A Question For The Longtimers Here, Were There As Many Topics On People Who Doubt, Say 7 Yrs. Ago?

[Tacenda]

I ask because it seems to be the running story that of people losing testimonies or finding unsavory info about church history about 7-10 yrs. ago.

In reading the NOM/Staylds boards, this seems to be the case.

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

[cdowis]

Ah! The good old days.

It is against board policy to give an "anti-testimony", but there were plenty of threads on why people left the church. The first time I remember seeing a thread specifically devoted to examining "doubt" was the thread on "shaken faith syndrome", but that is just my memory.

Now, I personally have no particular interest on such threads.

It is based on my memory, but it seems that there alot more threads back then on BOM and church history. BOM DNA came on very strong, and, at the beginning, I was pretty alone in giving responses. Also, we had several authors of books critical to the church, and they were actively participating on our discussions.

I remember telling one of them that he had so many corrections to make in his book, he should issue a weekly newsletter. "Bloody Brigham", "The Fourteen Articles of Faith" (a cynical rendition of our doctrine) were some of his chapters that we focused on.

Basically we showed that no one should be afraid of anything the critics have to say. The DNA issue was potentially very troubling and it took over a year or so to deal with it.

LDS apologetics have come a long way since then.. With the possbile exception of Rob, most of them avoid discussing scriptural "proofs", Bible bashing. The critics have become more careful in making their claim more accurate, not so much JOD and Mormon Doctrine, and Rob actually use priesthood and SS manuals.

Edited February 9, 2013 by cdowis

[Duncan]

I doubt it

[BlueDreams]

I ask because it seems to be the running story that of people losing testimonies or finding unsavory info about church history about 7-10 yrs. ago.

Honestly, I don't remember. This board would come and go in waves. I remember more those patterns where things would get a bit chaotic and negative and more reactively stringent depending than anything else. But I know there have always people that have questioned or doubted their faith to some level at every point. Of course the NOM thing is more a recent trend in terms of organizations and whatnot, but it wasn't like it sprung out of nothing. The seed for it were always there

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

Meh. I've been here for 9+ years. If I've learned anything, it's that if I wait long enough a topic that I enjoy will pop up sooner than later and I'm not a prolific poster. It doesn't bother me either way and I at times enjoy lurking some of those threads as long as they don't get too whiny or preachy. Some points I've even mulled over and thought about for a bit. It's no big deal for me.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 9, 2013 by BlueDreams

[volgadon]

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

Of course, but this isn't my show, so if I want conversation on different topics I either start the topic yself, or wait for one to come along. In other words, if you want to post more on doubt, go for it.

[Tacenda]

Of course, but this isn't my show, so if I want conversation on different topics I either start the topic yself, or wait for one to come along. In other words, if you want to post more on doubt, go for it.

No, I don't want to do more on doubt, much...kind of interested in the possibility that truth is everywhere and the church doesn't own fully that truth. There's a lot of harmful psychology that can stem from being the only ones, not always, but very difficult in families with one who doubts and how their relationship is tied into religion. Lot's of problems (have been going through it now for years). But really didn't want this particular thread to be about that. Curious to know what topics people would like to discuss on here.

[juliann]

There would be more because most of the antagonists were anti-Mormon ministry minions. We had to counter fundamentalists of the evangelical variety who got their information from Godmakers level literature. They weren't very sophisticated. Their favorite targets were racism, a different Jesus/gospel (the Paul scripture), false prophet, and deification, and just ridicule in general. Because they were not familiar with the Bible...beyond their soundbites....and certainly not familiar with scholarship beyond their Bible school stuff, it wasn't too difficult to make them have to respond academically and they couldn't. They relied on a few trained people....James White was active online....but even they were saddled with so much fundamentalism they ultimately got bogged down. There were angry ex-Mormons in the mix but they weren't particularly informed either.

A board called ZLMB began the message board clashes and I would consider that the "golden age" of internet debates. It included some really thoughtful and informed Protestants and Catholics and ex-mos became major players. The original FAIR board spun off of that and the anti-FAIR board that can't be named spun off of that.

The only thing I see changing much from our perspective is the immediate target for attack, who is doing it and the sophistication level/tactic. The attack and defense itself has remained constant. What we have not been good at doing is keeping track of the targets because quite a few have pretty much disappeared off the map. For instance, a common attack used to be that the BOM timeline didn't fit any of the Mesoamerican timelines. Since then, cultures have been moved back into the BOM timeline. You will never see that acknowledged or even know that was used. There are quite a few of those. Likewise, we have taken a much more direct approach to problems rather than trying to explain them away.

Edited February 9, 2013 by juliann

[Freedom]

When I first started posing here some 10 years ago it was a lot more exciting. The critics thought they come in here and sash our testimonies with a few strikes. I miss those discussions because they were a lot of fun. There is not much to learn by discussing issues with people who agree with you.

[Tacenda]

When I first started posing here some 10 years ago it was a lot more exciting. The critics thought they come in here and sash our testimonies with a few strikes. I miss those discussions because they were a lot of fun. There is not much to learn by discussing issues with people who agree with you.

