Is this a Mormon board anymore?

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is so much about this post that is just wrong and in bad faith.  Imagine what would happen were I to make a post about believers using such negative offensive language...honestly this kind of negativity is what offends me

I imagine your post would go something like this???...

I've suggested the board administrators should add a separate forum reserved for faithful, believing members who would like to discuss Mormonism with other believers without being goaded into engaging with trolls whose primary motivation is a desire to tear the Church down. The way things are now arranged it's too easy for anti-Mormons and bitter, naysaying internal critics to hijack threads and turn the discussions into morasses of negativity.

 

I mean, why wouldn't you be in favor of that?  Sounds like a positive suggestion to me.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There is so much about this post that is just wrong and in bad faith.  Imagine what would happen were I to make a post about believers using such negative offensive language...honestly this kind of negativity is what offends me

I imagine your post would go something like this???...

I've suggested the board administrators should add a separate forum reserved for faithful, believing members who would like to discuss Mormonism with other believers without being goaded into engaging with trolls whose primary motivation is a desire to tear the Church down. The way things are now arranged it's too easy for anti-Mormons and bitter, naysaying internal critics to hijack threads and turn the discussions into morasses of negativity.

 

I mean, why wouldn't you be in favor of that?  Sounds like a positive suggestion to me.

[Johnnie Cake]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I imagine your post would go something like this???...

I've suggested the board administrators should add a separate forum reserved for faithful, believing members who would like to discuss Mormonism with other believers without being goaded into engaging with trolls whose primary motivation is a desire to tear the Church down. The way things are now arranged it's too easy for anti-Mormons and bitter, naysaying internal critics to hijack threads and turn the discussions into morasses of negativity.

 

I mean, why wouldn't you be in favor of that?  Sounds like a positive suggestion to me.

goaded,trolls,primary motivation, tear down,anti Mormons, bitter, naysaying, internal critics, hijack,morasses of negativity.  And you have to wonder why I would find that offensive?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

goaded,trolls,primary motivation, tear down,anti Mormons, bitter, naysaying, internal critics, hijack,morasses of negativity.  And you have to wonder why I would find that offensive?

It is offensive and offensive behavior, yes. rather than defensive behavior, which is why it might be nice to have a forum where people don't behave like that.

Or do you think people should just learn to put up with people who behave badly?

[Guest]

On March 23, 2017 at 0:30 PM, Gray said:

Some of the more radically conservative LDS posters seem to have left. I have noticed more critical voices as of late. I think the board functions best when, whatever the topic of conversation, we avoid emotionally charged language, which comes from extremes on either side. I think a good moderate tone is key to the life of the board, regardless of the viewpoints of the posters. 

What is a "radically conservative LDS poster"? 

What is a "radically liberal LDS poster"?

I ask because, when it comes to issues of Faith, the term "moderate" reminds me of these words...

"So then because thou art lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth". 

~Jesus Christ~ 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Johnnie Cake]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is offensive and offensive behavior, yes. rather than defensive behavior, which is why it might be nice to have a forum where people don't behave like that.

Or do you think people should just learn to put up with people who behave badly?

So you condone using this kind of language when referring to other board members?  Or should this language only be used when referring to those you disagree with? 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you condone using this kind of language when referring to other board members?  Or should this language only be used when referring to those you disagree with? 

I consider it accurate only when it refers to people who act like that or do those things.

For those who don't, it's not.

That's all.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

What is a "radically conservative LDS poster? 

What is a "radically liberal LDS poster? 

I ask because when it comes to issues of Faith, the term "moderate" reminds me of these words...

"So then because thou art lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth". 

