I'm Sorry, But I Really Love This Board

[Johnnie Cake]

I just really enjoy the free exchange of information, the opportunity to both challenge and defend a position and I love the fact that it's not an echo chamber.  I also enjoy that nothing I say is taken at face value and for the most part everyone is respectful  

Thank you for allowing me to participate and thank you for holding me accountable. 

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sorry to hear that.  I promise, I'll work much harder at attempting to be offensive, then.

[Atheist Mormon]

I like your post, I feel the same way...

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I just really enjoy the free exchange of information, the opportunity to both challenge and defend a position and I love the fact that it's not an echo chamber.  I also enjoy that nothing I say is taken at face value and for the most part everyone is respectful  

Thank you for allowing me to participate and thank you for holding me accountable. 

I'll echo that!

[stemelbow]

I apologize for the same. 

[Meadowchik]

I love it, too!

[Tacenda]

This board knows the real me.  People I'm closest to in real life don't even know me as well, haha.  Aww and the things we tell our hair dresser too.  What's up with that?!?

 

[jkwilliams]

There must something to this place, as I can't seem to stay away. Seriously, though, I've met a lot of good people and made good friends on both sides of the Mormon divide, and I've learned more than I thought was possible from them.

[smac97]

I like this board, too.  Here are a few reasons why:

1. It's not a free-for-all.  If you want to have a serious, informed, balanced, interesting discussion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, history, practices, etc., you need to have faithful, observant members of the Church involved.  That is the only way to maintain a healthy discussion about Mormonism.  But if you want to attract and retain the participation of faith, observant Mormons, there must be some measure of restraint and decorum when discussing the subject matter.  Otherwise, the forum devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity, emphasis on sex-related issues, and so on.  The average faithful, observant Mormon will likely not remain in such a repellant atmosphere, which means they will leave, which means that serious discussion about Mormonism becomes impossible.  I think we've all seen other fora that answer to this description.  But this board limits profanity, discussion of certain topics (temple content, sex, personal lives of participants, etc.), and in so doing maintains a relatively healthy atmosphere for discussion.

2. The mods have a tough job, but in the main I think they do quite well at maintaining cordiality and decorum on this board.

3. There are good numbers of well-informed participants on this board, on both the pro- and anti- sides of the aisle.  And there are also plenty of people who ambivalent about the Church, or simply curious.  

4. There are ever-increasing numbers of readily-accessible sources of information about the LDS Church, including "official" sources from the Church itself.  This has been very healthy in that it helps pin down flights of fancy on both sides.  Critics have a harder time imputing inaccurate or misleading characterizations about difficult LDS-related issues when the Church is increasingly prone to address those issues more directly.  And members of the Church are less prone to rely on hearsay, tradition, and other not-really-reliable sources of information, and are forced to deal with uncomfortable aspects of their faith.  These sources of information are often at the center of discussion on these boards.

5. I think this board stimulates utilization of Socratic methodology ("a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions").  This is likely due to A) the adversarial atmosphere inherent in a forum where Latter-day Saints and critics of their faith agree - with some rather mild restraints - to discuss and hash out questions about Mormonism; B) the overrepresentation of lawyers on this board, who were trained in and often make their living by utilizing adversarial-but-still-cordial-and-professional systems (courts, mediation, etc.) to resolve disputes; and C) the moderated constraints on the content of postings.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like this board, too.  Here are a few reasons why:

1. It's not a free-for-all.  If you want to have a serious, informed, balanced, interesting discussion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, history, practices, etc., you need to have faithful, observant members of the Church involved.  That is the only way to maintain a healthy discussion about Mormonism.  But if you want to attract and retain the participation of faith, observant Mormons, there must be some measure of restraint and decorum when discussing the subject matter.  Otherwise, the forum devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity, emphasis on sex-related issues, and so on.  The average faithful, observant Mormon will likely not remain in such a repellant atmosphere, which means they will leave, which means that serious discussion about Mormonism becomes impossible.  I think we've all seen other fora that answer to this description.  But this board limits profanity, discussion of certain topics (temple content, sex, personal lives of participants, etc.), and in so doing maintains a relatively healthy atmosphere for discussion.

2. The mods have a tough job, but in the main I think they do quite well at maintaining cordiality and decorum on this board.

3. There are good numbers of well-informed participants on this board, on both the pro- and anti- sides of the aisle.  And there are also plenty of people who ambivalent about the Church, or simply curious.  

