Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

JulieM...you deserve respect.  You sure have mine. 

Please stop derailing and let us have one thread.

[MiserereNobis]

Why don't you describe your perfect board -- how do you want this board to be?

I thought this was originally an apologetics board.  Doesn't that inherently mean criticism will happen?

Maybe the answer is to have another sub-board, called apologetics or something, where the criticism can happen.  Then people can ignore that sub-board if they want to.

I hope you don't mind me posting my thoughts, even though I'm not Mormon.  Obviously I disagree with Mormonism but I've always tried to be respectful.

Also, I find it interesting that you are drawing lines between yourselves and other temple recommend holding Mormons.  What is a "true" Mormon in your view if not a Mormon who holds a temple recommend?

[Johnnie Cake]

Well there is a solution juliann...ban everyone from the board who offers an opinion that disagrees with yours...

[juliann]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why don't you describe your perfect board -- how do you want this board to be?

I thought this was originally an apologetics board.  Doesn't that inherently mean criticism will happen?

Maybe the answer is to have another sub-board, called apologetics or something, where the criticism can happen.  Then people can ignore that sub-board if they want to.

I hope you don't mind me posting my thoughts, even though I'm not Mormon.  Obviously I disagree with Mormonism but I've always tried to be respectful.

Also, I find it interesting that you are drawing lines between yourselves and other temple recommend holding Mormons.  What is a "true" Mormon in your view if not a Mormon who holds a temple recommend?

Good questions. There are critics and there are anti-Mormons. We try to be respectful enough not to use the latter designation because they consider it offensive. We are asking for the same consideration on our own board when it comes to being offensive. But as you can see here, when we ask for that, we are flooded with complaints as if we don't get to set our own boundaries. Mystifying.

This is not an apologetics board aside from hostile critics making us defend ourselves against attacks at every turn. It is a "Mormon" board. I'm sure there are better ways to describe who that includes but we all know have a TR doesn't determine what happens on message boards. Mormon by day, etc....   

What so many object to is the relentlessness of the fault finding. If a poster rarely joins in positive discussions (a conversation, not just dropped comments here and there) about Mormonism, yet is always there to point out flaws, there is a problem. Probably most important, is the level of mockery and derision that is included, including passive aggressive stuff that isn't as well hidden as the perpetrator thinks it is. 

I'd like to see some deep discussion of important topics. There is a difference between disagreement and nagging criticism. You will notice the first thing the offenders do is try to wipe away the distinction. I have disagreement with some Church policy and will be outspoken about it,  but I don't think anyone would mistake me for a "critic." 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I don't want to be unkind, but when I ask for one thread for believing LDS on a Mormon forum, it is indicative of the problem I am pointing out when those who do little but criticize will not respect even that boundary. 

Mormons are being attacked every day on their own board. We are beginning to object and call it out. If what looks to be the majority of the Mormons here don't like the behavior and are leaving because of it, that should indicate to a reasonable person that they need to modify what they are doing.

The lack of awareness is mystifying to me and others I am talking to. Why does it take more than one reminder in a thread that a critic is going too far? Why are those who only want to point out every conceivable flaw in someone else's belief system surprised when they are told ENOUGH?

This is a Mormon space. We get to set the boundaries. Not you. When a Mormon poster goes too far that is our problem and having been here a couple of decades, there have been countless bannings of over the top Mormons. So stop using that as an excuse for your own. Critics are in their space, poking sticks at them and then trying to set up behavioral standards that they don't apply to themselves. It's not going to fly. 

 

 

This is true. I'm Mormon and your thread is attacking me and others you consider to be like me. You're trying to find ways to organize an effort to ignore or even remove us from the board so you don't feel challenged. This is too bad.

For some reason you seem to think that Mormons and critics are mutually exclusive groups. You're right that this is a Mormon space where issues relating to Mormonism take place. To me, that's what seems to be happening. We get to set the boundaries. I assume you mean all Mormons, not just you. Or am I wrong about that?

[juliann]

I am requesting that the critics who bring their criticism, no matter what you call yourselves, be removed. You may think this is your board but it is my thread.

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

Stem, please get out of this thread. We have heard it all. It is our turn.

Is this how this board works. One hostile individual gets to set parameters about who does and doesn't participate in a thread?

You are actually telling someone to leave the thread because you don't want to hear from them. Your immaturity is showing. I'm sure you find my post rude. The feeling is mutual.

