Protecting Mormons online

[K-2]

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

One way is providing a safe forum for people to discuss topics that generally can't be discussed in Sunday School.  I really appreciate having that ability. 

Do you view the word "protect" in a different light.  Perhaps you're thinking along the lines of a North Korea censoring the information available to people as a form of protection?  

[JLHPROF]

Approach matters.
On one side you would have Dehlin.  He was about breeding doubt.
On the other you would have a group like Fairmormon.  This board is about answering questions.

Nothing is to be gained by denying people with questions a place to discuss them.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

So you see no difference in this discussion board and John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcasts?  Have you listened to several hours of his podcasts?  What is the format of his podcasts?  Does he prepare for his interviews by reading books and doing research?  Have you heard him discuss the rationale and assumptions for his program?  Is there anything different about how this discussion board was founded and functions?

[K-2]

I think it may not be a good idea to discuss things that there aren't good answers for yet. On my mission we were told not to bring up controversial issues with investigators unless they asked about them.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, K-2 said:

I think it may not be a good idea to discuss things that there aren't good answers for yet. On my mission we were told not to bring up controversial issues with investigators unless they asked about them.

People seem to ask about controversial issues online too. It is OK I think to discuss them as you might have done as a missionary. As far as protecting posters, I think the "protection" applies/d to not enabling hyper-critical venting, toxic personalities/personas, exit stories, etc. which might turn posters off and send them elsewhere.

[Tacenda]

If it weren't for this board I would be out of the church, my name might still be on the records, but I would be totally hellbent in not having anything to do with it. Thank heavens I had a place to discuss and also a place that could put me in my place if needed. And not a place that would just add to my doubt but give me something to think on.

[Stargazer]

The "protection" you mention happens to be protection from moderation whose purpose is to ensure that posters criticizing the Church almost always get the right of way and posters defending the Church get censored.  That happens on certain other boards.  Here both sides are permitted to speak, and both are required to exhibit a certain level of respect for the others.

I like it that way.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, K-2 said:

I think it may not be a good idea to discuss things that there aren't good answers for yet. On my mission we were told not to bring up controversial issues with investigators unless they asked about them.

This is true.   Except because of the internet they ARE bringing them up.

Unprepared missionaries won't know how to address them.  When an investigator asks a question about many different topics a lot of missionaries are simply unaware.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

Cfr please, to make sure you have the right person as well as a quote rather than paraphrase.

[Storm Rider]

Objecive criticism is healthy just as are honest questions for what confuses an individual.  It is a good thing to have a place where members and nonmembers can come and have an open discussion.  However, there is a significant difference between healthy criticism and anti-Mormonism.  As has already been discussed, I personally feel we have too much of anti-Mormonism rather than objective criticism.  

I don't have problems with others, or myself, being critical - I am a critic - but the objective is to be honest and to pursue truth.  This is an organization of humans and humans make mistakes and err too often for most observers.  The reason a prophet is not respected in his own land, town, village, etc., is because when living with a person we see their humanity.  People quickly assume that a man of God has lost his humanity by becoming something more than human.  That is a big problem and people need to learn that men called of God are just as human before a call as they are after receiving the call.  

I don't have a lot of patience for anti-Mormons in the same way I don't have time for people whose purpose is to annoy, mislead, or stir the pot of dissension.  I enjoy, appreciate, and celebrate critical minds who are seeking answers and who express their faith through questions while possessing the wisdom to understand that some answers will not be found in this life. 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Storm Rider

[K-2]

Quote

Cfr please, to make sure you have the right person as well as a quote rather than paraphrase.

Call for reference? <sarcasm>Would you prefer APA or MLA format?</sarcasm> It was from a recently closed thread on  this board. I don't care enough to look for it. You've got over 42,000 (!) posts here- you've probably read it yourself recently.

[Ahab]

A board to protect members, huh.

Does this board have spikes in it or something?  Is it a really thick board?  

