Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm a recent member and I only occasionally read the prior incarnations. One thing I did like of the last one as 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.

The Contributors forum where you had to be invited or ask to post.  I loved that, but it died from lack of use iirc.  Once something was discussed by those most familiar with the topic, they didn't feel the need to repeat them.

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I'm a recent member and I only occasionally read the prior incarnations. One thing I did like of the last one as 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.

 

I'd forgotten about that.

Quote

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.

No one has ever, ever advocated that. It would kill a board. That is what killed the FAIR board. What is going to kill this board is the negativity along with the paucity of Mormon message board addicts to replace the Mormons who have had enough of it.  (Different dynamics, but I sense a decline in Bloggernacle activity, too. )

There has to be a balance. But balance does not mean equality in numbers or giving hostile critics the run of the place. This board only came back to life because Mormons were promised protection from aggressive hostile critics. 

[SteveO]

When I first joined, there was a large number of topics where I was exposed to some new material, new ideas and commentary, new ways of looking at the church and the gospel it teaches.  There was, and continues to be some very educated posters from a variety of backgrounds that have the ability to offer unique angles on a given topic.

It just seems that lately, the "talent" is wasted on the same topics, the same criticism, the same concerns.

For example, I never see Dan Peterson around here anymore, and I can't help but wonder if he just got tired of it.  It's a shame.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

There has to be a balance. But balance does not mean equality in numbers or giving hostile critics the run of the place. This board only came back to life because Mormons were promised protection from aggressive hostile critics. 

How are you defining "Mormons"? I ask because it doesn't seem to be a standard definition that would be widely accepted.

It seems your use of the word is aimed more and dividing what you consider to be "unworthy" Mormons from the kinds of Mormons you like. It seems like there are very few non-Mormons here, yet you continue to distinguish as if the Mormons are the minority.

[Danzo]

I mostly lurk, and occasionally post and get drawn into discussions.  I don't at all feel like this is a really good place to for uplifting conversation, for the most part. I would never recommend anyone who is struggling to come to this board. There is just too much negativity and accusations. It would be easy for someone who came to this board to come away thinking that the Church is some racist, misogynistic, anti science organization, that constantly oppresses it's members; tells them what to think and steals their money.  We have even been accused of physiological abuse. The really sad part is most of this comes from people who claim to be believing, active Mormons.   One might almost get the impression that half the active membership of the church is actively plotting against it.  That, I think is the biggest damage.  It sows mistrust among members.  If so and so, who claims to be an active, believing member of the church, who claims to have held high callings is secretly trying to undermine it, who can I trust?   

That being said, I find the board useful for several reasons. 

1.  I can come here and find out everything potentially damaging that happens to the the church, so I can be informed about whats causing trouble out there.  I know that if there is anything potentially embarrassing about the that happens. there are people on this board that will rush to   post it. 

2.  I find here great examples Satan's tactics, as well as a large number of logical fallacies.  I used these examples to teach my children how to recognize and respond to them. Since the moderators keep out the truly bad stuff, what is left is usually suitable to teach in a family setting.

3.   There are people who are left on this board who provide amazing, faith promoting answers and experiences.  Unfortunately, these are becoming rarer and rarer.  Sometimes finding these feels like looking for pearls in the mud.  

4.   While I don't think I'll ever change anyone's mind, just maybe, on some rare occasion I can offer up something that will cause someone to think more deeply about a topic.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Danzo

[Senator]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now you are just trying to pick a fight.

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.

I bleed far to easy to pick fights.

Ok, so what do you suggest? Are you looking for board rule changes? Better enforcement of the existing rules?  What?

[Rain]

1 hour 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.

For me it is not the "arguments" that drain me. It is the negativity. And yes it can come from both sides. I'm trying to come up with examples that don't come from the board (because the discussion would turn to the subject of the example instead of as a way of explanation), but am having a hard time coming up with one. 

Ok, maybe this works. The church starts painting all of the church houses in the Phoenix area white, but doesn't explain why. I would expect to hear; "the church keeps spending money on looks instead of the poor."  "See church leaders are racist and only want a white church." "The Mormon corridor is where the money is spent, not for the poor areas of the world." "The church wants us all to be the same. It ignores the culture of the people." 

Now what if the church had really looked into saving energy and found that white paint reflected the sunlight in hot areas and might save the church half of it's AC bills? That they piloted this in Phoenix first because the cost was less? 

