorship... I mean, moderation... around here gotten anyone anywhere?

This is all a totally uninteresting issue except for the fact that it is a logical culmination of all of the horrible ways in which Mormon apologetics has been handled by a select few people.

If the article exists and if a GA was called to look into it, who cares? If Daniel Peterson is mad because a GA wanted to censor him, who cares? He wants a lot of people to be censored. FAIR is fair, right?

Ultimately, the problem here is why this board had to be changed from what it was. People are leaving the church because they come here, become informed on some issues, and the seething underbelly of apologetics lays bare, for them, how ridiculous a lot of you participants can be. The board then changed, people were purged, and the image and tone are being controlled so that civil discussion can be attempted.

[Nemesis]

excellent post, thank you for your contribution. Sarcasm, negativity, personal attacks, none have place in defending the Faith, when it is the Spirit which confirms the faith.

This board will never be Relief Society, Elders Quorum, Sunday School. If that is what people are looking for I can name a few other boards that are set up for that environment. However on these boards you would also not see critics in full swing.

Nemesis

[David T]

Since when has decrying the censorship... I mean, moderation... around here gotten anyone anywhere?

This is all a totally uninteresting issue except for the fact that it is a logical culmination of all of the horrible ways in which Mormon apologetics has been handled by a select few people.

If the article exists and if a GA was called to look into it, who cares? If Daniel Peterson is mad because a GA wanted to censor him, who cares? He wants a lot of people to be censored. FAIR is fair, right?

Ultimately, the problem here is why this board had to be changed from what it was. People are leaving the church because they come here, become informed on some issues, and the seething underbelly of apologetics lays bare, for them, how ridiculous a lot of you participants can be. The board then changed, people were purged, and the image and tone are being controlled so that civil discussion can be attempted.

It is a failure, though. It isn't because LDS issues are hard to understand or because the apologetic arguments are stupid. A lot of the work done is very, very good. Everyone who has been here over the years has learned a great deal. The well is poisoned, though, because there are people who are still running around acting like children.who invalidate every decent argument ever made for the Mormon church.

I want all of you to think about this really hard. Every time you insult someone on this board, you are pushing away at least one person from the church. Probably more. Every time you get off point of civil discussion, you are hurting your cause, no matter which side you are on.

If you want this community to continue to be useful, you have to take it upon yourselves to conduct yourselves like civilized people in civilized society. Whether you like it or not, whatever knowledge you have to share will be ignored or attacked if you continue to be jerks.

The sad part is, that even the moderators can often be found playing in the mud. If you want this place to be different than the Great and Spacious Trailer Park, then don't act like them.

tl;dr Stop being jerks. It hurts you, it hurts this community and it ruins and invalidates the hard work and contributions of people who are sincere and know how to act like adults. Do what Jesus would do and transcend the negativity. Otherwise, you are all wasting your time. This goes for hit pieces, ad hominem attacks and useless sarcasm.

Awesome. I 100% support this post.

And yes, Nomad, speaking for myself, I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the restored gospel and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Edited May 11, 2012 by David T

[Hamilton Porter]

If you support your priesthood leaders, then maybe you might consider that my escalation was a good thing -- or at least a reasonable one. In fact, I am told that several from within your own ranks who have read the piece find it to be distasteful,

Is this supposed to be some condescending, "you people are sheepish" remark?

[CASteinman]

I want all of you to think about this really hard. Every time you insult someone on this board, you are pushing away at least one person from the church. Probably more.

Is it OK if I do not agree with this? I mean -- I know this board has rules (and if you are in someone's else's pool, you play by their rules), but I have never met anyone who left the Church because they were insulted on the MDD board or some other such site.

Do what Jesus would do

You can't really go to Jesus for justification. He wasn't the sentimental, limp-wristed, tree-hugging, free-love hippie that some folk want to imagine. He was pretty quick to call things as he saw them and with blistering language to boot. Here are just a few examples:

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward but are within full of dead men's bone's, and of all uncleanness."

"The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him: Get the out and depart hence, for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them: Go ye and tell that Fox, Behold, I cast out devils...."

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do"

"Get thee behind me Satan"

Now, I suppose and believe that Jesus would be humble enough to obey the rules of this board and avoid such flaming, but who really knows? Was he controllable that way? Sometimes he seems to me to be his own Man and untamed by our judgment of Him. If so, maybe a moderator here would have the distinction of banning our Lord and Savior. (Would that be forgivable? Probably. At least I hope so because I believe I need similar grace. But I wouldn't really want to test His mercy more than I already have.)

Bottom line is, I don't think anti-Mormons are going to be swayed for or against the Church merely because people make them upset and I don't think people leave the Church over things done on the internet. If you are going to get your feelings hurt and leave the Church, its going to be because of something much closer to home and "IRL".

[why me]

This board will never be Relief Society, Elders Quorum, Sunday School. If that is what people are looking for I can name a few other boards that are set up for that environment. However on these boards you would also not see critics in full swing.

Nemesis

I think that this is where people get confused. For some reason, they expect people to be on their best behavior as if they are at sacrament meeting. What needs to be understood is that this board is an independent board designed to discuss and debate issues within the lds church. And the board has various of members from the active to the inactive to the exmember. Also, mormonism is not a cult and so, we have a lot of different personalities on this board with various opinions. We are not drones void of human characteristics and emotions.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I doubt very much that you could substantiate this. And I am not talking about a board or some one's post on this or other boards. I am talking about articles or papers written. Define often.

But I think we do need to consider apologetic behaviors on message boards directed towards struggling members and critics alike, i.e. those deemed "unorthodox" by the defenders of the faith. Comments made by Mormon apologists directed towards those judged as unorthodox or as a threat to the flock are frequently uncharitable in nature. We really shouldn't ignore this unfortunate trend; (there are several examples of this behavior in this very thread).