4. There are ever-increasing numbers of readily-accessible sources of information about the LDS Church, including "official" sources from the Church itself.  This has been very healthy in that it helps pin down flights of fancy on both sides.  Critics have a harder time imputing inaccurate or misleading characterizations about difficult LDS-related issues when the Church is increasingly prone to address those issues more directly.  And members of the Church are less prone to rely on hearsay, tradition, and other not-really-reliable sources of information, and are forced to deal with uncomfortable aspects of their faith.  These sources of information are often at the center of discussion on these boards.

5. I think this board stimulates utilization of Socratic methodology ("a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions").  This is likely due to A) the adversarial atmosphere inherent in a forum where Latter-day Saints and critics of their faith agree - with some rather mild restraints - to discuss and hash out questions about Mormonism; B) the overrepresentation of lawyers on this board, who were trained in and often make their living by utilizing adversarial-but-still-cordial-and-professional systems (courts, mediation, etc.) to resolve disputes; and C) the moderated constraints on the content of postings.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I noticed something as I rep'd you for this post.  You have more reps than posts.  wow.  Impressive.  Anyone else have more reps than posts?  The question not necessarily meant for you, but meant to say good job, sometimes overly articulate man. 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like this board, too.  Here are a few reasons why:

1. It's not a free-for-all.  If you want to have a serious, informed, balanced, interesting discussion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, history, practices, etc., you need to have faithful, observant members of the Church involved.  That is the only way to maintain a healthy discussion about Mormonism.  But if you want to attract and retain the participation of faith, observant Mormons, there must be some measure of restraint and decorum when discussing the subject matter.  Otherwise, the forum devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity, emphasis on sex-related issues, and so on.  The average faithful, observant Mormon will likely not remain in such a repellant atmosphere, which means they will leave, which means that serious discussion about Mormonism becomes impossible.  I think we've all seen other fora that answer to this description.  But this board limits profanity, discussion of certain topics (temple content, sex, personal lives of participants, etc.), and in so doing maintains a relatively healthy atmosphere for discussion.

Ummm... Something about this observation is off putting.  You're making the broad proposition that only former-Mormons devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity or emphasis on sex.  I tend to steer away from such broad generalities...while I'll agree that many former LDS believers no longer ascribe to so called LDS standards...I've seen the use of all of these infractions from faithful observant Mormon's and been the recipient of some of them even on this board.  The Board Standards are the standards...and anyone participating here must abide.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2. The mods have a tough job, but in the main I think they do quite well at maintaining cordiality and decorum on this board.

Agreed

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3. There are good numbers of well-informed participants on this board, on both the pro- and anti- sides of the aisle.  And there are also plenty of people who ambivalent about the Church, or simply curious.  

Again the use of the "Anti" troupe is offensive...while they probably exist...this board tends to attract both Pro and those with an "Alternative Point of View"  Anti should be reserved for those who purposely use lies to distort church doctrine rather than relying on verifiable evidence. The use of "Critic" is fine however...while I do prefer" holder of an alternative point of view"  I doubt it will catch on.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

4. There are ever-increasing numbers of readily-accessible sources of information about the LDS Church, including "official" sources from the Church itself.  This has been very healthy in that it helps pin down flights of fancy on both sides.  Critics have a harder time imputing inaccurate or misleading characterizations about difficult LDS-related issues when the Church is increasingly prone to address those issues more directly.  And members of the Church are less prone to rely on hearsay, tradition, and other not-really-reliable sources of information, and are forced to deal with uncomfortable aspects of their faith.  These sources of information are often at the center of discussion on these boards.

Agreed...and once we can cut through the church spin...we can often get to the meat...this board is good at doing just that.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

5. I think this board stimulates utilization of Socratic methodology ("a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions").  This is likely due to A) the adversarial atmosphere inherent in a forum where Latter-day Saints and critics of their faith agree - with some rather mild restraints - to discuss and hash out questions about Mormonism; B) the overrepresentation of lawyers on this board, who were trained in and often make their living by utilizing adversarial-but-still-cordial-and-professional systems (courts, mediation, etc.) to resolve disputes; and C) the moderated constraints on the content of postings.  

Sure blame the lawyers...

 

[Ahab]

Don't go getting all mushy on me now.

And no I will not be singing kumbaya with y'all, or giving you all a hug, or even shaking all of your hands.

Let's just get back to what we usually do around here, which is arguing about this and that and whatever else anybody cares to mention.

