New Message Board, Mormon Women Connect

[Calm]

Mission Statement/Board Guidelines

Mission Statement

A Safe Space

“We are women of Christ. We are diverse. We all carry burdens. We have much to contribute. We are all on the path back to our Heavenly Father. We should be one another's safe space.”

Sister Linda K. Burton

Relief Society General President

An Invitation

We invite you to join us in discussing issues, sharing experiences, and asking questions. In doing so, you can expect thoughtful discussion regardless of your point of view.

Mormon Women Connect is a safe space for Mormon women. Here we encourage all to speak up, speak out, ask questions, and seek answers. We affirm the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and declare our dedication to discerning His will and following Him. We strive to show compassion and acceptance for each other in our diversity. We believe that the answers we seek may be found through study, prayer, revelation, and one another.

We emphasize the value of candid, respectful conversation as a means to learn and understand one another. In this safe space, we will connect through our simiiarlities and lovingly support one another in our differences.

Board Guidelines

1. This is a meeting place for women of all beliefs and views. Men are welcome, but should behave as if they are sitting in on a Relief Society meeting. Please do not attempt to instruct us or lecture women. Men can add to the discussion by relating any creative problem solving by Ward or Stake leadership that provides more support or involvement of girls and women.

2. Questioning a poster's worthiness/righteousness, intelligence, understanding, or honesty because she disagrees with you will not be tolerated.

e.g., "Do you have a testimony?", "She is on the road to apostasy.", "She just doesn't understand the gospel/priesthood/scriptures.", "You need to improve your reading comprehension.", "She is following Satan." These are insults. We want to learn from each other and try to understand differing viewpoints not condemn them.

2. Be respectful of everyone's beliefs. We respect all religions. Do not use derogatory terms or nicknames for deity or any religion's leaders. Do not mock beliefs and practices anyone holds dear. The language you use sets the tone of the discussion. Do not label others using words such as apostates, TBMs [True/Blue Believing Mormon] or apologists to dismiss them. This is ad hominem. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3. Obscenity, swearing, including the use of acronyms or abbreviations, aren't acceptable. Inflammatory comparisons, especially to criminals and criminal acts are not permitted, e.g., "He is no different than Warren Jeffs.", "They drank the Kool-aid.", "You are influenced by Satan."

4. Poster are welcome regardless of political affiliation. Do not slur any political party, insult liberals, conservatives, or political figures. In short, do not insert politics into discussions or create threads about political topics. That includes global warming, immigration law, gun control, etc.

4. Tread gingerly when approaching discussions about Temple ritual and ordinances. Posts that are too explicit may be removed. Links to sites that are explicit may also be removed.

5. There is a post report feature on the bottom right hand side of all posts. Do not chide other posters about inappropriate board behavior, make a post report. We have a Private Messaging (PM) feature. Private messages that harass, threaten, or violate other board rules may also be reported. When reported, the message appears in a report folder and if necessary, we can access all logs in our database of private exchanges. We are telling you this for your security.

6.. Errant posters can be prevented from posting in a thread or banned from MWC itself. Consistently engage in a pattern of civil and topical dialogue rather than only taking pot shots at what others say.

6. Moderators are volunteers. Please be respectful of their time and effort. They act individually and there will be some inconsistency because of that. There will be times where a moderator call may make you angry, but please give them the benefit of the doubt. Do not argue with them or start threads to complain.

7. Do not engage in copyright or intellectual property violations. Follow Fair Use guidelines when posting someone else's work. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Always give the author credit for quotes, articles, online content, etc.

8. Most important, use good judgment about disclosing personal information. Do not ask others to disclose personal information and don't feel obligated to supply it.

[Erin15]

we don't want to be an echo chamber).

You cannot censor half the population and say you don't want an echo chamber. Those are opposite things.

Had Juliann said that no one was allowed to argue, I would have had no objection. But she didn't say that, and in context of her other posts, outlining that men may ask questions and listen to women, but must not lecture them, it is pretty obvious that is precisely what she meant.

