salgare Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, juliann said: So many assumptions, so little fact. You really need to stop that. FM has no involvement with this board and hasn't had a message board for at least a decade. (The original FAIR was a message board.) This critic rumor mill apparently is unable to even follow along with the name change. It is FairMormon not FAIR. These uninformed rumor mills have been predicting the demise of FM since its beginnings. What is a gentler apologetic approach? Who defines that? Will these critics lead the way on gentle approaches? And what do you know of Kevin or Dan or FM conversations? Why in the world do you feel qualified to make such a comment? Perhaps you should come to a real live FM conference and observe the discussions there. One thing FM does is ask for actual examples. If there is anything that is in error or has a snarky tone we want to know and it will be changed. We do have a lot of stuff of from a variety of people. To date, not one of the loudest judges has complied with that request. So the snide accusations do get old. I obviously struck a nerve here, which was unintentional other than to Scott. My only intention with the list was to show the different directions Mormon Apologetics have ... looking for a word ... splintered? in just a few years. There is well known animosity between at least two of these groups which was made very public. The roots of this animosity was seen right here, years back based on this "badge of honor", at which I was throwing in Scotts face. Juliann, I'm very sorry for the offense. I would love to be educated/talk at length about all of these issues, but also have no desire to try and tear down or do any damage to FairMormon, thus I will leave this to your discretion as to if this conversation should continue. Edited December 31, 2015 by salgare would still like to leave it open for possible discussion
juliann Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 13 hours ago, salgare said: I obviously struck a nerve here, which was unintentional other than to Scott. My only intention with the list was to show the different directions Mormon Apologetics have ... looking for a word ... splintered? in just a few years. There is well known animosity between at least two of these groups which was made very public. The roots of this animosity was seen right here, years back based on this "badge of honor", at which I was throwing in Scotts face. Juliann, I'm very sorry for the offense. I would love to be educated/talk at length about all of these issues, but also have no desire to try and tear down or do any damage to FairMormon, thus I will leave this to your discretion as to if this conversation should continue. I am glad you are willing to reconsider assumptions. But telling someone you "struck a nerve"..or want to... has never been friendly. Also, you need to be aware that Scott is a well respected long time poster who is valued here. It might be wise to get a sense of the layout before starting wars. This board might be an illustration of how apologetics has evolved (not splintered.) The splintering has been among online ideologies across the board. A good example of that is more liberal Mormon feminists turning on the moderate feminists (which is changing.) Most of us are sick and tired of the unnecessary hostility and low blows. I am seeing "intellectuals" moving toward a more considerate approach to one another that involves politeness and listening. This is still a Mormon message board and those coming in to criticize might benefit by taking all that into consideration. As to "apologetics" there never has been a global Mormon apologist just as there has never been a global critic. Some do educational, some do theological and so on. Some is organized, most is individual or small group. Some are very conservative but some are liberal. Apologist is a largely meaningless term because everyone is an apologist for their position. In Mormon land, new meaning has been given to the term so that it only means those who defend traditional Mormon beliefs...which is one of the most striking (and odd) language shifts I have experienced. You will never understand what is going on if you think apologists march out like storm troopers with hive minds. In fact, there is a need to be bilingual...able to speak in the language of both sides. My first requirement to take anyone seriously is that they are able to accurately and fairly represent the opposition before they begin. That is how I determine if someone just wants to dish out abuse and flail at strawmen rather than having a meaningful discussion that everyone can walk away from knowing more. 3
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) dup (is there some documentation on this crazy editor?) Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, juliann said: Also, you need to be aware that Scott is a well respected long time poster who is valued here. It might be wise to get a sense of the layout before starting wars. I started on 24 Jul 2009 (RockSlider). I'm not old school but came along in what appeared to me as the peak of the MAD/MDB war years where Dan/Will etc posted regularly at MDB. I was banned from here during those trailer park cleansing periods (no notice, no reason given). After the change from MAD to MDDB and things appeared to be softening from the board war years I tried again and created ccrw on 5 Oct 2012, but was totally open about being RockSlider. I spent a fair amount of time/effort to establish ccrw and be a contributor here. I was banned again shortly thereafter (no notice, no reason given). In the last few weeks there seemed to be a bit of an invite back being given at MDB and I do have an interest in posting here IF even though a critic, I would be given some basic respect as to the; no notice, no reason given pema-bans. I assume the last banning was because I offended one of the Badge of Honor holders. Turns out the updated software or something is not actually unbanning users whom the admins have intended. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65836-apache-2-test-page/?do=findComment&comment=1209573253 The unbanning of ccrw as a sign that I was indeed invited back was given, but the glitch kept me from knowing that it had. I'm well aware of Scott's history here, it was not naivety that left me with no qualms of speaking my mind to him. The intention was to bring this to a head (banned yet again or contact), and that happened. Quote My first requirement to take anyone seriously is that they are able to accurately and fairly represent the opposition before they begin. That is how I determine if someone just wants to dish out abuse and flail at strawmen rather than having a meaningful discussion that everyone can walk away from knowing more. Juliann I'm not into the "us versus them" thing. I don't have anyone here whom I view as opposition. I did not come here for battle. In fact I've tried to establish relationships. There are only a few here (the ones really into the opposition thing) that I get mad at, dislike, wish it were different, but that's the case for all of us right? All I ask is that if there are topics that are off limits or that some bounds should be set, let's be upfront about them. We both know how volatile some of the issues/history I so sloppily alluded to is. And if I become unwelcome please just give me the respect of a quick message and I will quietly go. Edited January 1, 2016 by salgare editor basically unusable coming from MS word
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 Quote "I'm not into the "us versus them" thing You might want to think how you are communicating then by what you are choosing to focus on. Suggesting that TBMs will respond to a photo not based on the photo itself, but on who posted it comes across as a very "us" versus "them" kind of thing. Quote I as well provided the link to the news article proving its validity. Obviously volgadon did not actually read much of this thread, only saw the big picture and we got a knee-jerk reaction. I wonder if 10 TBM's given two pieces of information: 1. a critic posted this 2. the image What percentage would have the same first glance reaction? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/?do=findComment&comment=1209573496
salgare Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 Having been caught in my hypocrisy I will retract and try to restate the truth of the matter. I'm very much into "a me for my posterity mode". I see the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an enemy to my posterity. The Corporation (along with what I consider an apostate FP/Q12) is my opposition. I'm likely to make observations about members in general / stereotypical terms which are found offensive by some (i.e. TBM, Chapel Mormon etc.). I do not view my TBM wife and TBM children nor other lay members of the church as my opposition. I do not view anyone here as my opposition. I'm likely to be caught in my hypocrisy of this more accurate list in the future and apologize in advance. If " I'm likely to make observations about members in general / stereotypical terms which are found offensive by some (i.e. TBM, Chapel Mormon etc.)" you will wear out your welcome. We do not tolerate disrespect to religious leaders or members.
Recommended Posts