While funny (and insightful), I think Orson Scott Card's levels of Mormons in "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary" are very applicable to discussion here. I like how he highlights the good in all the different shades (except for Fundamentalist), and pokes fun at some things that should be poked fun at:

Fundamentalist 1. In the world, someone who believes that the words of dead prophets, as recorded in the Bible, are all the word of God mankind will ever need. Some Mormons occasionally get confused and think we have something in common with Christian Fundamentalists. 2. In Saintspeak, someone who believes that the words of dead prophets, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, are all the word of God the Church will ever need, and any modern prophet who contradicts even the wildest speculation of a long-dead apostle is obviously leading the Church to hell. Mormon Fundamentalists tend to believe in polygamy, the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, and string-tied garments. The current prophet is telling us we ain't heard nothin' yet while Fundamentalists think they've already heard it all.

conservative Mormon   1. As perceived by a liberal Mormon: someone with a completely closed mind who goes through the motions of obeying Church policies without ever understanding the spirit of the gospel. Conservative Mormons spout cliches about charity and then devote their lives to crushing out any sign of intelligence or compassion that dares to surface in the Church. 2. As perceived by another conservative Mormon: Someone who is dedicated to serving God in the manner God has prescribed, who therefore tries to keep his own life pure and help purify the Church to be worthy of the Lord's approval at his Second Coming. Conservative Mormons listen attentively to the words of the Brethren and try to do all they are asked to do without presuming to second-guess the Lord's chosen servants.

humanist 1. To a Mormon puritan, a member of a godless conspiracy to supplant the truth of the scriptures with the obscene or atheistic teachings of men. Humanists believe in things like evolution, relativity, philosophy, and art—as if anything discovered or made by human beings could have any value in the eyes of God. If stamping out humanism means rejecting every work of science, philosophy, or art since Plato, we are well rid of them. 2. To a Mormon humanist, anyone who believes that God has created mankind with a godlike potential and that people should therefore try to discover truth through their God-given powers of reason, experiment, and observation, as well as through studying the scriptures and receiving revelation. Humanists accept as valuable, things like evolution, relativity, philosophy, and art—for God is pleased when mankind discovers truth and creates beauty, even if many mistakes are made along the way.

liberal Mormon 1. As perceived by a conservative Mormon: A Mormon who wants to pervert the gospel to fit the doctrines of men instead of waiting for the Brethren to receive revelations. Liberals talk about being guided by the Spirit but usually find that the Spirit is telling them to espouse currently fashionable American liberal causes and ideas. 2. As perceived by another liberal Mormon: A Mormon who believes that the Lord won't give you any answers unless you ask him intelligent questions. Liberals believe that a Saint should be sensitive enough to recognize truth and humble enough to accept it whether it comes from the Brethren or Boethius, Newton or Nietzsche.

orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who has twelve children, a garden, a year's supply of food and supplies, every book with a General Authority's name on the cover, and a subscription to the Ensign, New Era, and Friend. The orthodox Mormon man has no debts, his wife does not work outside the home, and his house and yard are clean and fixed up. The orthodox Mormon woman has clean, obedient children, a house full of artifacts made on homemaking day, and a perfectly satisfied husband. There is no Mormon product that the orthodox Mormon will not buy, no acquaintance who has not heard about the gospel, and no doctrine or story told in a Church meeting that he or she does not believe. Orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including life itself, for the gospel; and being utterly teachable and meek, they will inherit the earth. (See radically orthodox Mormon.)

radically orthodox Mormon A Latter-day Saint who believes without question only those doctrines that are clearly set forth in the standard works or that have been accepted as revelation by the uplifted hands of the Saints in General Conference. The radically orthodox Mormon takes part fully in all aspects of Mormon life, but does not believe that all Mormon customs are necessarily ordained by God; he or she will gladly try any suggestion for improvement, and gladly abandon any practice that does not work. Radically orthodox Mormons seek truth everwhere—in prayer, in gospel study, in Church meetings, and in the world—and will embrace any idea that is good; however, even though they are constantly learning, they almost never argue about doctrine because their faith is that God will make clear what must be clear, and if there is a difference of opinion, God will resolve it when resolution becomes necessary to our exaltation. Radically orthodox Mormons would give up anything, including their lives, if the Lord required it, but will not give up one friend for the sake of winning an argument. It is practically impossible to tell a radically orthodox Mormon from an orthodox one; it may well be that no one is radically orthodox in all aspects of life. But the difference between them is profound, for while both are meek and teachable, the one listens while the other also sees. (See orthodox Mormon.)