I'd prefer a bat to a board, but oh well.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, K-2 said:

Call for reference? <sarcasm>Would you prefer APA or MLA format?</sarcasm> It was from a recently closed thread on  this board. I don't care enough to look for it. You've got over 42,000 (!) posts here- you've probably read it yourself recently.

Calm knows all this board's founders, so she is asking for a very good reason -- probably because none of them said what you did.  Perhaps you paraphrased it in an inimical way, based on inaccurate memory.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, K-2 said:

You've got over 42,000 (!) posts here

As  K2 now is, Calm once was. As Calm now is, K2 may become.

[Rain]

11 hours ago, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Cfr please, to make sure you have the right person as well as a quote rather than paraphrase.

 

2 hours ago, K-2 said:

Call for reference? <sarcasm>Would you prefer APA or MLA format?</sarcasm> It was from a recently closed thread on  this board. I don't care enough to look for it. You've got over 42,000 (!) posts here- you've probably read it yourself recently.

I believe he is talking about this quote by Juliann: Yeah, it was a "Mormon" board run for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. I was a founder. And I know the current owner sees it that way, too. It has just always been harder to keep people who were the ones under attack which is why I am concerned about the balance.  To date, the wiki leaks stuff is so overrated, to the point of silly, and it is now an ongoing topic.

"But boards, blogs, and the like have all lost their former glory, I suspect."

Notice that calm asked for the reference in a friendly way.   She is very analytical and probably wanted to see if she read it the same way you did.  

[Rain]

12 hours ago, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

You protect Mormons by discussing the controversial things the people already have questions about.  You do it in a faith promoting way, much like when someone lifts weights.  As you talk over the issue with others whose faith is strong and you read your scriptures and stay close to God then it can make your faith grow stronger as well. Those who don't do it in a faith promoting way are more like some who drop the weight on your toes or fingers rather than teach you to lift it.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by Rain

[The Nehor]

I only have about 14,000 posts. I am definitely an amateur.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

As  K2 now is, Calm once was. As Calm now is, K2 may become.

[K-2]

Quote

As  K2 now is, Calm once was. As Calm now is, K2 may become.

LOL, maybe by the time the sun burns out.

[carbon dioxide]

12 hours ago, K-2 said:

 How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history?

Discussing controversial questions can be a very positive thing.  I can't think of one good thing in life where avoiding a complicated or difficult problem leads to good outcomes.  If one wants to become physically strong, they have to do good workouts at the gym. Lifting "air" weights is not going to do much.  They have to actually lift heavy weight.  Same it is true with knowledge and spiritual stuff.  Dealing with controversial stuff does not have to be a negative to ones faith.  There is enough balance here that people can see both sides of an issue.  in the end, as long as one has a testimony and they center their life on that, then all the other stuff one can deal with without too much headache. 

[K-2]

Here's the quote from juliann on March 23 in the "Is this a Mormon board anymore?" thread:

"Yeah, it was a 'Mormon' board run for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. I was a founder. And I know the current owner sees it that way, too."

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, K-2 said:

Call for reference? <sarcasm>Would you prefer APA or MLA format?</sarcasm> It was from a recently closed thread on  this board. I don't care enough to look for it. You've got over 42,000 (!) posts here- you've probably read it yourself recently.

You attributed a quote to someone.  You have been given a request (CFR) to supply a valid citation for that quote.  It is board rules that you respond with a reference or retract the statement.

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, K-2 said:

Here's the quote from juliann on March 23 in the "Is this a Mormon board anymore?" thread:

"Yeah, it was a 'Mormon' board run for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. I was a founder. And I know the current owner sees it that way, too."

So why are you leaving out the next sentence which explained what benefit and protection meant?

Quote

  It has just always been harder to keep people who were the ones under attack which is why I am concerned about the balance.

Bad grammar aside, I was clearly referring to Mormons  being attacked on message boards. 

If you want to complain about the wisdom of exposing Mormons to controversies, you don't need to mangle what I said about something else to do it. 

[K-2]

Were you referring to Mormons being personally attacked, or to their beliefs being attacked?