Why All The Locked Threads?

[Alan]

Is someone getting a little heavy handed?

[Bobbieaware]

Is someone getting a little heavy handed?

The thing that surprises me is why in the whole incredibly fascinating world of Mormonism there so few really interesting threads of late, aside from the redundant and now boringly repetitive "gay oriented" threads. It's as if the board participants are either too lazy to bother posting an interesting thread topic or lack the insight to know what subjects or questions would make for an engaging discussion.

Also, the endless back and forth between the true believers and the critic/doubters is getting old. Nothing is ever resolved but the debate just goes boringly around and around because the doubters will not accept the fact that personal revelation is the only divinely prescribed way to gain a testimony of the restored gospel. The critics want tangible evidence that the restored gospel is true when the scriptures clearly teach God doesn't work that way. It's kind of like Einstein said, "the surest sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting only one result, and then doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result." It would seem to be more logical and reasonable to just finally agree to disagree and move on. But no.............................................

But perhaps I'm being unrealistic because in the end endless, unresolved disputations are what these discussion boards are all about.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Is someone getting a little heavy handed?

I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others).

 

After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure.

 

Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them.

 

And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger.

[Tacenda]

The thing that surprises me is why in the whole incredibly fascinating world of Mormonism there so few really interesting threads of late, aside from the redundant and now boringly repetitive "gay oriented" threads. It's as if the board participants are either too lazy to bother posting an interesting thread topic or lack the insight to know what subjects or questions would make for an engaging discussion.

Also, the endless back and forth between the true believers and the critic/doubters is getting old. Nothing is ever resolved but the debate just goes boringly around and around because the doubters will not accept the fact that personal revelation is the only divinely prescribed way to gain a testimony of the restored gospel. The critics want tangible evidence that the restored gospel is true when the scriptures clearly teach God doesn't work that way. It's kind of like Einstein said, "the surest sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting only one result, and then doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result." It would seem to be more logical and reasonable to just finally agree to disagree and move on. But no.............................................

But perhaps I'm being unrealistic because in the end endless, unresolved disputations are what these discussion boards are all about.

Would you want it streamlined? Have no critics? Much like some boards that have every one nearly on the same page? Maybe even complain about the people who criticize or show where they're wrong. Talk about deep doctrine, or testimony building subjects. Then the doubters can be put out to pasture. They will stay in their corners. Have zero clout and be banned early as trolls. But keep open the door for investigaters. Is this where you want this board to go? Because I'm willing to go, I felt like an intruder from the start, and definitely under educated on the true doctrine, if that could ever be nailed down..

[ALarson]

The thing that surprises me is why in the whole incredibly fascinating world of Mormonism there so few really interesting threads of late, aside from the redundant and now boringly repetitive "gay oriented" threads. It's as if the board participants are either too lazy to bother posting an interesting thread topic or lack the insight to know what subjects or questions would make for an engaging discussion.

Also, the endless back and forth between the true believers and the critic/doubters is getting old. Nothing is ever resolved but the debate just goes boringly around and around because the doubters will not accept the fact that personal revelation is the only divinely prescribed way to gain a testimony of the restored gospel. The critics want tangible evidence that the restored gospel is true when the scriptures clearly teach God doesn't work that way. It's kind of like Einstein said, "the surest sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting only one result, and then doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result." It would seem to be more logical and reasonable to just finally agree to disagree and move on. But no.............................................

But perhaps I'm being unrealistic because in the end endless, unresolved disputations are what these discussion boards are all about.

I get what you're saying, but I don't really like the word "critic" that seems to be used often to describe anyone who doesn't blindly accept everything taught.  I think this board probably somewhat mirrors what is going on in the church today.  People are starting to ask hard questions and some come here to discuss them.

 

I feel the amount of moderation here is about right as they allow these discussions to take place.  

 

If you feel there are not many "interesting threads", I think you should start some on topics that you would like to discuss.  I'm sure others would appreciate that too.  I know that I like to read most of the threads on here even if I don't post in them.