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm finding this thread to be a touch too negative  

I'm finding it a touch too positive. 

Where's Nehor?

----

On a serious note, ZLMB (fyi, for newbies, this was message board I was a mod on that was a predecessor of this one) tried to segregate the accusations and more contentious discussions in another forum, but it bled over.  Made it worse.  Better in my view to require a board standard and eliminate posters who refuse to drop the repetive topics or posts after a few warnings.  Takes moderator time, which may be an issue.

Also, you might have to exclude certain posters from participating even though they might see themselves as faithful and/or believers and that might create more complaining about moderation with passive aggressive remarks as we sometimes see, if not with direct protests as well as cause us to lose some reasonables critics and parttime critics.

Who would be the judge of who is a faithful believer?  I know a number of members who feel quite comfortable labeling another as less than faithful because they see things differently, especially some with some limited fundamentalist views.  I am not thinking of anyone on the board, if you need an example, some Meldrum fans come to my mind, but many of you may not have been exposed to that aspect...oh wait, I am thinking of a board member, Peter Pear qualifies in my view with his consistent treatment/mocking of Mesoamerican theorists.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

For every negative criticism around here, there is posted a defense, albeit, in many cases, not very good ones. 

One could also say that much of the negative criticisms are not very good either.  Just depends on which team you are playing on I guess.

Edited March 24, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For what is worth...I can honestly say that this board has had a positive influence on me.  While I remain a non-believer in Mormonism...the board as currently constituted has motivated me to be more civil and has helped soften some of my rhetoric (evidentially that hasn't been your experience of my posts) 

I'm very grateful for this board and its current make up...I enjoy the banter and even the occasional jousts that take place.  I enjoy being challenged and the fact what I post is not just taken at face value...and if you've ever read my posts you can see I'm not even afraid to admit when I'm wrong...anyway I just wanted you to know that the board seem just about perfect to me...and its not because my views are accepted...but that they're challenged and tested

Since you seem interested, I think you have gotten significantly better in fitting with the board since you first appeared here and in achieving a style that contributes to the balance of the board (a nebulous quality that all I can say is I know when it is working well and when it isn't).  Not there yet and sometimes you still post what are for me cringeworthy comments or posts I see as mocking rather than sincere engagement or just wanting to have some fun,so I still brace myself automatically before reading your posts, but you should get credit for trying and succeeding many times when many do not, but see posting on the board the way they want as some inherent right.

There is enough occasional abrasiveness in your remarks though that when there are enough others in a negative groove, your comments can push it significantly off balance due to your intelligent approach.  However, you would certainly  not be the first I would suggest limiting or banning.   I think you are willing to adapt for the most part rather than just insist on barreling through even if it takes time.

Nor do I think perfection is desirable, as that would be too predictable and the board would be less interesting.  

-----

Not referring to JC here, but don't want to start a new post...

In general, I would like less repetition, less topics that are minor alterations...at least wait until the similar thread has died before the same poster starting a new one...maybe waiting a day so it doesn't seem like one just got tired of posters requiring one to engage and instead decides to post another opening post that would easily fit into an already opened thread in order to solicit the personal attention that generally comes to an opening poster, especially if a shock title is added.  It looks very narcissistic and in no way does it appear one is interested in discussion, only grandstanding.

And above all else no matter what your position, if you have said almost the same thing three times in a thread, don't post another version (and if needed, only post it once in another thread...share a link to previous posts if you think some might benefit).  Just say 'I have made my point and unless I see a reason for saying something new, I see no reason to post again in this thread'.  Trust me, even if the other poster is refusing to concede, those of us reading your posts will get it by the third time and if not, ten more times isn't going to help, but only annoy.  Sure, ask for feedback if you think something isn't going through if you want to be sure before shutting up, but please know that sooner is better than later.