I understand sometimes the frustration that comes when the church doesn't say why they are doing something, but over and over again I hear those same kind of accusations. And it's not just how they are said, but the way they are worded. 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Rain

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  I gotcha, Bluebell.

here's what you said for interested readers:

I don't think I said anything near that.  I've never seen myself as:

I realize I can come off as and can be self-righteous at times.  Which I wish I was better at recognizing and apologizing for.  It seems to me we all can be a bit self-righteous, so I suppose I figured we were given each other some amount of a pass from time to time.  But with that, overall, I don't see myself as a self-righteous person.  I feel bad you do. 

I will add the resentment you expressed, which seems to be in part directed at me, was what I was disappointed about.  We've been back and forth many times.  I've enjoyed your posts.  I'm honest when I say I wish you the best. 

Juliann said:

Well, I consider myself a believing LDS.  I go to Church each week and serve in my two callings as best I can.  I pay tithing, hold a current recommend and do whatever I can to help support the efforts of my ward.  If you had said, I don't want Stembelbow posting.  Well, then, I'd be clear who you want and who you don't want.  And I'd happily step aside. 

I wasn't even thinking about you when i wrote my first post.  The reason that i said your post was a perfect example was that instead of engaging what Juliann said, you focused on her (and those who had similar issues) and spent most of your post explaining that the reason that Juliann (and others) feel the way they do is because they just aren't being nice.

For example, these are all the things you said about why Juliann wrote the post that she did and why people agree with her:

• -Juliann is interested in getting rid of faithful LDS...
• -maybe she wants this as some kind of victory
• -She's getting dramatic to get her own way
• -those who agree with her are harboring resentment
• -Juliann is divisive
• -Juliann (and those who agree with her) are dismissive and disrespectful
• -Everyone who agrees with her is offering comments in bad faith.

None of those things actually address her OP, they just outline why it's actually her own weaknesses that are the real problem.  

In my initial post I said "It's not that hard to say "you believe what you do because you see this in a different way, here's why I don't agree...." and then present actual arguments or reasons that aren't focused on the person just being a jerk."

Your post was mostly focus on how Juliann is just being a jerk.  

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

 

For example, I never see Dan Peterson around here anymore, and I can't help but wonder if he just got tired of it.  It's a shame.

Hostile critics want to destroy him. In real life. 

 

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How are you defining "Mormons"? I ask because it doesn't seem to be a standard definition that would be widely accepted.

It seems your use of the word is aimed more and dividing what you consider to be "unworthy" Mormons from the kinds of Mormons you like. It seems like there are very few non-Mormons here, yet you continue to distinguish as if the Mormons are the minority.

I have answered that multiple times. Others have addressed it. 

This is part of the problem, the dissection and rearrangement of everything we say with a demand we say it again. It is derailment. You are now trying to steer a statement about hostile critics on a message board to being something about "worthy" Mormons.  Good luck with that. 

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

What is going to kill this board is the negativity along with the paucity of Mormon message board addicts to replace the Mormons who have had enough of it.  (Different dynamics, but I sense a decline in Bloggernacle activity, too. )

There has to be a balance. But balance does not mean equality in numbers or giving hostile critics the run of the place. This board only came back to life because Mormons were promised protection from aggressive hostile critics. 

I don't disagree. Although I think it's Facebook that killed blogs and so forth. Admittedly there's also a strong sense in which many prominent blogs have become so critical and embraced so many posts at odds with the church that I think they're alienating themselves from the main body.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, SteveO said:

For example, I never see Dan Peterson around here anymore, and I can't help but wonder if he just got tired of it.  It's a shame.

I think he stated it became a waste of time. He still blogs regularly and his blog is well read.

[Calm]

"If so and so, who claims to be an active, believing member of the church, who claims to have held high callings is secretly trying to undermine it, who can I trust?"

I don't think anyone is here secretly trying to undermine the Church.  Those few who actually intend to undermine are pretty obvious in their intent imo.  I believe those who you and I might see as active members who are overly critical, favoring focusing on the negative with little positive to balance probably view themselves as either not having any effect at all or having a beneficial effect by helping to open peoples' eyes to what is wrong in the Church so eventually it will be corrected.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think he stated it became a waste of time. He still blogs regularly and his blog is well read.

He spent all his time here towards the end in defending himself.  Must have gotten boring.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Senator said:

I bleed far to easy to pick fights.

Ok, so what do you suggest? Are you looking for board rule changes? Better enforcement of the existing rules?  What?

Here is the OP. My purpose appears to be asking a question, does it not?