[ALarson]

Would you want it streamlined? Have no critics? Much like some boards that have every one nearly on the same page? Maybe even complain about the people who criticize or show where they're wrong. Talk about deep doctrine, or testimony building subjects. Then the doubters can be put out to pasture. They will stay in their corners. Have zero clout and be banned early as trolls. But keep open the door for investigaters. Is this where you want this board to go? Because I'm willing to go, I felt like an intruder from the start, and definitely under educated on the true doctrine, if that could ever be nailed down..

I always appreciate reading your view and posts.  I think there is a wide range of people on here from extremely staunch, active and believing members to those who no longer believe or attend. Again, I feel this mirrors what is taking place in the church.  From what I've seen, the true anti's are really not allowed to post much on here and that's a good thing too.

[rockpond]

Nothing is ever resolved but the debate just goes boringly around and around because the doubters will not accept the fact that personal revelation is the only divinely prescribed way to gain a testimony of the restored gospel. The critics want tangible evidence that the restored gospel is true when the scriptures clearly teach God doesn't work that way.

 

I'm not aware of anyone who has made that argument here.  But it might be a good topic for a new thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others).

 

After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure.

 

Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them.

 

And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger.

I don't want to be a complaining boob. But I have noticed as of late that most threads are gay themed. It is getting really really old and tired. Where the same old things are brought up and people triumphantly proclaim victory on their point of view.

 

Yeah, Pahoran getting banned has made me wonder what is going on. I get that his posting style is very curt but I always thought he had very very valid points. I see no reason for the banning. But who am I?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Daniel2]

I don't want to be a complaining boob. But I have noticed as of late that most threads are gay themed. It is getting really really old and tired. Where the same old things are brought up and people triumphantly proclaim victory on their point of view.

Yeah, Pahoran getting banned has made me wonder what is going on. I get that his posting style is very curt but I always thought he had very very valid points. I see no reason for the banning. But who am I?

Why was Pahoran banned? I missed that, evidently...

[Daniel2]

I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others).

After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure.

Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them.

And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger.

I dislike that thread originators have the ability to lock threads they start.

While one person may have initiated a discussion, IMO, they don't "own" the discussion any more than others that have contributed to it, and participants can find it frustrating when one person closes a thread while they are still engaged in dialogue (I'm only referring to thread originators here, not moderators--I can understand mods closing threads when they devolve into insults or pettiness).

Allowing such thread closures gives unrighteous dominion over controlling--and prematurely and strategically stifling--discussion just as opposing points of view are raised.

I would ask the powers that be to reconsider that ability...

[ksfisher]

I confess I'm responsible for locking some of them (the ones I myself started; I don't have the capability of locking others).

 

After I learned yesterday of the banning of Pahoran, I had all but decided to cease any further involvement with this board. My locking of my own active threads was to have been my parting statement of displeasure.

 

Since then, I have been having second thoughts as to whether I want to burn my bridges here altogether just yet. As I ponder whether, after a decade or more of participation, this board is still a good fit for me, I have decided to keep them locked for now to avoid being distracted by any further contentious content on them.

 

And in truth, it was probably time some of them be locked anyway. In particular, the dialogue had grown very repetitious on my thread about Elder Cook's statement in general conference that the Church has never been stronger.

 

After about 5 or 6 pages (or sometimes even sooner) threads seem to devolve into a "I'm right," "no, I'm right" sort of dialogue.  It seems rare to find anything interesting after page 10.  Most of those threads have veered off topic by that point so closing them seems like a good idea.

 

Some threads I find very saddening.  In particular the ones where the value of the traditional family and prophetic counsel seem to be devalued.  Finding that critics don't agree with the church on these issues isn't surprising.  However, I'm always shocked (perhaps too strong a word) and saddened when I find that other church members do not agree with the prophet about the sacredness of the traditional family or the wisdom of following our leaders.

 

I find you (Scott) to very articulate in expressing your opinion on these issues and would hate to see your input lost from this board.  I can understand that the constant back and forth on an issue would become very tiresome and perhaps even troubling. 

[Analytics]

Why was Pahoran banned? I missed that, evidently...

See post #177 on the thread, "General Conference: Moving Away From Traditional Marriage Definition?"