And if you just can't help yourself from feeling a bit mushy just try to get that feeling out of your system as soon ae possible so we can get back to our usual business ASAP!!!

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 9:03 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Quote

1. It's not a free-for-all.  If you want to have a serious, informed, balanced, interesting discussion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, history, practices, etc., you need to have faithful, observant members of the Church involved.  That is the only way to maintain a healthy discussion about Mormonism.  But if you want to attract and retain the participation of faith, observant Mormons, there must be some measure of restraint and decorum when discussing the subject matter.  Otherwise, the forum devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity, emphasis on sex-related issues, and so on.  The average faithful, observant Mormon will likely not remain in such a repellant atmosphere, which means they will leave, which means that serious discussion about Mormonism becomes impossible.  I think we've all seen other fora that answer to this description.  But this board limits profanity, discussion of certain topics (temple content, sex, personal lives of participants, etc.), and in so doing maintains a relatively healthy atmosphere for discussion.

Ummm... Something about this observation is off putting.  You're making the broad proposition that only former-Mormons devolves into unseemly levels of ridicule, profanity or emphasis on sex. 

My observation has been that message boards that A) are about Mormonism, and B) not moderated or insufficiently moderated tend to C) result in few if any faithful LDS members as participants on the board, and D) tend to have a very crass, course, vulgar level of discourse.  Spend a bit of time on the exmormon subreddits, exmormon.org, and other venues and I think you'll observe this for yourself.

That does not mean that Mormons are incapable of such unpleasantries.  Of course they are.

Quote

Quote

3. There are good numbers of well-informed participants on this board, on both the pro- and anti- sides of the aisle.  And there are also plenty of people who ambivalent about the Church, or simply curious.  

Again the use of the "Anti" troupe is offensive...

Why?  What is offensive about it?

Quote

while they probably exist...

They undoubtedly, indisputably exist.

Some of them even retain membership in the Church.

And yes, some of them are on this board.

Quote

this board tends to attract both Pro and those with an "Alternative Point of View" 

Well, that's . . . odd.  You concede that there are "pro-Mormons," but you bristle at the notion of "anti-Mormons."  Why?

Quote

Anti should be reserved for those who purposely use lies to distort church doctrine rather than relying on verifiable evidence.

I disagree.  I think "anti-Mormon" should be used to describe people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.

It's not a likeable word.  It's not a likeable thing. (Yes, I'm cribbing from A Man For All Seasons.)

Quote

The use of "Critic" is fine however...while I do prefer" holder of an alternative point of view"  I doubt it will catch on.

"Anti-Mormon" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2016 by smac97

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think "anti-Mormon" should be used to describe people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.

It's not a likeable word.  It's not a likeable thing.

I agree but the powers that be on thus board, namely the Moderators, have declared that word to be verboten on this board, because they don't like it, because it's not a likeable thing.

And so I suppose we're supposed to be thankful that this board is moderated by people called Moderators, which I suppose are supposed to be likeable people. 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 10:03 AM, Ahab said:

I agree but the powers that be on thus board, namely the Moderators, have declared that word to be verboten on this board, because they don't like it, because it's not a likeable thing.

And so I suppose we're supposed to be thankful that this board is moderated by people called Moderators, which I suppose are supposed to be likeable people. 

Really?  The mods have declared "anti-mormon" verboten?  When?  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This board knows the real me.  People I'm closest to in real life don't even know me as well, haha.  Aww and the things we tell our hair dresser too.  What's up with that?!?

 

This is also what bar tenders are for ....  (not really)...but I get you.  I am more comfortable here than on a lot of other postmo boards.  I appreciate it that I am allowed to ask questions and still be myself here.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

There must something to this place, as I can't seem to stay away. Seriously, though, I've met a lot of good people and made good friends on both sides of the Mormon divide, and I've learned more than I thought was possible from them.

I like it too.

Oh, and JKW: I think your book will show up today. Thanks again for mentioning it.

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

Really?  The mods have declared "anti-mormon" verboten?  When?  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

I read it in the Guidelines.  I don't know how to copy and paste with my so-called smart phone and for some strange reason I can't even get the Guidelines to load when I click on the link on the pull-down menu.  

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 10:18 AM, Ahab said:

I read it in the Guidelines.  I don't know how to copy and paste with my so-called smart phone and for some strange reason I can't even get the Guidelines to load when I click on the link on the pull-down menu.  