I have not been someone who finds it easy to step away.  I am saying the above as much because of my observations of reactions to my own repetitive posts as my reactions and knowledge of others' reactions to others' endlessly looping tapes.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

 

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For what is worth...I can honestly say that this board has had a positive influence on me.  While I remain a non-believer in Mormonism...the board as currently constituted has motivated me to be more civil and has helped soften some of my rhetoric (evidentially that hasn't been your experience of my posts) 

I'm very grateful for this board and its current make up...I enjoy the banter and even the occasional jousts that take place.  I enjoy being challenged and the fact what I post is not just taken at face value...and if you've ever read my posts you can see I'm not even afraid to admit when I'm wrong...anyway I just wanted you to know that the board seem just about perfect to me...and its not because my views are accepted...but that they're challenged and tested

Watching you and Happy Jack become good conversation partners after creating a fair bit of tension has been a very rewarding part of this board. I did not mean this thread to become a critic bash fest. To be honest, I usually have a harder time dealing with the uber Mormon gatekeepers who think the solution to all problems is to not allow open discussion. 

It was an off the top of my head moment after I saw the latest leaks post about a leak that hadn't even happened. I really am tired of the leak threads that require two posts to cover all the ground  but devolve into endless speculation and guessing. We get enough of that in politics.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I imagine your post would go something like this???...

I've suggested the board administrators should add a separate forum reserved for faithful, believing members who would like to discuss Mormonism with other believers without being goaded into engaging with trolls whose primary motivation is a desire to tear the Church down. The way things are now arranged it's too easy for anti-Mormons and bitter, naysaying internal critics to hijack threads and turn the discussions into morasses of negativity.

 

 

Good thing that doesn't happen very often here anymore. 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

goaded,trolls,primary motivation, tear down,anti Mormons, bitter, naysaying, internal critics, hijack,morasses of negativity.  And you have to wonder why I would find that offensive?

If the characterization does not match you then you should not take offense to it.  If it does match you then perhaps you would. 

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

Is anyone else as tired of the relentless negativity as I am?  We are obviously losing our Mormon posters and I can only surmise it has stopped being fun after the tenth "look what the awful Church did!" thread a day. I appreciate the more neutral tone as the church is slowly dragged down, and even the perspectives. But when it is to the point we have excited threads about what hasn't even happened yet, it is overwhelming the Board, in my opinion, and quickly turning it into Mormon Discussions-lite. 

 

It's pretty boring here most of the time watching Mormons running down their church for some political reason and moving towards atheism for what appears to me to be some related reason. I am disinterested in the Mormons attacking themselves, making themselves further from what I believe than ever. I liked Mormons better when they attacked what I believe, called my church apostate, believed in Joseph Smith, and accepted his private life.

Edited March 24, 2017 by 3DOP

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

It's pretty boring here most of the time watching Mormons running down their church for some political reason and moving towards atheism for what appears to me to be some related reason. I am disinterested in the Mormons attacking themselves, making themselves further from what I believe than ever. I liked Mormons better when they attacked what I believe, called my church apostate, believed in Joseph Smith, and accepted his private life.

You heathen!

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the characterization does not match you then you should not take offense to it.  If it does match you then perhaps you would. 

I try to avoid extreme characterizations or stereotypes when addressing members of the board...it's the same thing I do in other public situations when addressing any unique demographic.  When you speak ill of critics and use broadly offensive terminology to describe me or anyone else whether or not it's directed to me or another board member with a similar POV it's offensive

Edited March 24, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Really?  

I admittedly don't read most of the threads. Plus I've only been posting here two week. So I can't speak to what I've not seen.. But there is an attitude that if one can't convince the other that somehow the argument isn't good. This makes sense if you're passively waiting to be convinced of Mormonism by Mormon defenders. But one can easily turn this around and have the Mormons say that the critics haven't made good arguments and that people coming here realized critics don't really have any new arguments. All depends upon the stance.

The problem is that I think most of those I've read the past couple of weeks making defenses of Mormonism recognize this. They know they aren't going to convince the critics. Oddly though many of the critics don't quite seem as able to objectively see that their arguments fall into exactly the same category.

I have been blogging (using that term generically to represent all forms of communication on the web) for years. Mostly on politics and social events and a good desl on spirituality, mainly of the Mormon pursuasion. I think a big reason I enjoy conversing on social media is that I have never expected to pursuade anyone. I do get passionate but in the end I expect no one to be "converted" to my point of view. I therefore post to share what I think and let others devide on their merits. Let the pieces fall as they may. 