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/page-9

[ksfisher]

I dislike that thread originators have the ability to lock threads they start.

While one person may have initiated a discussion, IMO, they don't "own" the discussion any more than others that have contributed to it, and participants can find it frustrating when one person closes a thread while they are still engaged in dialogue (I'm only referring to thread originators here, not moderators--I can understand mods closing threads when they devolve into insults or pettiness).

Allowing such thread closures gives unrighteous dominion over controlling--and prematurely and strategically stifling--discussion just as opposing points of view are raised.

I would ask the powers that be to reconsider that ability...

 

Calling locking a thread on an internet message board "unrighteous dominion" seems to be going a bit overboard.  You're always free to start your own discussion.

[Buckeye]

I don't want to be a complaining boob. But I have noticed as of late that most threads are gay themed. It is getting really really old and tired. Where the same old things are brought up and people triumphantly proclaim victory on their point of view.

 

....

 

If you're tired of the gay-theme posts now, just wait until SCOTUS hears arguments on the gay marriage cases later this month.

[Senator]

 

Yeah, Pahoran getting banned has made me wonder what is going on. I get that his posting style is very curt but I always thought he had very very valid points. I see no reason for the banning. But who am I?

 

Yeah, I remember feeling that way a while back when a poster named consiglieri was banned.

[The Nehor]

I dislike that thread originators have the ability to lock threads they start.

While one person may have initiated a discussion, IMO, they don't "own" the discussion any more than others that have contributed to it, and participants can find it frustrating when one person closes a thread while they are still engaged in dialogue (I'm only referring to thread originators here, not moderators--I can understand mods closing threads when they devolve into insults or pettiness).

Allowing such thread closures gives unrighteous dominion over controlling--and prematurely and strategically stifling--discussion just as opposing points of view are raised.

I would ask the powers that be to reconsider that ability...

I don't know. I am beginning to see the value of the ability. I am about to lock my thread about gay cakes as people keep trying to derail it with meaningless tangents about bakers and gay weddings.

[The Nehor]

Why was Pahoran banned? I missed that, evidently...

Probably my canary in the mine.

[Bobbieaware]

Would you want it streamlined? Have no critics? Much like some boards that have every one nearly on the same page? Maybe even complain about the people who criticize or show where they're wrong. Talk about deep doctrine, or testimony building subjects. Then the doubters can be put out to pasture. They will stay in their corners. Have zero clout and be banned early as trolls. But keep open the door for investigaters. Is this where you want this board to go? Because I'm willing to go, I felt like an intruder from the start, and definitely under educated on the true doctrine, if that could ever be nailed down..

It appears you don't understand my complain is more nuanced than you seem to realize. Specifically, what my complaint is about is that the LDS religion teaches the only way one can come to know spiritual truth is through personal revelation from God. Yet the doubters come on this board demanding evidence as if the believing members they engage in debate should prove the church is true as if In a human court of law with rules of hard of evidence. So what we end up with is two points of view that are diametrically opposed to each other with no hope of ever being able to bring the two camps into a state of peace and harmony. So instead of meaningful and edifying dialogue, what you end up with is the doubters demanding the kind of earthly hard evidence that God, according to the scriptures, cannot, will not and must not reveal unless, like Korihor, He reveals it unto their condemnation. Therefore, believing members should know better than to engage with sign seekers as if they could be placated in their demands.

So these kinds of sign-seeking debates will inevitably go knowhere in the end because the sign seekers and those who have faith have adopted opposing methodologies for determining whether or not Mormonism is true. So if the doubters and critics can't accept the LDS method of coming to know spiritual truth then they should just respectfully back down and, like gentleman, stop demanding earthly evidence that by divine decree cannot be given. Rather, there should be a respectful mutual decision to agree to disagre, with an end of all the demands for earthly evidence that cannot be given without condemnation. God, in his mercy, withholds such signs from the sign seekers because he loves his children and takes no joy in damning them. Then, after all this, dialogue and discussion on controversial topics can proceed, but now with respectful THEORETICAL and SCHOLORLY approaches where gaining information is the goal, not scoring polemical points in heated and counterproductive verbal battles.