 

[clarkgoble]

I think having good discussions on topics where there's arguments to be made and positions to differ with is most important. I bet uninteresting topics drives more people away than critics.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[MiserereNobis]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am requesting that the critics who bring their criticism, no matter what you call yourselves, be removed. You may think this is your board but it is my thread.

So.... you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Your position is a bit confusing here, juliann, especially on a "dialogue and discussion" board.

By your logic here, I could start a thread about how the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have any critics of that be removed because it is my thread.  Is that true?

ETA: I'm not necessarily defending those who constantly criticize Mormonism. I do think, however, that your possessive approach (my board, my thread, etc) is counter-productive.

Edited June 19, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am requesting that the critics who bring their criticism, no matter what you call yourselves, be removed. You may think this is your board but it is my thread.

Since I can't read your mind about who you feel is and isn't worthy enough to post on this thread, I'll share my thoughts. You seem to have clear delineations in your mind about who is a real Mormon and who is a critic, but I don't know that the way you define the two categories should be trusted or taken as gospel.

You're the only one I see saying it is your board. I haven't seen anyone create a thread where Juliann has specifically been told she can't participate.  I consider it our board. Everyone who posts here is a part of it. It requires significant hubris to think that the way you Mormon and think about Mormonism is the only way to do it, and that all others don't belong.

Is this your board, Juliann? Do you own it? Are you on some kind of board of directors? You may be. I have no idea. You sure seem to act like you own the place and I don't understand why you feel so entitled. I hope your efforts to organize this board in your image fails. It would be a real shame. I'm curious how much of the increase negativity is correlated to when you came back and started posting regularly.

Edited June 19, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So.... you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Your position is a bit confusing here, juliann, especially on a "dialogue and discussion" board.

By your logic here, I could start a thread about how the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have any critics of that be removed because it is my thread.  Is that true?

ETA: I'm not necessarily defending those who constantly criticize Mormonism. I do think, however, that your possessive approach (my board, my thread, etc) is counter-productive.

I think the purpose of the thread was to ask for feedback from a subset of posters who tend to hold similar positions and who may feel frustration in being able to fully express those positions for various reasons in order to find solutions.

The board needs a solid core of defenders (and I am not talking about accepting uncritically all positions of the Church) of the LDS faith and church in order to function as originally intended.  Ensuring this core doesn't break down seems to me a necessary effort for those who want the board to continue.  And sometimes this needs to be discussed imo when too much of a shift one way or the other occurs.

I think this is different from a thread that would essentially be proselytizing, which if I understand your suggested thread and limitation, it would be.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The board needs a solid core of defenders (and I am not talking about accepting uncritically all positions of the Church) of the LDS faith and church in order to function as originally intended.

She did say this is not an apologetics board.  I'm not sure what she wants this board to be, which is why I asked.  Your response and hers seem to be at odds.

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is not an apologetics board aside from hostile critics making us defend ourselves

 

ETA: I should probably step out of this thread now, as it is more of an internal matter.  I'll just admit that juliann's possessiveness not just here but on other threads has rubbed me the wrong way.  I asked her once if she owned the board because of the way she talked and she said no, in which case I don't think she should talk that way.

Edited June 19, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So.... you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Your position is a bit confusing here, juliann, especially on a "dialogue and discussion" board.

By your logic here, I could start a thread about how the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have any critics of that be removed because it is my thread.  Is that true?

ETA: I'm not necessarily defending those who constantly criticize Mormonism. I do think, however, that your possessive approach (my board, my thread, etc) is counter-productive.

I am quite sure you recognize the difference between disagreement and nonstop criticism. Is it really that confusing? Let's go back to the OP. Notice how those same critics are now rewriting it to suit their purposes. Is there anything in this paragraph that is unclear about what I am talking about? 

Quote

This is a thread for those who generally defend Mormonism. I am hearing more posters say they are thinking about leaving the board because of the relentless negativity of those who post here for the sole purpose of trashing church doctrine and practices. In essence, to show  those they are in perpetual disagreement with the error of our ways... without providing us anything better. It is a very unequal relationship. One side has to be ever on the defensive, the other only needs to criticize. It is the same parade every. single. day.  It is demanded that we be in a constant state of reflection and humility but there is no reciprocity from those who only point fingers. 

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think having good discussions on topics where there's arguments to be made and positions to differ with is most important. I bet uninteresting topics drives more people away than critics.