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Give it a few days (if this post is directed my way) and I'll be gone...I'm already planning a break from MD&D

I hope you're not leaving this board!  I may not always agree with you, but you definitely start some of the most interesting and thought provoking discussions on this forum.  Please stick around.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

What is a "radically conservative LDS poster? 

What is a "radically liberal LDS poster? 

I ask because when it comes to issues of Faith, the term "moderate" reminds me of these words...

"So then because thou art lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth". 

~Jesus Christ~ 

Well, Jesus never said that. But I'd consider you a moderate. I won't name names, but there have been some radically conservative LDS posters here who seemed to like to call gay people some very nasty names. 

I'm a radically liberal LDS poster, but I'm usually very polite.

[JulieM]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

When the twisted only see themselves as enlightened genius they produce outlandish articles that are often nothing more than "I have the best opinion and you must listen to me stupid ones".  Then there are the offensive kind like surely there is not anyone that still believes the Book of Mormon is true or historical.  These are the kind of accusations or statements that make me think of "Does your mother know you abuse your children?"  What does one say to such things?

I have cut back drastically on my participation becuase it the site has become the bastion of the anti-Mormons - not critics, a critic uses their intelligence and seeks for truth. 

Who do you consider here to be anti-Mormons?  I think there are posters on this board that are from every stage of activity (or inactivity) which results in all sides represented in a discussion.  That's what makes a discussion interesting and I think most are very civil to others here and are respectful even when they disagree.

I don't think it's very productive labeling people or calling others names though (i.e. "twisted"). And doesn't everyone believe they have the best opinion? 

Edited March 24, 2017 by JulieM

[JarMan]

I stopped visiting this board for a few years when the conversations seemed to be predominantly about gay-related themes. I've returned recently to fortunately see that that topic is no longer the most common discussion item. I visit mostly for Book of Mormon themed discussions (thanks Brant Gardner) and church history threads. With fairly recent revelations in the news that certain politicians and governments use professional trolls to influence opinion, I've come to believe there are several "professional" trolls on this board. They are pretty easy to identify because they meet all of the following criteria: 1) they spend enough time posting here that this could be their "job" 2) they say they are LDS but consistently tell us what the church needs to do differently 3) they are constantly pushing a liberal or socialist political ideology. 

[Meadowchik]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, but they are still complainers.

...not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that...

Indeed, where there is complaining, there is often real pain. 

Identifying pain and it's sources helps promote health and healing.

*Balance restored.*

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I stopped visiting this board for a few years when the conversations seemed to be predominantly about gay-related themes. I've returned recently to fortunately see that that topic is no longer the most common discussion item. I visit mostly for Book of Mormon themed discussions (thanks Brant Gardner) and church history threads. With fairly recent revelations in the news that certain politicians and governments use professional trolls to influence opinion, I've come to believe there are several "professional" trolls on this board. They are pretty easy to identify because they meet all of the following criteria: 1) they spend enough time posting here that this could be their "job" 2) they say they are LDS but consistently tell us what the church needs to do differently 3) they are constantly pushing a liberal or socialist political ideology. 

Test that: 

Can someone be an unpaid and genuine poster and all those things?

Yes.

Further, is it likely? 

Sure.

So why would you make such assumptions? Have you considered the possibility that you might want that to be true?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Who do you consider here to be anti-Mormons?  I think there are posters on this board that are from every stage of activity (or inactivity) which results in all sides represented in a discussion.  That's what makes a discussion interesting and I think most are very civil too was other here and are respectful even when they disagree.

I'm don't think it's very productive labeling people or calling others names though (i.e. "twisted"). And doesn't everyone believe they have the best opinion? 

Yup. From ongoing experience, I can say that deconversion can consist of the normal stages of grief including very unpleasant ones. Yet in comparison, the tone I see on this board is very tame and well-controlled (personally by posters) despite what is in all probability deep and difficult emotions in the undercurrent.