Quote

 

Short of banning those who refuse to engage with intellectual honesty rather than breeze in and out only to accuse, blame, and vilify,  what is the solution? Is anyone fulfilled by answering one loaded sentence after another? 

How can we make this a better experience? 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone is here secretly trying to undermine the Church.  Those few who actually intend to undermine are pretty obvious in their intent imo.  I believe those who you and I might see as active members who are overly critical, favoring focusing on the negative with little positive to balance probably view themselves as either not having any effect at all or having a beneficial effect by helping to open peoples' eyes to what is wrong in the Church so eventually it will be corrected.

I think this is true. One thing to keep in mind is that often people find the internet as an outlet for things they don't feel they get to discuss in day to day settings. Even on facebook. As such it often magnifies one part of them and isn't representative of how they act overall. Also I think many people truly are struggle with faith challenges and often react more vigorously simply because of their internal anxieties. This is true of both sides at times. Certainly not everyone, but I'd imagine even those who've left are sometimes still conflicted on the issue. Sometimes becoming overly critical is a way of working out their own issues.

None of that is to excuse it nor does it alleviate the real consequences of their actions. But understanding people sometimes helps.

I think all of this gets magnified when the majority of topics are more social related rather than more factual questions of history, theology or so forth.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'd agree with this part...but I have to say that some of the discussions here aren't doing that at all, for me. Sometimes I feel like there's chronic Eeyore's running about, where even the most positive or neutral things can come with a surprisingly wet blanket . Where just about everything is a glass half empty. I'm an optimist as a general rule, so it's hard for me to follow that. And likewise certain potshots of criticism can also breakdown meaningful  communication IRL as well. It doesn't necessarily move along dialogue but leads to a partisanship and secluded camps of thought. 

I generally just leave threads alone that feel like they're less based in something concrete and more based on hearsay and sentiment. But I have noticed recently that some of these sorts of threads just become an echo chamber of likeminded people reaffirming their own ideas about this or that vague criticism or feeling or what have you. Sometimes I don't and jump in. Though that's not as common because it takes time to pull at underlying assumptions being taken as fact. After a while I'm not on my toes.  I'm just sitting out, partially paying attention as I shake my head a little, and preferring to garden or paint or hike or actually work on problems and concerns that do have meaning and impact. Sometimes I sit and look at the ward I'm in compared to the church people more critical describe again and again and can't fully correlate the two. Several times it's so different that I wouldnt even know where to bridge and see things that way. Around that time I just sit and shake my head. It feels like peering at the great and spacious and I would just prefer to eat the fruit than focus on every argument about the course to get to the tree and why It may be beneficial to branch out from the tree for ABC. 

That said I do think some of the topics, are still pretty interesting and it's gotten a little better. I think. Even in a good week, I don't post much and read far more than I speak up. That includes some LGBT threads, though I do think that they at times can become too much of a focus and way too polarizing. So I tend to not participate in them even though I've worked with and have tying concerns to the issue. Neither polarized side I agree with and  neither are really willing to listen. Or so it seems to me. 

...

With luv,

BD

I appreciate your comments BD, and I will say that I always read your comments carefully, as you are a thoughtful poster who seems to always have a carefully thought out position. MMDB  would do well to have more posters such as yourself. I believe you that sometimes you sit out of debates, and I respect that. I certainly do as well. Like I indicated I find LGBT issues to be too repetitive, and as you note they are polarized. For me that is so because I see the issue as very black and white. While I realize we are all sinners, that doesn't mean I should condone it. I know gay people, and I believe I treat them like I do everyone else. I recently had a gay man request friendship on Facebook. I don't believe he would do that if he felt I was prejudiced against him. He also knows I am LDS, and knows the Church's stance on homosexuality. I doubt he would ever seek membership of the Church tho, unless he decided to change his lifestyle.

But Christ can do that. He can change our lifestyle. He did mine. I had taken on some poor lifestyle choices. Christ can help us give up sexual choices/habits that have very powerful drives behind them. Just about everything we do in this life can be beautiful or ugly. Sex is one of those things that can become perverted - incest, rape, pedophilia, etc are just a few. The simple act of eating can be wonderful, but can also become a vice and made into something unhealthy. Whether people allow themselves to be governed by God's law regarding these things is a matter of many variables. For me at age 13 I realized the truth of the restored gospel, and I determined I wanted to live it. Although that didn't end my struggles, it did change my course. After falling away, I found myself again reversing my courses. That meant more lifestyle changes. Hopefully, members such as yourself can inspire others to be willing to make those changes in their lives - to submit their lives unto Christ our Savior. You seem to understand what I am saying when I said that critics tend to adopt the most cynical view - the half-empty glass you speak of. If they can at least see the glass half-full, I believe their overall viewpoint can greatly change. Christ offers the opportunity to fill the glass all the way so that they will no longer thirst. We of course cannot do that. We can only point in the right direction. We can represent our Church well. We can befriend the friendless. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

"If so and so, who claims to be an active, believing member of the church, who claims to have held high callings is secretly trying to undermine it, who can I trust?"