In the short term I would agree with you, but long term there are only so many topics and they are going to be recycled.  Not a bad thing as people's understandings evolved and even if the same participants, new ways of looking at old topics can occur, but generally these are nuances, not attention grabbing game changers.  So in the long run, unless there is a constant turnover (which is not happening among the more traditional believers here), it becomes more about dynamics of interaction as to whether or not a poster hangs around.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why don't you describe your perfect board -- how do you want this board to be?

I thought this was originally an apologetics board.  Doesn't that inherently mean criticism will happen?

Maybe the answer is to have another sub-board, called apologetics or something, where the criticism can happen.  Then people can ignore that sub-board if they want to.

I hope you don't mind me posting my thoughts, even though I'm not Mormon.  Obviously I disagree with Mormonism but I've always tried to be respectful.

Also, I find it interesting that you are drawing lines between yourselves and other temple recommend holding Mormons.  What is a "true" Mormon in your view if not a Mormon who holds a temple recommend?

I think there is a fine line between criticism and chronic pessimism and an attitude of cynicism. In some ways I feel that a number have confused looking at things "critically" as looking for every possible flaw, problem, and potential evil being perpetuated by the conglomerate church. I see "thinking critically" as  recognizing and balancing potential concerns with potential positives and working with the full picture. Including potential strengths. For example, I see you as "critical" or in disagreement with the LDS faith, but I have never read you in the lines of more cynical or rude about it. You show a capacity to recognize and work with common ground as well, share your views respectfully, and point out your disagreements in like manner. I genuinely enjoy reading a number of your posts, even if I disagree with them or don't respond myself. They're thoughtful and considerate 9 times out of 10 (I'm giving you 1 because I'm sure we all have off days ). 

Juliann can speak for herself on her points. But I think that's a valid question. I used to see myself more in the middle when it comes to arguments. There's things that I technically agree with on the more unorthodox end and things I agree with on the more orthodox end. And there's plenty that I don't necessarily fit in with either.  I don't know where I'd fit and I'm not only a temple recommend holder, I work in the freaking temple . But I'm having a harder and harder time even vaguely relating with the unorthodox end of things because the confusion of the terms "critical" is solidifying into it's own sense of rigid way of interacting that's more harsh, less forgiving, and more dogmatic. It can also come off as unnecessarily superior to more orthodox leanings that's off-putting. Maybe my memory is failing me, But I could have sworn even 2 or 3 years ago I found more to relate to with the unorthodox bunch, more bridging ground, and felt like I had more rewarding discussions, even if we didn't fully agree. Now, not so much. I don't think I've gravitated towards greater "orthodoxy" in that time. I was a temple worker then, too. My beliefs haven't taken a large fundamental shift though my sense of connection to God has certainly deepened. I do think I've grown frustrated by comments more often in the last month or 3 than I have prior. And beyond that, I'm finding it harder to say I'm in the "middle" when the attitudes on one end have become more and more dogmatic and harder for me to even vaguely relate to. Of course this happens on the other end of things....there's a couple uber-LDS that I generally ignore for similar reasons. Still even those, if I engage with them for some reason, it often still goes better. I wouldn't have said that 2-3 years ago.    

I personally don't want to see people leave. But I would love to see us find better ways of communicating and relating. One that promotes critical thinking and lively discusssion as opposed to perpetual criticism and dogmatic objections. 

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

She did say this is not an apologetics board.  I'm not sure what she wants this board to be, which is why I asked.  Your response and hers seem to be at odds.

 

When I started FAIR, we called it the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research because it was apologetic. This board is named Mormon Dialogue and Discussion. (It has undergone some name changes.) Do you consider yourself to be doing apologetics every time you talk about Catholicism with people?  Do people have to do apologetics here? Of course. As long as there are unrelenting critics who don't stop at mere disagreement, the board will need a core of defenders to survive.  The constant harassment is driving that core away, just as happened at ZLMB. 

FAIR began as a message board, BTW.  I helped run the forerunner of this one for years. FAIR had to drop it because of the unrelenting critics, especially the ones who were doing nothing but bashing the Church while calling themselves Mormons. People thought that FAIR was an organization to bash the church because of it. So Nemesis took it over and it has become more popular than ever. I have been with this board since its inception. And I give no apologies for my investment in it and knowledge of it. It was my mistakes that caused it to fail soon after it launched. It was my learning from those mistakes that brought it back to life. Here is the long and short of it, it is like a ward. People come and go, no one person makes or breaks it as long as the ward is run well. When the balance shifts because hostile critics are shouting down those who generally defend Mormonism (straight from the OP!) those people leave. They are very, very hard to replace. Hostile critics are not. 