What she was doing was wrong, so I called her out on it. Were she a man creating a board where women may listen and learn from men, but must not argue or lecture them, I would have objected to that as well.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Erin15

[Storm Rider]

You cannot censor half the population and say you don't want an echo chamber. Those are opposite things.

Had Juliann said that no one was allowed to argue, I would have had no objection. But she didn't say that, and in context of her other posts, outlining that men may ask questions and listen to women, but must not lecture them, it is pretty obvious that is precisely what she meant.

What she was doing was wrong, so I called her out on it. Were she a man creating a board where women may listen and learn from men, but must not argue or lecture them, I would have objected to that as well.

 

Erin you have a point; I am not denying it.  Had I, a man, said, "One thing women can do is ask questions if they don't understand where men are coming from and try to get a better idea of what to say and not say.  But NO arguing with men on this board."  I am convinced that the wrath of the entire feminist nation would have come down on my head.  You have emphasized my point that we humans are strange creatures.  We are very good at judging others with one standard while ignoring the same standard for ourselves.  

[Calm]

You cannot censor half the population and say you don't want an echo chamber. Those are opposite things.

Had Juliann said that no one was allowed to argue, I would have had no objection. But she didn't say that, and in context of her other posts, outlining that men may ask questions and listen to women, but must not lecture them, it is pretty obvious that is precisely what she meant.

What she was doing was wrong, so I called her out on it. Were she a man creating a board where women may listen and learn from men, but must not argue or lecture them, I would have objected to that as well.

i dont think you have taken the time to even begin to understand what she and others are trying to do from your rant here. No, she is not wrong and it is laughable that you think you need to call her on it.

Juliann is not the only one creating the board, a number of other women are involved and a few men lending their support...some of us have been talking about it for months, me included so I think I have a bit better idea of what Juliann is aiming for...which should be relatively clear if you leave your antagonistic assumptions behind and actually read what has been written and linked to for info... .yes, we don't intend for men and women to have an equal voice...for some strange reason we think women might have more relevant things to say about issues that concern them and how they go about solving them then men do. I wouldn't expect women to be the best sources for finding out what interests men and how men do things in their lives. For some reason the Church appears to think a women's group could be useful when they incorporated the RS into the Church and whether or not it is out of date, but there was significant evidence that girls and women don't speak up as much in mixed company as they do in female only classes and we want to encourage speaking and sharing and understanding and golly gee...actual connecting with each other so a lighter male presence than it typical on these types of boards seems wise...if they have something of value to contribute that will add to our share of knowledge, they will be joyfully welcome. But if they are dropping in just out of curiosity and want to make numerous remarks and chit chat and not much else....I am certain they can find another board that better suits that goal.

And since we want to primarily promote coonections leading to a greater sense of sisterhood, it kind of makes a strange twisted kind of sense that just maybe participants should be primarily women...unless you are of the opinion the husband's are the only ones that count for a wife...I suppose in that case we might have to have husband give their wives permissions to post and with whom. Seems a bit outdated though.

If all women thought alike, then we might be getting an echo chamber...but unless you are male, you've prove for us that a women's group is quite capable of having a variety of approaches....though I suspect your insistence on misunderstanding the purpose of the board...which should be pretty obvious from its very name, you won't be seen much on it.

Are you against all single sex discussion groups? Are they all echo chambers in your mind?

Edited July 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Erin you have a point; I am not denying it.  Had I, a man, said, "One thing women can do is ask questions if they don't understand where men are coming from and try to get a better idea of what to say and not say.  But NO arguing with men on this board."  I am convinced that the wrath of the entire feminist nation would have come down on my head.  You have emphasized my point that we humans are strange creatures.  We are very good at judging others with one standard while ignoring the same standard for ourselves.  

If it was a board for men hanging out and being supportive of each other, any one who complained would be an idiot. Women are no more successful at minreading men than men are women.

I can't imagine any of the women involved in the creation of MWC protesting at all if some guys wanted to set up one with parallel rules.