I don't think anyone is here secretly trying to undermine the Church.  Those few who actually intend to undermine are pretty obvious in their intent imo.  I believe those who you and I might see as active members who are overly critical, favoring focusing on the negative with little positive to balance probably view themselves as either not having any effect at all or having a beneficial effect by helping to open peoples' eyes to what is wrong in the Church so eventually it will be corrected.

you are much more charitable about peoples motives than I am.  

In my profession the question of motive and  intent comes in to play often.  Often the law will look at the same things differently based on intent.  Two similar businesses or transactions will be treated very differently based one what motivated them or what they intended.  I often have to explain to them the reality that while no one can see in to their mind, they will be judged by the law on the things that they did. Things that they put into writing.  Things they did or didn't do.  From that information they will receive their judgment and what their intent was.  Even they say (and I believe them) that their intent was X, the actions they took showed their intentions were Y.

Actions prove intent more than thoughts prove intent

[Senator]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Here is the OP. My purpose appears to be asking a question, does it not?

 

It does.

I specifically was asking you what your solution would be in response.

 

 

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

It does.

I specifically was asking you what your solution would be in response.

 

 

I'm gathering information, that is why I like message boards. People's comments are a check and balance. Unless it is merely unrelenting criticism. My time is limited right now though so I hope for more of the check and balance stuff and less of the unrelenting criticism and derailments.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Please stop derailing and let us have one thread.

I am just making one comment to a friend...I am not derailing.  Settle down.  I do have voice here

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was responding to Gray, not Juliann. 

Yes, she has asked me to not participate.  All the negative labels (sexual predator, abuser, cynical critic) have given me the impression that she wants me out. 

 

Another good example of the problem and one I am not going to let you get away with. I never gave you a label of a sexual predator. It was a word play off of what you had said about the church. 

This is part of the hostile critic game. Change the meaning, add new words, whatever you have to do to turn it into just one more unrelenting criticism to derail a discussion. You have your own thread. Use it. 

[Senator]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm gathering information, that is why I like message boards. People's comments are a check and balance. Unless it is merely unrelenting criticism. My time is limited right now though so I hope for more of the check and balance stuff and less of the unrelenting criticism and derailments.

Very well

 

Might I suggest "Term Limits". You know, like member of congress should be

Everyone gets 30 days and then you get to take 30 days off.

Let the addiction withdrawls begins!!!!

 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Contributors forum where you had to be invited or ask to post.  I loved that, but it died from lack of use iirc.  Once something was discussed by those most familiar with the topic, they didn't feel the need to repeat them.

Ultimately that's the issue. As you say once a topic has been done, it can get tiring repeating it. But if there's no blood willing to rediscuss the issue what happens?

This is perhaps particularly pertinent in that it's fairly rare for new arguments or new data to pop up in Mormon studies. 

The other issue and perhaps more in keeping with the OP is that there tends to be a tendency among many on both sides to not give a most charitable reading of the person you disagree with. This tends to lead to harsher words and an escalation. There's a fairly easy solution to this which is to not respond to individuals but to write as if you're speaking to a newly joined reader rather than the person you're responding to. But that only avoids the harshness element not the misreading due to a lack of charity. There I think we should all just try and think of the best reading rather than the worst. Or at least acknowledge that things can be read in multiple ways. I of course could do better there myself.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Another good example of the problem and one I am not going to let you get away with. I never gave you a label of a sexual predator. It was a word play off of what you had said about the church. 

 

You threw me for a loop then because I said nothing about the church.  I had at this point criticized the wording of a random power point slide.  I doubt the wording of the slide is supported by the church.

Quote

This is part of the hostile critic game. Change the meaning, add new words, whatever you have to do to turn it into just one more unrelenting criticism to derail a discussion. You have your own thread. Use it. 

Don't pretend you didn't start the nonsense in that thread.

posters and posts are being removed 

[deli_llama]

and this is how I figure it now…