And one more time, unless Nemesis has changed it, posters are allowed to control their own threads. They always have. Some used to be able to moderate them themselves, if I recall, and they could close them. I don't know what happened to that through the series of software changes, there was certainly no announcement that it need to end. That hostile critics deny this is yet another example of the nonstop criticism...and gaslighting.

 

[Senator]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

Yeah, but it is really hard to let the slams go uncontested. Perhaps if we required that the "in our face" stuff be reworded before engagement? The likes are telling an interesting story. They don't get many. 

With few exceptions, and there are some, the loudest finger pointers seem to have no awareness that their words are disrespectful, incendiary, and mean-spirited. Meanwhile, we are supposed to climb in a virtual cat scan for examination, instructed as to what to do and think at every step. If we don't comply with the examination, the name calling and insults escalate.

 

 

 

I think rpn hit the nail on the head.  It does take two to tango. Take away one of the partners and the dance will quickly fade. But as you readily confess in the bolded statement, it is hard not to respond (or take up the dance). Yet it seems to me that that is exactly what you are demanding that others do. You are wanting restaint and or voluntary withdrawl, yet you your admit its "really hard" to do. It appears to be a lopsided standard, which is fine, but I think you will need to create a new board, or overhaul this one to the point of of it being unrecognizable. Just my two cents

 

Or may I suggest take a break and go do something else for while.  Really! It's very liberating and works wonders...

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

In the short term I would agree with you, but long term there are only so many topics and they are going to be recycled.  Not a bad thing as people's understandings evolved and even if the same participants, new ways of looking at old topics can occur, but generally these are nuances, not attention grabbing game changers.  So in the long run, unless there is a constant turnover (which is not happening among the more traditional believers here), it becomes more about dynamics of interaction as to whether or not a poster hangs around.

Better said than my explanation.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think there is a fine line between criticism and chronic pessimism and an attitude of cynicism. In some ways I feel that a number have confused looking at things "critically" as looking for every possible flaw, problem, and potential evil being perpetuated by the conglomerate church. I see "thinking critically" as  recognizing and balancing potential concerns with potential positives and working with the full picture. Including potential strengths. For example, I see you as "critical" or in disagreement with the LDS faith, but I have never read you in the lines of more cynical or rude about it. You show a capacity to recognize and work with common ground as well, share your views respectfully, and point out your disagreements in like manner. I genuinely enjoy reading a number of your posts, even if I disagree with them or don't respond myself. They're thoughtful and considerate 9 times out of 10 (I'm giving you 1 because I'm sure we all have off days ). 

Juliann can speak for herself on her points. But I think that's a valid question. I used to see myself more in the middle when it comes to arguments. There's things that I technically agree with on the more unorthodox end and things I agree with on the more orthodox end. And there's plenty that I don't necessarily fit in with either.  I don't know where I'd fit and I'm not only a temple recommend holder, I work in the freaking temple . But I'm having a harder and harder time even vaguely relating with the unorthodox end of things because the confusion of the terms "critical" is solidifying into it's own sense of rigid way of interacting that's more harsh, less forgiving, and more dogmatic. It can also come off as unnecessarily superior to more orthodox leanings that's off-putting. Maybe my memory is failing me, But I could have sworn even 2 or 3 years ago I found more to relate to with the unorthodox bunch, more bridging ground, and felt like I had more rewarding discussions, even if we didn't fully agree. Now, not so much. I don't think I've gravitated towards greater "orthodoxy" in that time. I was a temple worker then, too. My beliefs haven't taken a large fundamental shift though my sense of connection to God has certainly deepened. I do think I've grown frustrated by comments more often in the last month or 3 than I have prior. And beyond that, I'm finding it harder to say I'm in the "middle" when the attitudes on one end have become more and more dogmatic and harder for me to even vaguely relate to. Of course this happens on the other end of things....there's a couple uber-LDS that I generally ignore for similar reasons. Still even those, if I engage with them for some reason, it often still goes better. I wouldn't have said that 2-3 years ago.    

I personally don't want to see people leave. But I would love to see us find better ways of communicating and relating. One that promotes critical thinking and lively discusssion as opposed to perpetual criticism and dogmatic objections. 

 

With luv,

BD

THIS! 

THIS!

THIS!