Problems arise when one makes claims a forum is for all groups and the one or two dominate the rest and drive them out through lecturing, misrepresentation, bullying and creating arguments where there aren't any.

And that is why when a board wants to focus on a tighter topic, some censorship and direction on what is and isn't allowed in order to create conversation that contributes more than distracts.

[escott3564]

It's a great board!

[bluebell]

You cannot censor half the population and say you don't want an echo chamber. Those are opposite things.

Had Juliann said that no one was allowed to argue, I would have had no objection. But she didn't say that, and in context of her other posts, outlining that men may ask questions and listen to women, but must not lecture them, it is pretty obvious that is precisely what she meant.

What she was doing was wrong, so I called her out on it. Were she a man creating a board where women may listen and learn from men, but must not argue or lecture them, I would have objected to that as well.

It's set up to function like relief society-men are welcome, but they are guests.

If you don't have a problem with RS then you shouldn't have a problem with the new board.

[bluebell]

It's a great board!

 

I agree, i'm enjoying it!

[Storm Rider]

If it was a board for men hanging out and being supportive of each other, any one who complained would be an idiot. Women are no more successful at minreading men than men are women.

I can't imagine any of the women involved in the creation of MWC protesting at all if some guys wanted to set up one with parallel rules.

Problems arise when one makes claims a forum is for all groups and the one or two dominate the rest and drive them out through lecturing, misrepresentation, bullying and creating arguments where there aren't any.

And that is why when a board wants to focus on a tighter topic, some censorship and direction on what is and isn't allowed in order to create conversation that contributes more than distracts.

 

Cal, I said it before and I will say it again; I get and I support groups of like individuals that want to meet.  I think this is a good idea that I expect will be helpful for those who participate.  However, I do agree that her wording may not be the best in the world.  You and I have seen golf clubs, social organizations, etc. go down in flames because they had the temerity to be for white males.  

 

I have participated in Key Club in high school many decades ago which was for just boys.  Of course, some will feel that I have participated in a racist, sexist organization because I have also participated with the LDS priesthood.  For me personally, all of the other organizations such as golf clubs, country clubs, etc. were simply not organizations I was interested in to devote my time.  

 

With a straight face, take that sentence and input whites versus blacks or any other groups and tell me it is just not something we say about anyone else.  The fact that anyone would feel comfortable with it says more about them than about anyone else.  

[Duncan]

I made a profile and I changed my name to Cannonball.yay!

[Senator]

2. Questioning a poster's worthiness/righteousness, intelligence, understanding, or honesty because she disagrees with you will not be tolerated.

e.g., "Do you have a testimony?", "She is on the road to apostasy.", "She just doesn't understand the gospel/priesthood/scriptures.", "You need to improve your reading comprehension.", "She is following Satan." These are insults. We want to learn from each other and try to understand differing viewpoints not condemn them.

 

 

Can we get Julian to create an "LDS Connect" forum under such guidlines?

[Calm]

Cal, I said it before and I will say it again; I get and I support groups of like individuals that want to meet.  I think this is a good idea that I expect will be helpful for those who participate.  However, I do agree that her wording may not be the best in the world.  You and I have seen golf clubs, social organizations, etc. go down in flames because they had the temerity to be for white males.  

 

I have participated in Key Club in high school many decades ago which was for just boys.  Of course, some will feel that I have participated in a racist, sexist organization because I have also participated with the LDS priesthood.  For me personally, all of the other organizations such as golf clubs, country clubs, etc. were simply not organizations I was interested in to devote my time.  

 

With a straight face, take that sentence and input whites versus blacks or any other groups and tell me it is just not something we say about anyone else.  The fact that anyone would feel comfortable with it says more about them than about anyone else.  

 

How about you write up how she should have said it so she can cut and paste it in and everyone will be happy.

Edited July 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Can we get Julian to create an "LDS Connect" forum under such guidlines?

I think she will have her hands full with this one…I know I am maxing out and her life is a lot more crowded than mine.