So far as publications, to be honest, I haven't personally seen anything from FAIR itself that I would define as ad hominem; this is not to say I've always agreed with the way information or arguments are presented, but I don't believe that FAIR has ever engaged in attack style apologetics; (well, maybe with Meldrum; depends on how you define FAIR)

So far as BYU related material, there are currently two active threads on two separate boards for those interested in pursuing this issue.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[David T]

I think that this is where people get confused. For some reason, they expect people to be on their best behavior as if they are at sacrament meeting. What needs to be understood is that this board is an independent board designed to discuss and debate issues within the lds church. And the board has various of members from the active to the inactive to the exmember. Also, mormonism is not a cult and so, we have a lot of different personalities on this board with various opinions. We are not drones void of human characteristics and emotions.

Just as much as it is possible to have a good scholastic discussion on Gospel, Church, and scripture related topics without resorting to appeals of Testimony, it is just as possible to have a good scholastic discussion on Gospel, Church, and scripture related topics without being condescending, mocking, and applauding and calling for the downfall and public roasting of those you disagree with.

This isn't either or, folks. It's possible to disagree and still be on your best behavioral. It's called civil discourse. See the responses series at Juvenile Instructor ( http://www.juvenilei...ries-responses/ ) for scholars who disagree with each other addressing the content of their papers, and not the character of those advancing what are seen as misjudgments or error.

It's possible to express good and strong divergent opinions without being a jerk.

Edited May 11, 2012 by David T

[Nemesis]

without being condescending, mocking, and applauding and calling for the downfall and public roasting of those you disagree with.

This sets up one group for a different standard while one gets free reign. I disagree with that mentality and have helped build a board trying to break free from being held to a higher standard. This is why we are so tough on board nanny's.

Nemesis

[David T]

This sets up one group for a different standard while one gets free reign. I disagree with that mentality and have helped build a board trying to break free from being held to a higher standard. This is why we are so tough on board nanny's.

Nemesis

A different standard? I don't understand. What group are you saying can't be held to a politeness standard? Members? Non-members? Conservative-leaning members? Liberal-leaning members? ?

I've witnessed this behavior by people in ALL camps. I'm not sure what 'group' you feel would be handicapped by presenting a civility standard in place.

Edited May 11, 2012 by David T

[Libs]

I second what you have said. What becomes important is that this board does not become a flame throwing board like the critic boards. What I find amazing is how doubting members can find comfort from exmormon boards that constantly flame throw against the GAs and the members and the church in general. Is this really what the doubting members wish to become if they leave the lds church? Do they see the example that such boards set?

No.

Some do become that, perhaps, out of general frustration with not getting the answers they hoped for, and/or, perhaps anger towards those they used to call brothers and sisters, for the way they have been treated by some (sometimes just a perception, but sometimes, unfortunately, very real). I see some of it on this board. I realize this is not Sacrament meeting, but should that really matter, in regards to how we treat one another? I am speaking about all of us and not just one group or another. It would be helpful to measure every word...especially, when making negative accusations, and most especially when we are judging someone's "worthiness" or faith.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

This sets up one group for a different standard while one gets free reign. I disagree with that mentality and have helped build a board trying to break free from being held to a higher standard. This is why we are so tough on board nanny's.

Nemesis

Those seeking to defend a religious view should be held to a higher standard than critics. The goal of apologetics should be to help individuals join and/or remain in the Church, not edify the apologist's ego.

[Nemesis]

A different standard? I don't understand. What group are you saying can't be held to a politeness standard? Members? Non-members? Conservative-leaning members? Liberal-leaning members? ?

I've witnessed this behavior by people in ALL camps. I'm not sure what 'group' you feel would be handicapped by presenting a civility standard in place.

There is a civility standard set in the board guidelines, if that is followed there isn't a problem. Critics pigeon hole defenders using the mentality of since you are a member of a church you can't act a certain way while I poke you with a stick about things you hold dear. Members also do it to other members here, and in my opinion is the worst thing that can be done on this board. I rather take the human approach in that all of us have emotions and will react different in many different situations as long as its not a knee jerk reaction.

Nemesis

[Nemesis]

Those seeking to defend a religious view should be held to a higher standard than critics.

Then you are on the wrong board because I will not hold posters to a higher standard whether they are members of the church or not.

Nemesis

[treehugger]

Then you are on the wrong board because I will not hold posters to a higher standard whether they are members of the church or not.

Nemesis

very much a disappointing post.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Then you are on the wrong board because I will not hold posters to a higher standard whether they are members of the church or not.

Nemesis

Wrong board or not; I'm not encouraging you to do anything in terms of moderating the comments made by members of the Church.

In recent years, Church leaders have made it very clear that members should hold themselves to a higher standard by moderating their own behaviors in online discussions, especially when addressing religious matters. Whether you support this effort or not is your own business, but to the extent that you disagree, you and I are at odds.

[Kevin Christensen]

Those seeking to defend a religious view should be held to a higher standard than critics. The goal of apologetics should be to help individuals join and/or remain in the Church, not edify the apologist's ego.

The highest standard is perfection, the rhetorical advantage of which is that it instantly renders imperfection, and only that, both significant and decisive. Application of the standard tends to forgo standard mote-eye considerations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Hamilton Porter]

I'm glad MI actually suppressed an article. It's nice to get some external, peer-reviewed, controls. I think this will be good for MI's long-run health.

[Nemesis]

very much a disappointing post.

I'm sure it was, but it was the truth. I will not hold any group or allow anyone to expect another group to be held to an unfair higher standard. Sticking to that in mind has made this board successful in what it does.

Nemesis

[Scott Lloyd]

very much a disappointing post.

Because he refuses to give critics a free pass on a double standard? Very telling.