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

She did say this is not an apologetics board.  I'm not sure what she wants this board to be, which is why I asked.  Your response and hers seem to be at odds.

 

ETA: I should probably step out of this thread now, as it is more of an internal matter.  I'll just admit that juliann's possessiveness not just here but on other threads has rubbed me the wrong way.  I asked her once if she owned the board because of the way she talked and she said no, in which case I don't think she should talk that way.

This board has been going in a couple of forms for almost 15 years.  Juliann was one of the original members in its first incarnation as the message board of FAIR (now FairMormon) and was one of the founders and board members of FAIR. She has been posting consistently since then for most of the time.  She was a moderator in the early years as well.  So she has a lot of personal investment in the board though no longer involved in its running since it left FAIR's hands.

She was also a longtime member of ZLMB and she got to suffer extensively from hearing my woes on the life of a moderator of that board, including some pretty hefty despair as I watched it get buried in negativity no matter what I and the other moderators tried (owner was LDS, but we attempted to moderate as a committee with 3 LDS and 2-3 nonLDS moderators...it was not a successful model, too much time elapsed between action and reaction plus I believed explaining moderating calls would result in posters becoming better at abiding by board rules, imo the opposite happened as a number of posters of all stripes kept to the "law", but violated the spirit and ended up poisoning the atmosphere).

I don't think there is anyone else posting on the board these days that has invested as much as Juliann has in effort and resources to create and maintain the board even if that isn't her current role.  Whether or not that gives her any weight is a personal decision.

(this was written before I read Juliann's post)

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

 

I think rpn hit the nail on the head.  It does take two to tango. Take away one of the partners and the dance will quickly fade. But as you readily confess in the bolded statement, it is hard not to respond (or take up the dance). Yet it seems to me that that is exactly what you are demanding that others do. You are wanting restaint and or voluntary withdrawl, yet you your admit its "really hard" to do. It appears to be a lopsided standard, which is fine, but I think you will need to create a new board, or overhaul this one to the point of of it being unrecognizable. Just my two cents

 

Or may I suggest take a break and go do something else for while.  Really! It's very liberating and works wonders...

You are not understanding the problem. Please read Calm and BD's posts. 

I am a very spotty participant here, Senator. I'm tired of the assaults and have gone many weeks if not months without posting at times. That is what makes it so jarring when I am pulled back in and see the decline.

[Senator]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are not understanding the problem. Please read Calm and BD's posts. 

I am a very spotty participant here, Senator. I'm tired of the assaults and have gone many weeks if not months without posting at times. That is what makes it so jarring when I am pulled back in and see the decline.

Are you pulled in against your will?

Maybe the Social Hall needs to be more utilized for the purposes you are describing. 

[clarkgoble]

I confess I'm a recent member and I only occasionally read the prior incarnations. One thing I did like of the last one was the separate list of more technical topics where not anyone could necessarily post. They were much slower moving but also tied to more technical and factual topics. I'd love for that to return in some sense so that we could read real debates with people doing research.

The problem is that without critics, there's no real interlocutor to debate with. I think that's actually an important role to drive the discussion. I fully agree though that when there's merely relentless disparagement that really is nothing more than conflicting worldviews, that it gets old and tiresome. Somehow we should be able to acknowledge that there are basic stances we just don't agree upon. Comments that merely repetitive judge one in terms of the other might make people feel good but achieves little.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are not understanding the problem. Please read Calm and BD's posts. 

I am a very spotty participant here, Senator. I'm tired of the assaults and have gone many weeks if not months without posting at times. That is what makes it so jarring when I am pulled back in and see the decline.

I read this board every single day. I'm a true blue MDDB member. And I get shot down sometimes, and keep getting up after some of your comments to me. I respect that you have put your heart into this board, and like I said before I will do my best to keep my concerns respectful. 

If you and Don Bradley are spotty participants, it's been a long while since he's been here, then post more. Just like inactivity from the church, the more you stay away the harder it is to come back and the more you may think it's changed or things going on there aren't always good. Being on the inside you get to see the inner workings and why people do or say the things they do. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Tacenda

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

Are you pulled in against your will?

 

Now you are just trying to pick a fight.

Quote

Maybe the Social Hall needs to be more utilized for the purposes you are describing. 

I was one of those who set up the Social Hall designation. As I suspect you know, it is for socializing with no debate allowed.

Debate is necessary for a healthy board.  Unrelenting hostile criticism destroys a healthy board.