[Nofear]

Sociologically speaking, the male-male and female-female speech patterns are distinct. In a mixed gender environment it is almost always the male-male speech pattern that dominates. Despite being male myself, I can see merit for a forum where the female-female speech patterns are allowed to flourish. For the record, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion is clearly dominated by male-male type interactions. If successful in engendering (pun intended) the more feminine speech patterns as normative to the new board... that alone would be quite an accomplishment.

 

 

See for example: https://wip.ncbar.org/media/2754960/effectsofgenderoncommunication.pdf

Though not specifically about message boards (it would be nice to see some research on that specifically but I'm too lazy to look) I can well imagine a probably true extrapolation.

 

 

[Erin15]

i dont think you have taken the time to even begin to understand what she and others are trying to do from your rant here. No, she is not wrong and it is laughable that you think you need to call her on it.

As a woman who lived through the 70's, I find it highly disturbing that you are not even willing to countenance the inherent sexism in what you are doing. It's like you've internalized the idea that sexism is only something men do to such a high degree that you don't even see it when it comes from women. (Or, even worse, you don't care)

If you were at least willing to say, "yes, it is sexist and censoring, but I think it is justified given what we are trying to do," I could at least agree to disagree with you. But no, you are not even willing to give me even that much intellectual honesty. You insist that nothing wrong is being done, and even think it is "laughable" that I even bring up the possibility. What, are you levitating above the rest of us? Are you incapable of being sexist?

You claim you are 100% in the right when it is so blatantly clear you are not. I ask you: How can anything good or productive be built upon such a rotten and insincere foundation?

The fact that you assume I don't understand is both condescending and dismissive. I understand exactly what you are doing. The problem is, what you are doing is morally wrong.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Erin15

[Calm]

So you believe Relief Society is morally wrong.  Interesting.

[Calm]

As a woman who lived through the 70's, I find it highly disturbing that you are not even willing to countenance the inherent sexism in what you are doing. It's like you've internalized the idea that sexism is only something men do to such a high degree that you don't even see it when it comes from women. (Or, even worse, you don't care)

If you were at least willing to say, "yes, it is sexist and censoring, but I think it is justified given what we are trying to do," I could at least agree to disagree with you. But no, you are not even willing to give me even that much intellectual honesty. You insist that nothing wrong is being done, and even think it is "laughable" that I even bring up the possibility.

You claim you are 100% in the right when it is so blatantly clear you are not. I ask you: How can anything good or productive come from such a rotten and insincere foundation?

The fact that you assume I don't understand is both condescending and dismissive. I understand exactly what you are doing. The problem is, what you are doing is morally wrong.

Drama much.

 

I never said it wasn't sexist.  Where are you getting that idea?  And I specifically included censorship….Anything that is moderated is censored to an extent.  The question is whether it is of value or not.  Given the data on women's voices often getting lost among male voices in such forums as mentioned by someone else as well, we feel the drawsbacks are outweighed by the benefits.

 

Maybe you should just try reading what people say and don't jump to the worse conclusion possible.  And this is a casual conversation, not one that requires a precise description of all the attributes of the as yet not even in its final form message board…we plan to experiment to get the best mix.

 

"And that is why when a board wants to focus on a tighter topic, some censorship and direction on what is and isn't allowed in order to create conversation that contributes more than distracts."

 

I really don't think you know what you are doing in this thread, let alone what I am doing.

[Erin15]

I really don't think you know what you are doing in this thread, let alone what I am doing.

Cal, please stop saying I don't understand. It is a cheap debate tactic, and accomplishes nothing. What's more, it is insulting.

If you really want to make a place where women can share and understand each other, how about you start right here and right now and try to understand my point of view rather than just dismissing me?

Or, would you prefer to just dismiss anyone who doesn't fit into your echo chamber?

[Calm]

If you were actually responding to what I said I would be more prone to think you understood.  Since your complaints are about me not saying stuff I actually said the logical conclusion is that you don't understand my comments because you aren't actually reading them.