Here are the Guidelines.  I don't see any prohibition against the use of the word "anti-mormon."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My observation has been that message boards that A) are about Mormonism, and B) not moderated or insufficiently moderated tend to C) result in few if any faithful LDS members as participants on the board, and D) tend to have a very crass, course, vulgar level of discourse.  Spend a bit of time on the exmormon subreddits, exmormon.org, and other venues and I think you'll observe this for yourself.

That does not mean that Mormons are incapable of such unpleasantries.  Of course they are.

Why?  What is offensive about it?

The undoubtedly, indisputably exist.

Some of them even retain membership in the Church.

And yes, some of them are on this board.

Well, that's . . . odd.  You concede that there are "pro-Mormons," but you bristle at the notion of "anti-Mormons."  Why?

I disagree.  I think "anti-Mormon" should be used to describe people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.

It's not a likeable word.  It's not a likeable thing. (Yes, I'm cribbing from A Man For All Seasons.)

"Anti-Mormon" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

You, I assume,  live in America and you are free to use what ever offensive descriptor you prefer to use...that doesn't mean that it is right or that some will think less of you for doing so...  Mark Furman took your position as well...and then lied about doing it...didn't serve him well for doing so...but it was his right to do it.

 

Edit to add:  As I mentioned above, I too would use the term Anti-Mormon for anyone who purposely lies or knowingly distorts LDS doctrines for the purpose of deceiving others from belief in Mormonism.  But to use the term as a descriptor against those who engage in a honest discussion is an ad hominem and is a dishonest tool designed to stereotype the person you're having the discussion with and give you a self impose moral superiority over that person.  And frankly I will continue to call you out should you use it in discussions involving me in the future...for I will NOT concede that moral high ground to you. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  The mods have declared "anti-mormon" verboten?  When?  Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

Dang, maybe I'll have to start describing myself as something less offensive, such as spawn of Satan. 

The other thing I was going to say in this thread is that I have met a lot of people from the board IRL, and with only one exception, it's been a real pleasure. What I find funny is that, even the most hard-line posters on the board are just regular people IRL, and most people are not nearly as rigid in their positions as it comes across on the board. I had a marvelous lunch with you a few years back, and I consider you a friend.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I like it too.

Oh, and JKW: I think your book will show up today. Thanks again for mentioning it.

Excellent. I hope you like it. It has been pretty well received among Mormons, ex-Mormons, and non-Mormons alike. I've had two negative reactions, one from a guy who served in my mission who hasn't actually read the book, and the other from someone who thinks I'm pond scum in general. Let me know what you think. I'm always curious as to how it comes across.

Edited May 27, 2016 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 10:23 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

You, I assume,  live in America and you are free to use what ever offensive descriptor you prefer to use

What is "offensive" about it?  I get that's not likeable in the same sense that "anti-Semite" or "anti-Muslim" are not likeable.  But "offensive?"  How so?  There are people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.  What is "offensive" about recognizing that opposition?

Quote

...that doesn't mean that it is right or that some will think less of you for doing so

You have yet do explain what is wrong about the phrase "anti-Mormon."  Your position is not self-evident.  Please explain.

Quote

...  Mark Furman took your position as well...and then lied about doing it...didn't serve him well for doing so...but it was his right to do it.

Um, what?  What is my "position?"  What was Mark Furman's "position?"  I don't think I have anything in common with Mark Furman.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is "offensive" about it?  I get that's not likeable in the same sense that "anti-Semite" or "anti-Muslim" are not likeable.  But "offensive?"  How so?  There are people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.  What is "offensive" about recognizing that opposition?

You have yet do explain what is wrong about the phrase "anti-Mormon."  Your position is not self-evident.  Please explain.

Um, what?  What is my "position?"  What was Mark Furman's "position?"  I don't think I have anything in common with Mark Furman.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I mentioned above, I too would use the term Anti-Mormon for anyone who purposely lies or knowingly distorts LDS doctrines for the purpose of deceiving others from belief in Mormonism.  But to use the term as a descriptor against those who engage in a honest discussion is an ad hominem and is a dishonest tool designed to stereotype the person you're having the discussion with and give you a self impose moral superiority over that person.  And frankly I will continue to call you out should you use it in discussions involving me in the future...for I will NOT concede that moral high ground to you. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here are the Guidelines.  I don't see any prohibition against the use of the word "anti-mormon."

Thanks,

-Smac

I  use it at will when I deem it appropriate and have never been dinged for it. I'll probably continue to use it on occasion. It's a serviceable term.

In fact, part of my standing sig line contains the term. Which means it is present in each and every post I make.