I'm sure I could come up with some doozies!

[3DOP]

There would be more because most of the antagonists were anti-Mormon ministry minions. We had to counter fundamentalists of the evangelical variety who got their information from Godmakers level literature. They weren't very sophisticated. Their favorite targets were racism, a different Jesus/gospel (the Paul scripture), false prophet, and deification, and just ridicule in general. Because they were not familiar with the Bible...beyond their soundbites....and certainly not familiar with scholarship beyond their Bible school stuff, it wasn't too difficult to make them have to respond academically and they couldn't. They relied on a few trained people....James White was active online....but even they were saddled with so much fundamentalism they ultimately got bogged down. There were angry ex-Mormons in the mix but they weren't particularly informed either.

A board called ZLMB began the message board clashes and I would consider that the "golden age" of internet debates. It included some really thoughtful and informed Protestants and Catholics and ex-mos became major players. The original FAIR board spun off of that and the anti-FAIR board that can't be named spun off of that.

The only thing I see changing much from our perspective is the immediate target for attack, who is doing it and the sophistication level/tactic. The attack and defense itself has remained constant. What we have not been good at doing is keeping track of the targets because quite a few have pretty much disappeared off the map. For instance, a common attack used to be that the BOM timeline didn't fit any of the Mesoamerican timelines. Since then, cultures have been moved back into the BOM timeline. You will never see that acknowledged or even know that was used. There are quite a few of those. Likewise, we have taken a much more direct approach to problems rather than trying to explain them away.

ZLMB days. Wow. That was wild and woolly. I agree that there were good debates. I go look at old threads once in a while though and realize I haven't changed much in 13 years. I guess I made my journeys before the internet. Utimately, there was too much anarchy. I believe in censorship anyway as a rule, but especially in my own house. I think this place benefitted from seeing the mistakes from over there.

Tacenda, I don't guess there is much change regarding the proportion of doubters. You should have seen ZLMB. It was owned by an LDS, a guy who I've met a couple times. Strong LDS, but he was so committed to free speech that he just let people mock his faith. I'll never forget this one guy, I can't remember his name. He had this picture of himself supposedly posing as Joseph Smith with his face in a stocking hat. It was the most ridiculous looking thing and I laughed and laughed when I first saw it. Anybody recall that guy's handle? There is no way I would have let that go if I was an LDS in charge. Oh yeah, the owner even tried to balance the moderators with representatives from non-Mormon ideologies. They allowed too much toleration for irreverance to your faith. This probablky ended up drawing a lot more doubters, and certainly more hostile doubters than you would ever see here. People are always struggling. Somebody is always doubting. Others have for better or worse, arrived at their destinations.

Edited February 9, 2013 by 3DOP

[ERMD]

For a variety of reasons, I miss Consiglieri, Hammer, Hoops, Jaybear, and Aaron Shafovaloff.

[Calm]

Tacenda, I don't guess there is much change regarding the proportion of doubters. You should have seen ZLMB. It was owned by an LDS, a guy who I've met a couple times. Strong LDS, but he was so committed to free speech that he just let people mock his faith.

You made me cry.....

Pacumeni (the owner for those who don't know) was a great guy, but even he was tired of dealing with all the clutter (to use a nice word) that came along with free speech by the time I got pulled in just a year or so after it got started (it was started in Sep 2001, I came on in Aug 2002 and probably got suckered into being a mod within a year of that, probably more like 6 months according to my memory). And the golden age that Juliann spoke of was already dimming and people were speaking of the great old threads....though there were some loyalists who stuck around to the very end in fondness like you.

However, it would have gone on with reasonable balance imo save for a small group of exmormons and mormons who flooded the site with useless negative chatter. Who wants to wade through miles of sludge to reach a few gems? When anyone complains about the censorship of this board, I just think back to having to deal with all of that and shake my head in wonder that anyone could prefer that state of things. Unfortunately it seems there has to be some outside controls placed on a certain type of individual who seems to think that just having the ability to put together two or three words in a semimeaningful string gives them the right to say and do pretty much anything they want no matter how it affects others....enough ranting though, the demise of ZLMB will always remain a very sore spot for me having watched it way too closely and pretty much tried anything and everything to stop it without success (as you well know ). And now with the long term success of this board, I can't console myself with the idea that message boards might just have a natural lifespan.

Edited February 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

When I first started posing here some 10 years ago it was a lot more exciting. The critics thought they come in here and sash our testimonies with a few strikes. I miss those discussions because they were a lot of fun. There is not much to learn by discussing issues with people who agree with you.

We haven't gotten the high school kid just done with a class on 'the stupid things Mormons believe' showing up to put us in our place for a long, long time. They were always so cute in their intensity.

[Tacenda]

We haven't gotten the high school kid just done with a class on 'the stupid things Mormons believe' showing up to put us in our place for a long, long time. They were always so cute in their intensity.

Quite the history of MDDB! So happy that it has come through unharmed.

[Freedom]

We haven't gotten the high school kid just done with a class on 'the stupid things Mormons believe' showing up to put us in our place for a long, long time. They were always so cute in their intensity.

oh they were great, and when their arguments fell apart they went into shock as if they just discovered they were adopted and their real parents were humans. I learned so much from those discussions. I came to understand how relative truth can be, how confusing the facts can be.

[ERayR]

For a variety of reasons, I miss Consiglieri, Hammer, Hoops, Jaybear, and Aaron Shafovaloff.

Nope

[3DOP]

Another question for longtimers, are you sick of threads that speak on it and wish to conversate other types of deep topics?

I think I probably lurk more than I speak up in those kinds of thread.

From what I have observed, it seems to me like most LDS doubts are about peripheral questions that have been plausibly answered. I don't usually have much to say to them unless it is to encourage them to return to their church and to be open-minded about their church. Think about it. The LDS doesn't even claim to be infallible. You ought to be Catholic! We make one verified definitive doctrinal pronouncement that is wrong, and the whole church goes up in flames because of our teaching on infallibility! Thankfully, although this is very poorly understood even by most Catholics, the occasions for pronounced infallibility are rare and even fallible errors are pretty uncommon.

But how does it prove the LDS Church to be false for having made an error, or an LDS leaders sins, when the Church has along said that it can never promise not to make an error and that LDS leaders sin? I guess people are getting upset now about polygamy? What else? The Book of Abraham? Book of Mormon geography? These seem like kitchen fires you put out with an extinguisher. The house isn't burning down.

I am more of a specialist and hang around to subtly encourage faithful Mormons to use the same methods to judge/excuse the beliefs and practices of the Church of Former-day Saints as they use to judge/excuse the Church of Latter-day Saints against Latter-day doubters.

Edited February 10, 2013 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

We haven't gotten the high school kid just done with a class on 'the stupid things Mormons believe' showing up to put us in our place for a long, long time. They were always so cute in their intensity.

I kind of miss the trolls. Not all the time. Not even every month. Like, as a treat that you only enjoy for a holiday. That cigar you smoke on the 4th of July that makes you sick but skip one year and then try it again. I wonder if we could let one out of its cage every so often just to commemorate our traditions. Trollday.

Edited February 10, 2013 by 3DOP

[ERayR]

I kind of miss the trolls. Not all the time. Not even every month. Like, as a treat that you only enjoy for a holiday. That cigar you smoke on the 4th of July that makes you sick but skip one year and then try it again. I wonder if we could let one out of its cage every so often just to commemorate our traditions. Trollday.

Oh I think they are around. There is a couple on right now that I think could qualify. The ones that no matter how many times you answer their requests they ignore the answers. I don't know why but I get tired of playing quicker now. Must be becoming a crotchety old man.

[Calm]

I kind of miss the trolls. Not all the time. Not even every month. Like, as a treat that you only enjoy for a holiday. That cigar you smoke on the 4th of July that makes you sick but skip one year and then try it again. I wonder if we could let one out of its cage every so often just to commemorate our traditions. Trollday.

And I am out of points because I was too busy playing the sycophant game! Darn!

[Tacenda]

I think I probably lurk more than I speak up in those kinds of thread.

From what I have observed, it seems to me like most LDS doubts are about peripheral questions that have been plausibly answered. I don't usually have much to say to them unless it is to encourage them to return to their church and to be open-minded about their church. Think about it. The LDS doesn't even claim to be infallible. You ought to be Catholic! We make one verified definitive doctrinal pronouncement that is wrong, and the whole church goes up in flames because of our teaching on infallibility! Thankfully, although this is very poorly understood even by most Catholics, the occasions for pronounced infallibility are rare and even fallible errors are pretty uncommon.

But how does it prove the LDS Church to be false for having made an error, or an LDS leaders sins, when the Church has along said that it can never promise not to make an error and that LDS leaders sin? I guess people are getting upset now about polygamy? What else? The Book of Abraham? Book of Mormon geography? These seem like kitchen fires you put out with an extinguisher. The house isn't burning down.

I am more of a specialist and hang around to subtly encourage faithful Mormons to use the same methods to judge/excuse the beliefs and practices of the Church of Former-day Saints as they use to judge/excuse the Church of Latter-day Saints against Latter-day doubters.

I need to get over issues and not throw away a good thing. You've been a great mediator who doesn't have a stake in the LDS church, so very helpful.

[Tacenda]

Oh I think they are around. There is a couple on right now that I think could qualify. The ones that no matter how many times you answer their requests they ignore the answers. I don't know why but I get tired of playing quicker now. Must be becoming a crotchety old man.

You can say that again.

[ERayR]

You can say that again.

Must be becoming a crotchety old man.

.

[Tacenda]

Must be becoming a crotchety old man.

.

:-D

[cdowis]

When I first started posing here some 10 years ago it was a lot more exciting. The critics thought they come in here and sash our testimonies with a few strikes. I miss those discussions because they were a lot of fun. There is not much to learn by discussing issues with people who agree with you.

That changed with the rule that you cannot open a thread until you have posted a certain number of times. I confess that I suggested the rule in order to ferret out the "drive by posters", who opened a quick attack, and then disappeared.

It sometimes was exciting, but became rather predictable. "Joe Smith did XYZ"