 

And I do mean to be dismissive given that you are not paying attention to what I am actually saying.

[Nofear]

There isn't a heck of a lot of room for dialogue when your premise is the foundation of the board is "rotten" and "insincere" and that calmoriah's defense of it is "morally wrong". For my part, it is this kind of speech and wrangling, which while it has a place (e.g. here?), makes the type of website that MormonWomenConnect aims to be a welcome necessity.

[Calm]

"we don't intend for men and women to have an equal voice"…gee, here I admit to sexism

 

"I wouldn't expect women to be the best sources for finding out what interests men and how men do things in their lives." and later here "If it was a board for men hanging out and being supportive of each other, any one who complained would be an idiot. Women are no more successful at minreading men than men are women….I can't imagine any of the women involved in the creation of MWC protesting at all if some guys wanted to set up one with parallel rules.

"…this should make it pretty clear I would be okay with guys doing this kind of stuff if they felt the need

 

"And that is why when a board wants to focus on a tighter topic, some censorship and direction on what is and isn't allowed in order to create conversation that contributes more than distracts."…even use the word censorship here

 

---

So please show me how you understand me when you claim that I am "not even willing to countenance the inherent sexism in what you are doing. It's like you've internalized the idea that sexism is only something men do to such a high degree that you don't even see it when it comes from women"

 

So please show me where I am not being intellectually honest about it being "sexist and censoring"

[Erin15]

I do mean to be dismissive given that you are not paying attention to what I am actually saying.

Okay, let's take a step back and assume for a second that you are right.

Wouldn't the proper response from you be to help me understand you, and to try and understand me?

If your response is ridicule, dismissiveness, and contempt, them you, Cal, really have no business making a board for women to understand each other, do you? Would you tolerate your own behavior on your board?

Edited July 16, 2014 by Erin15

[bluebell]

As a woman who lived through the 70's, I find it highly disturbing that you are not even willing to countenance the inherent sexism in what you are doing. It's like you've internalized the idea that sexism is only something men do to such a high degree that you don't even see it when it comes from women. (Or, even worse, you don't care)

If you were at least willing to say, "yes, it is sexist and censoring, but I think it is justified given what we are trying to do," I could at least agree to disagree with you. But no, you are not even willing to give me even that much intellectual honesty. You insist that nothing wrong is being done, and even think it is "laughable" that I even bring up the possibility. What, are you levitating above the rest of us? Are you incapable of being sexist?

You claim you are 100% in the right when it is so blatantly clear you are not. I ask you: How can anything good or productive be built upon such a rotten and insincere foundation?

The fact that you assume I don't understand is both condescending and dismissive. I understand exactly what you are doing. The problem is, what you are doing is morally wrong.

There is nothing morally wrong about relief society, and therefore there is nothing morally wrong with the way the new board is set up.

Instead of trying to call people to repentance, maybe just don't participate in the new board yourself. Then you can feel morally correct and others who disagree with you can do what they believe is best.

It's a win-win.

[Calm]

Okay, let's take a step back and assume for a second that you are right.

Wouldn't the proper response from you be to help me understand?

If your response is ridicule, dismissiveness, and contempt, them you, Cal, really have no business making a board for women to understand each other, do you? Would you tolerate your own behavior on your board?

Really, you who labeled the efforts put into the board as rotten and insincere and accused me of doing something morally wrong are going to play this game now?

If you really want to understand, than go back to the beginning and reread what was written without trying to find something to attack in it in both mine and Juliann's comments. I put effort into explaining what the board was in post #26 and #27. Not really interested in doing more until I see some effort on your part of an sincere attempt to read what has been written.

Edited July 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Erin15]

Really, you who labeled the efforts put into the board as rotten and insincere and accused me of doing something morally wrong is going to play this game now?

Well, since you just illustrated that you don't follow yourself the guidelines you impose on others when they join your board, I suppose we can add hypocrisy to the list.

I gave you a chance, and you spat in my face. You really have no business making a board for women to share and understand each other.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Erin15