But quests what? the scriptural point of view will continue to be of little consequence because the natural man enjoys a good fight. For the time being, "King of the HIll" will remaine the game of choice. So these exercises in futility will continue to grow in intensity and heat right up to the moment of the Second Coming. So have no fear, nothing is going to change.

[Teancum]

The thing that surprises me is why in the whole incredibly fascinating world of Mormonism there so few really interesting threads of late, aside from the redundant and now boringly repetitive "gay oriented" threads. It's as if the board participants are either too lazy to bother posting an interesting thread topic or lack the insight to know what subjects or questions would make for an engaging discussion.

Also, the endless back and forth between the true believers and the critic/doubters is getting old. Nothing is ever resolved but the debate just goes boringly around and around because the doubters will not accept the fact that personal revelation is the only divinely prescribed way to gain a testimony of the restored gospel. The critics want tangible evidence that the restored gospel is true when the scriptures clearly teach God doesn't work that way. It's kind of like Einstein said, "the surest sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting only one result, and then doing the same thing once again and expecting a different result." It would seem to be more logical and reasonable to just finally agree to disagree and move on. But no.............................................

But perhaps I'm being unrealistic because in the end endless, unresolved disputations are what these discussion boards are all about.

 

 

Not  to extend the endless debate about between doubters and believers...... buuuuuuut.......what you say is not a FACT. It is what you believe and what the LDS religion teaches and I am fine with that.  But it is not a FACT. 

 

And then there is the issue that if the scripture teach this then why do so many believers come up with different conclusions when using the same method.

And I think it was Ben Franklin who said the thing about doing things the same way and expecting different results. 

 

Ok I will shut up for now.  

Edited April 10, 2015 by Teancum

[ALarson]

I don't know. I am beginning to see the value of the ability. I am about to lock my thread about gay cakes as people keep trying to derail it with meaningless tangents about bakers and gay weddings.

Well, your thread discussing gay wedding cakes is pretty entertaining.  I appreciate your sense of humor on here (and most of your insights as well).  

[Teancum]

Would you want it streamlined? Have no critics? Much like some boards that have every one nearly on the same page? Maybe even complain about the people who criticize or show where they're wrong. Talk about deep doctrine, or testimony building subjects. Then the doubters can be put out to pasture. They will stay in their corners. Have zero clout and be banned early as trolls. But keep open the door for investigaters. Is this where you want this board to go? Because I'm willing to go, I felt like an intruder from the start, and definitely under educated on the true doctrine, if that could ever be nailed down..

 

 

I should probably drop my frequent comments about reason and evidence vs faith.  But it seems to be the crux of many of the problems. 

[Teancum]

I don't want to be a complaining boob. But I have noticed as of late that most threads are gay themed. It is getting really really old and tired. Where the same old things are brought up and people triumphantly proclaim victory on their point of view.

 

Yeah, Pahoran getting banned has made me wonder what is going on. I get that his posting style is very curt but I always thought he had very very valid points. I see no reason for the banning. But who am I?

 

 

Pahoran was banned?  For good?  Wow!  Will wonders never cease.

[The Nehor]

I should probably drop my frequent comments about reason and evidence vs faith.  But it seems to be the crux of many of the problems.

There is the church of the invisible pink unicorns that attempts to reconcile faith and reason by being based on both. By reason they know since they cannot see the unicorns they must be invisible. By faith they know the unicorns are pink.

[Teancum]

Bobbieware

 

I understand your frustration. I don't think you understand mine. I am happy to endorse your right to find religious truth through the means that the LDS Church teaches no matter how flawed I think it is.  And I endorse it as valid.... for you and only you.

 

What I struggle with is the condemnation you and others heap on my head for seeking in a different way and me trying to explain why as well as delve into the effectiveness of both ways.  I don't think you validate my approach at all.   You just toss me in the Korihor camp.  Thus I continue to point out the flaws I see in the methods promoted that rely on faith on supernatural and personal only revelation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, I remember feeling that way a while back when a poster named consiglieri was banned.

He should not have been banned. This might shock you, but I learned a great deal from him.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram