Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[RevTestament]

2 hours 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 see this as a possible solution. I am essentially here because I got booted off a subforum of another Christian board. I personally believe I was having too much impact for them to be comfortable. Some members complained that LDS were overrunning the subforum. They decided LDS were not "unorthodox Christians," so LDS got the boot onto their world religion forum. With that I soon departed, and went back to a prior forum for a little until they pulled some major baloney in order to make certain members high ranking. But I felt the Lord was changing my direction anyway, so I came here, where I have spent much of my time learning. The reason I am saying this is because both of these other boards did what you are suggesting. They had subforums where only Christians were allowed to go, although they defined it a bit differently, and there was some tension there. This board could have a forum for only active LDS - being those who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, the BoM, the D&C, and are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Of course that would be up to them. Members who don't wish to deal with critics may enjoy that subforum more. 

I personally enjoy conversing with people such as yourself. There have been other Christians who come to the board discussing various issues, and i usually find discussing the gospel with them to be enjoyable. Right now 5 Solas and theplains are active. What I don't like right now is that LGBT threads seem to be constantly rehashed - to me it is like constantly beating a dead horse. So generally, I just avoid those threads, but the 12 year old girl thread was a slightly different issue really - of what's appropriate for testimony meeting.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestions. They might be able to be implemented just using the honor system, but it is also possible that new members would just check boxes indicating their religious persuasion, and that would automatically determine to which forums they could get access. However, I'm sure that type of thing has been considered before. Nonetheless, changing times require flexibility. Your suggestions may allow this board to be more things to more people.

[Johnnie Cake]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

It begins with how a topic is phrased. Rather than asking for an explanation of the clash between a foundational belief that a man and a woman must join to become gods/creators, homophobia is put in a cannon and reloaded liberally. Rather than acknowledge a church leader has a responsibility to maintain order under his stewardship, it is framed in the most negative manner possible, he uses the mic to control what all members say. 

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? 

Just wanted to add that pretty much everything in this post is offensive...I don't know who exactly you are referring to in you post but I am unaware of a single poster that would meet the charged stereotypical descriptor language you are using to describe your cynical critic boogeyman

[Ginger Snaps]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

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. 

 

This. I would say this accurately reflects my experience here. But I would take it further and say that even when reasonable alternatives/explanations are offered (in this example, painting the buildings white cuts operating costs drastically), those who came to the thread with the negative accusations refuse to hear or consider anything but the negativity they arrived with. There's a lot to be said for holding and considering someone else's viewpoint for a few minutes, even if you ultimately dismiss it.  There's a huge difference between "That's an idea I hadn't considered, but I'm not convinced those are the reasons behind painting the church white" and "of course that's not the REAL reason--you just can't see beyond the bounds of your own white privilege!!" 

I see the latter happening far too often here. I see people casting aspersions on the motives of others rather than sticking to the topic at hand. I see pedantry and parsing of words. Even when a poster comes back and apologizes or tries to clarify a position, their words are quoted and bolded and parsed in an effort to prove to everyone what their REAL meaning is and the poster is not given space to be an expert on their own thought processes. 

There's also some intellectual dishonesty that happens.  Case in point: someone comes into a thread on LGBT issues and says something like, "Well what do you expect from a church who won't baptize the children of gay parents?"  Well, we all know that's not an accurate representation of the facts.  But one poster drops the bait and others pick it right up and start issuing CFRs and quoting the handbook and blah blah blah and the thread devolves. If you're  (general "you") going to make a critical statement, at least come at it from an honest place.  Omitting details and information is dishonest and disruptive.  Don't come in here and do that and then get all butt-hurt when your motives are questioned. 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Ginger Snaps

[Meerkat]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This board could have a forum for only active LDS - being those who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, the BoM, the D&C, and are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Of course that would be up to them. Members who don't wish to deal with critics may enjoy that subforum more. 

I don't take this from Juliann's comments at all.  It is about the tone of any discussion.  I'm surprised this point is so hard to understand.  Maybe we could learn to discuss difficult topics with our esteemed colleagues here with the respect that we all deserve.  How hard could that be?  And wouldn't it be more enjoyable for everyone, regardless of the topic?

Edited June 19, 2017 by Meerkat

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. I have been on this board since 2004, and I was on ZLMB before that.  I remember ZLMB's decline and fall.  It was a sad thing.

2. In my view, this board has become significantly less interesting over the past while.  Here are perhaps some of the contributing factors:

Repetition: Having spent nearly 20 years participating in online adversarial discussions about the LDS Church and its doctrines, practices, leaders, members, culture, etc., I think I've reached a point where many (most?   nearly all?) of the threads here are duplicative of substantive discussions we've had before.  Re-hashing the same topics over and over and over becomes tiresome and boring and not worthwhile.

Marshaled Evidence/Explanations: We now have extensive, readily-accessible resources which provide rich and substantive information about the LDS Church and its history, doctrines, etc.  LDS.org.  FAIRMormon (particularly its "Answers" and "Wiki" sections, and its YouTube channel).  BYU's publications (such as the content on the Maxwell Institute website, the online Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and so on).  Individual LDS websites (Jeff Lindsay's and Dan Peterson's are some of my favorites).  The Interpreter Foundation's website.  And many, many, other online and printed resources (see here for a partial listing).  These resources provide a much better structured, and more coherent and comprehensive, presentation of LDS doctrine and belief then the disjointed, piecemeal, stream-of-consciousness, let's-throw-this-topic-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks approach to the LDS Church which arises naturally from user-selected topics on an LDS-themed message board.  Compared to these other sources of information, participating on a discussion board - particularly one that is apparently in the same downward spiral as we saw with ZLMB - becomes less worthwhile.  That is not to say that we should ignore or gloss over reasoned criticisms of our faith.  My point is that sources like FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and Dan Peterson and many others have done quite a good job of presenting criticisms of the LDS Church and then martialing evidence and explanations in response thereto.  Those resources are, at this point, simply more attractive than this board.

Asked and Answered: Back in 1997, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen said this:

Quote

Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

I think this was true in 1997, and far more so now, 20 years later.  And yet Latter-day Saints still endlessly respond to the these "usual evangelical criticisms" (and secular ones as well).  This gets boring.  Exasperating.  Not worthwhile.  

Critics Getting Nasty/Personal/Profane: I feel there is a marked deterioration on this board in the quality of critical arguments against the LDS Church.  There are some attempts to present dispassionate, reasoned criticisms of the LDS Church and its doctrines and practices and such, and I appreciate those.  But these have become more of the exception than the rule.  These days, the criticisms seem to be predominantly mean-spirited, calculated to offend/enflame, profane, taunting, sarcastic, and so on.  This becomes all the more problematic when we consider that this board was created for Mormons (mostly).  And yet when critics are invited to participate, many of their remarks have become markedly, demonstrably, intentionally offensive and derogatory about many topics which Mormons hold near and dear to their hearts.  Topics which are sacred to the Mormons.  Topics which are treated with casual contempt and ridicule by many of the guests of this board.  If I were participating in an online forum where other participants routinely and openly insulted and denigrated my wife, I would not stay there.  I would leave not because their insults and denigrating remarks are valid, but because I see no value in attempting to interact with persons who could be so incredibly boorish and crass and vulgar as to say such things to my face about a person so important to me.

Entitled Critics (Who Are Members): I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming here and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 19, 2017 by smac97

[RevTestament]

3 hours 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.

As I have indicated I don't mind multiple critical threads, and I feel it is incumbent on members to make this board some place they want to be. If they find it uninteresting, they should start threads on topics they would like to see. I enjoy speaking with non-LDS Christians so long as they are respectful. My one comment is that too many critical threads on one topic such as LGBT becomes "uninteresting." It is the same thing over and over. But as I see it it is partially members fault for not starting threads on interesting stuff rather than waiting for critics to start threads on what they want to change in the Church etc. Maybe I should put myself in that category, since I would like to see the Church make some changes - Church art was a recent topic which came up. I generally didn't realize anyone else felt the way I did, but you proved me wrong... it was like you read my mind on the topic, but I live in happy valley... so yeah. I partially agreed with Calm who brought up the subject. Anyway, I thought that was a worthwhile topic, and there are other areas I think it would be worthwhile for the Church to consider. You are in the forefront of these Church issues - at least you write about them - and I am certainly glad you have decided to contribute to the board as of late.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/19/2017 at 1:12 PM, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. I have been on this board since 2004, and I was on ZLMB before that.  I remember ZLMB's decline and fall.  It was a sad thing.

2. In my view, this board has become significantly less interesting over the past while.  Here are perhaps some of the contributing factors:

Repetition: Having spent nearly 20 years participating in online adversarial discussions about the LDS Church and its doctrines, practices, leaders, members, culture, etc., I think I've reached a point where many (most?   nearly all?) of the threads here are duplicative of substantive discussions we've had before.  Re-hashing the same topics over and over and over becomes tiresome and boring and not worthwhile.

Marshaled Evidence/Explanations: We now have extensive, readily-accessible resources which provide rich and substantive information about the LDS Church and its history, doctrines, etc.  LDS.org.  FAIRMormon (particularly its "Answers" and "Wiki" sections, and its YouTube channel).  BYU's publications (such as the content on the Maxwell Institute website, the online Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and so on).  Individual LDS websites (Jeff Lindsay's and Dan Peterson's are some of my favorites).  The Interpreter Foundation's website.  And many, many, other online and printed resources (see here for a partial listing).  These resources provide a much better structured, and more coherent and comprehensive, presentation of LDS doctrine and belief then the disjointed, piecemeal, stream-of-consciousness, let's-throw-this-topic-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks approach to the LDS Church which arises naturally from user-selected topics on an LDS-themed message board.  Compared to these other sources of information, participating on a discussion board - particularly one that is apparently in the same downward spiral as we saw with ZLMB - becomes less worthwhile.  That is not to say that we should ignore or gloss over reasoned criticisms of our faith.  My point is that sources like FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and Dan Peterson and many others have done quite a good job of presenting criticisms of the LDS Church and then martialing evidence and explanations in response thereto.  Those resources are, at this point, simply more attractive than this board.

Asked and Answered: Back in 1997, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen said this:

I think this was true in 1997, and far more so now, 20 years later.  And yet Latter-day Saints still endlessly respond to the these "usual evangelical criticisms" (and secular ones as well).  This gets boring.  Exasperating.  Not worthwhile.  

Critics Getting Nasty/Personal/Profane: I feel there is a marked deterioration on this board in the quality of critical arguments against the LDS Church.  There are some attempts to present dispassionate, reasoned criticisms of the LDS Church and its doctrines and practices and such, and I appreciate those.  But these have become more of the exception than the rule.  These days, the criticisms seem to be predominantly mean-spirited, calculated to offend/enflame, profane, taunting, sarcastic, and so on.  This becomes all the more problematic when we consider that this board was created for Mormons (mostly).  And yet when critics are invited to participate, many of their remarks have becoming markedly, demonstrably, intentionally offensive and derogatory about many topics which Mormons hold near and dear to their hearts.  Topics which are sacred to the Mormons.  Topics which are treated with casual contempt and ridicule by many of the guests of this board.  If I were participating in an online forum where other participants routinely and openly insulted and denigrated my wife, I would not stay there.  I would leave not because their insults and denigrating remarks are valid, but because I see no value in attempting to interact with persons who could be so incredibly boorish and crass and vulgar as to say such things to my face about a person so important to me.

Entitled Critics (Who Are Members): I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming hear and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is the best analysis I have yet seen on this question.

Add to this the occasional departures into periphery such as U.S. partisan politics, divisive political and social ideologies such as feminism and gay and lesbian rights being superimposed on Mormonism,  and, well, it's easy to see why the board is less interesting than it once was.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

I just want to say, for the record, that there aren't any posters here that I would want to leave.  From my perspective, this is not an issue of wanting less critics (I feel like i need to explicitly say that because the accusation keeps coming up no matter how often it's denied).  I'm here because I enjoy critical debate and discussion.  

I'm hoping for criticism that is less emotional in nature I guess.  Those are the posts that seem to bring out the worst in people and where the personal insults seem to fly.  There are no perfect posters and we all get exasperated and get on our high horse sometimes, that's a given.    

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I don't take this from Juliann's comments at all.  It is about the tone of any discussion.  I'm surprised this point is so hard to understand.  Maybe we could learn to discuss difficult topics with our esteemed colleagues here with the respect that we all deserve.  How hard could that be?  And wouldn't it be more enjoyable for everyone, regardless of the topic?

It's not that I don't understand the point, but having a subforum for non-debate just avoids the problem altogether. It is a potential solution. You are somehow expecting critics to drop the cynicism, etc. That is like expecting the speech police to take over - moderators can't stop critics from being cynical and petty. Yes, they can stop ad hominem attacks and outright nastiness, but the cynical stuff is going to continue I believe. It is just the nature of the beast. I have seen it on too many other boards. How they seem to deal with it is to create subforums. Like TOL has a religion forum and then a Christian-only forum. Those posting in their Christian-only forum are required to espouse the truthfulness of the Bible. The two forums just have a different tone. One does not see atheists in the Christian forum criticizing the Bible or Christianity. That is what some Christians want. I believe some LDS don't want to come to this board to debate their faith per se. They want to debate issues within their faith(Mesoamerican vs heartland model, etc), and explore the latest scholarship, archaeology, etc. That is actually my primary goal right now. 
However, I view every critic as a child of God. I believe they were saved from their fall in a prior world. I know that is definitely not the typical LDS view(maybe its mine solely), but I believe they are all potential converts. I believe they will be now or later. Part of my job is to help find the wheat, and separate them form the tares. I view that as a major purpose for this board, although it expressly is not to proselytize. 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is the best analysis I have yet see on this question.

Add to this the occasional departures into periphery such as U.S. partisan politics, divisive political and social ideologies such as feminism and gay and lesbian rights being superimposed on Mormonism,  and, well, it's easy to see why the board is less interesting than it once was.

I thought about addressing that.  But these topics interact with Mormonism to some extent, so I think some discussion of their effect on the LDS Church and its members is appropriate.  

On the other hand, if by "superimposed on Mormonism" you mean that this board has been awash in criticisms which are predicated on the LDS Church being beholden to "U.S. partisan politics, divisive political and social ideologies," then I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. I have been on this board since 2004, and I was on ZLMB before that.  I remember ZLMB's decline and fall.  It was a sad thing.

2. In my view, this board has become significantly less interesting over the past while.  Here are perhaps some of the contributing factors:

Repetition: Having spent nearly 20 years participating in online adversarial discussions about the LDS Church and its doctrines, practices, leaders, members, culture, etc., I think I've reached a point where many (most?   nearly all?) of the threads here are duplicative of substantive discussions we've had before.  Re-hashing the same topics over and over and over becomes tiresome and boring and not worthwhile.

Marshaled Evidence/Explanations: We now have extensive, readily-accessible resources which provide rich and substantive information about the LDS Church and its history, doctrines, etc.  LDS.org.  FAIRMormon (particularly its "Answers" and "Wiki" sections, and its YouTube channel).  BYU's publications (such as the content on the Maxwell Institute website, the online Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and so on).  Individual LDS websites (Jeff Lindsay's and Dan Peterson's are some of my favorites).  The Interpreter Foundation's website.  And many, many, other online and printed resources (see here for a partial listing).  These resources provide a much better structured, and more coherent and comprehensive, presentation of LDS doctrine and belief then the disjointed, piecemeal, stream-of-consciousness, let's-throw-this-topic-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks approach to the LDS Church which arises naturally from user-selected topics on an LDS-themed message board.  Compared to these other sources of information, participating on a discussion board - particularly one that is apparently in the same downward spiral as we saw with ZLMB - becomes less worthwhile.  That is not to say that we should ignore or gloss over reasoned criticisms of our faith.  My point is that sources like FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and Dan Peterson and many others have done quite a good job of presenting criticisms of the LDS Church and then martialing evidence and explanations in response thereto.  Those resources are, at this point, simply more attractive than this board.

First let me say that I appreciate your input into the forum. You are an informative and intelligent poster. However, you seem to be missing at least one of the major reasons forums such as this one exist. One doesn't go to Fair to discuss the issues. Critics don't go there to post. On the other hand, if all one wants to do is look up information about some point of LDS history, this is not the place they are generally going to come unless they want to get the input of others on it.

Repetition comes with the nature of a debate board. People might come to discuss those things they have "heard" about the LDS. Well, as a longstanding LDS I've heard just about all the criticisms already, so yeah, it is going to be repetitious. Nothing new under the sun here, except it is a new investigator - a new soul searching out truth. In the long run, that is the only reason I spend my time on this board at all. I was there. I also had to wade through the doubts and the criticisms. Hopefully, like I find your posts to be of value, others do too.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It's not that I don't understand the point, but having a subforum for non-debate just avoids the problem altogether. It is a potential solution. You are somehow expecting critics to drop the cynicism, etc. That is like expecting the speech police to take over - moderators can't stop critics from being cynical and petty. Yes, they can stop ad hominem attacks and outright nastiness, but the cynical stuff is going to continue I believe. It is just the nature of the beast. I have seen it on too many other boards. How they seem to deal with it is to create subforums. Like TOL has a religion forum and then a Christian-only forum. Those posting in their Christian-only forum are required to espouse the truthfulness of the Bible. The two forums just have a different tone. One does not see atheists in the Christian forum criticizing the Bible or Christianity. That is what some Christians want. I believe some LDS don't want to come to this board to debate their faith per se. They want to debate issues within their faith(Mesoamerican vs heartland model, etc), and explore the latest scholarship, archaeology, etc. That is actually my primary goal right now. 
However, I view every critic as a child of God. I believe they were saved from their fall in a prior world. I know that is definitely not the typical LDS view(maybe its mine solely), but I believe they are all potential converts. I believe they will be now or later. Part of my job is to help find the wheat, and separate them form the tares. I view that as a major purpose for this board, although it expressly is not to proselytize. 

I don't see the purpose as saving the critics from their own unbelief. This is not an effective means for doing that. For the most part they are too entrenched in their own mindset. They might be helped through one-on-one pastoral nurturing, but that can scarcely happen between anonymous strangers on an internet message board.

I have always seen it as a means of responding to falsehoods and sophistries that are leveled against the faith. The primary beneficiaries are thus not the discussion participants but those unseen lurkers who might otherwise be deceived.

To invoke the words of Austin Farrer, this board is a means of retaining a climate in which belief may flourish. Farrer said:

Quote

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." (Austin Farrer, Light on C. S. Lewis, Jocelyn Gibb, ed. [New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966], p. 26.)

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Juliann, I have appreciated this thread because I relate to it.  In many ways I find this Board, for me personally, has become quite toxic. From thread titles to comments ad nauseum that are nit-picky, whining, and consistently, lop-sidedly pessimistic about all things that have to do with the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The three issues that I must stay away from are the gay topics (all of them), women's issues, and anything to do with what is called "racism".  The mods do not appreciate spirited rebuttal and challenges and they are issue so laden with emotional responses that in an on-line millieu very difficult to process without taking offense or being misunderstood.

The history topics have become passe in so many ways - it is more that I personally am not interested that the same participants still have the same overwhelming narrative that never stops.  There is no learning, no progress, just echo chambers for the same whines.

Now, I must admit that even in this fallen state, this is vastly superior to other sites that are run by other churches.  The Catholic website cannot touch this site as far as allowing vigorous debate and criticism.  The problem is that it goes too far to accommodate the negativity.  We have a few sacred topics that are kept off limits, but after than you can pretty much drag Joseph Smith, the restoration, and the Church merrily through the mud and no mod will step in.  

I appreciate and I enjoy honest critical thinking.  It stimulates thought, it broadens mutual understanding, and it firms foundations or leads to newer insights to eternal truths.  

I enjoy goring sacred cows and current culture in the US has created a host of new sacred cows. The problem is that there is a new societal sense of what is and what is not acceptable. This sense pervades this site and I find it unfortunate.  We need people to question and we need to appreciate the honest questions asked.  We need far more of these than what we currently have.  Until that time I am more like the addict that is drawn back, but almost always I am left with a sour taste in my mouth and the distinct impression that this is not a place representative of my people, my culture, or the world in which I live.  Life ebbs and flows and is never static; this may just be one of the ebbs and eventually it will turn back or it will go away.  What I am sure of is that the Master will still answer to all those that knock and forgive the numberless shortcomings and sins of each one of us. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought about addressing that.  But these topics interact with Mormonism to some extent, so I think some discussion of their effect on the LDS Church and its members is appropriate.  

On the other hand, if by "superimposed on Mormonism" you mean that this board has been awash in criticisms which are predicated on the LDS Church being beholden to "U.S. partisan politics, divisive political and social ideologies," then I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, that's pretty much what I mean.

I just started a thread on threats to religious freedom in the mental health profession, a topic which, as you say, does interact with Mormonism to some extent, and obviously I wouldn't have begun the thread if I didn't believe discussion of the topic here was appropriate.

[churchistrue]

Are cynics driving away the Mo's? Probably. But I don't have a good solution for you.

My perception:

Circa 2010, when this board was at its height, LDS Apologists had the upper hand. Knowledgeable people online wanting to talk about these topics were pretty even in numbers and on the LDS side there was more experience and organization.  Now, it's the exact opposite. Knowledgeable people online wanting to talk about LDS Apologetics issues are vastly weighted to the critical side. A lot of the good LDS posters have retreated from the common discussion forums due to this, making it worse.

I would like to see this place endure as a place that's weighted to the faithful side of things and where LDS apologists feel comfortable congregating. I don't have any great suggestions for you. It sucks to have to moderate things heavily, I'm sure. And if you just start banning all the critics, the place will become an echo chamber and uninteresting and will die that way. 

Good luck. You have my sympathies.

 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see the purpose as saving the critics from their own unbelief. This is not an effective means for doing that. For the most part they are too entrenched in their own mindset. They might be helped through one-on-one pastoral nurturing, but that can scarcely happen between anonymous strangers on an internet message board.

I have always seen it as a means of responding to falsehoods and sophistries that are leveled against the faith. The primary beneficiaries are those unseen lurkers who might otherwise be deceived.

This is probably true for the most part, but doesn't present a reason for not creating a subforum for LDS only, or non-debate discussion.

However, i would like you to consider the case of David Wood, an atheist turned Christian. While he is not LDS, he is an example of critics finding Christ who spends a great deal of his time witnessing to Muslims, and was a major reason Nabeel Qureshi converted to Christianity from Islam. While I can't think of any Church critics who have converted to the Church, in the past I am sure there are some, but as you say many are just beneficiaries of the debate between faithful LDS and critics.

[Physics Guy]

Quote

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.

These statements by President J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency in the 1940's and '50's, have seemed to me to be some of the most impressive Mormon principles. My own take, I'm afraid, is that some important parts of Mormon teaching are not the truth. But this particular principle, it seems to me, is itself one of the things about which Mormons are right.

Some parts of Mormonism are motherhood principles to which no-one can object, but Mormonism as a whole is a demanding faith. It makes strong claims and it asks a lot. Its heavy demands might be amply justified if its teachings were all true, but I feel that I am praising Mormons when I say that they would be the first to admit that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, then he would have to answer for a lot.

So, I can understand that committed Mormons may really want a place to discuss Mormon issues without having to read attacks by critics and skeptics. Toleration of criticism, however, is an aspect of Mormonism more striking to outsiders than any number of choirs and temples. Toleration of criticism implies confidence, but it also implies something even more impressive than confidence: a commitment to truth, whatever it may turn out to be, that is even deeper than confidence in having the truth.

What I expect to see, if I am spared for the next few decades, is not a collapse of Mormonism, but some kind of Mormon reformation into a synthesis that will remain very Mormon. And it probably still won't make sense to me. But no-one should care about that.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

These statements by President J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency in the 1940's and '50's, have seemed to me to be some of the most impressive Mormon principles. My own take, I'm afraid, is that some important parts of Mormon teaching are not the truth. But this particular principle, it seems to me, is itself one of the things about which Mormons are right.

Some parts of Mormonism are motherhood principles to which no-one can object, but Mormonism as a whole is a demanding faith. It makes strong claims and it asks a lot. Its heavy demands might be amply justified if its teachings were all true, but I feel that I am praising Mormons when I say that they would be the first to admit that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, then he would have to answer for a lot.

So, I can understand that committed Mormons may really want a place to discuss Mormon issues without having to read attacks by critics and skeptics. Toleration of criticism, however, is an aspect of Mormonism more striking to outsiders than any number of choirs and temples. Toleration of criticism implies confidence, but it also implies something even more impressive than confidence: a commitment to truth, whatever it may turn out to be, that is even deeper than confidence in having the truth.

What I expect to see, if I am spared for the next few decades, is not a collapse of Mormonism, but some kind of Mormon reformation into a synthesis that will remain very Mormon. And it probably still won't make sense to me. But no-one should care about that.

If what you mean by "synthesis" is that you want Mormonism to become more Protestant-like or perhaps more secularized, I can tell you right now, it ain't gonna happen. People have been calling for that for a long time now, and it has been in vain.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It's not that I don't understand the point, but having a subforum for non-debate just avoids the problem altogether. It is a potential solution. You are somehow expecting critics to drop the cynicism, etc. That is like expecting the speech police to take over - moderators can't stop critics from being cynical and petty. Yes, they can stop ad hominem attacks and outright nastiness, but the cynical stuff is going to continue I believe. It is just the nature of the beast. I have seen it on too many other boards. How they seem to deal with it is to create subforums. Like TOL has a religion forum and then a Christian-only forum. Those posting in their Christian-only forum are required to espouse the truthfulness of the Bible. The two forums just have a different tone. One does not see atheists in the Christian forum criticizing the Bible or Christianity. That is what some Christians want. I believe some LDS don't want to come to this board to debate their faith per se. They want to debate issues within their faith(Mesoamerican vs heartland model, etc), and explore the latest scholarship, archaeology, etc. That is actually my primary goal right now. 
However, I view every critic as a child of God. I believe they were saved from their fall in a prior world. I know that is definitely not the typical LDS view(maybe its mine solely), but I believe they are all potential converts. I believe they will be now or later. Part of my job is to help find the wheat, and separate them form the tares. I view that as a major purpose for this board, although it expressly is not to proselytize. 

You know Rev, you have a point there.  I look at my own comments that you quoted here, "I don't take this from Juliann's comments at all.  It is about the tone of any discussion.  I'm surprised this point is so hard to understand.  Maybe we could learn to discuss difficult topics with our esteemed colleagues here with the respect that we all deserve.  How hard could that be?  And wouldn't it be more enjoyable for everyone, regardless of the topic?"  I did not intend to come across as snarky or sarcastic at all.  But being away from the forum for an hour, and seeing my comment at the top of your post, I can see how it could come across.  It may be, as you say, the nature of the beast.  Maybe we can try harder to be careful in our own communications, and at the same time look with grace upon the apparently (but not necessarily) snarky comments of others.  And, for those of us who need a day of peace and rest once in awhile, maybe a separate forum with a different tone, as you suggest.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Meerkat

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

These statements by President J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency in the 1940's and '50's, have seemed to me to be some of the most impressive Mormon principles. My own take, I'm afraid, is that some important parts of Mormon teaching are not the truth. But this particular principle, it seems to me, is itself one of the things about which Mormons are right.

Some parts of Mormonism are motherhood principles to which no-one can object, but Mormonism as a whole is a demanding faith. It makes strong claims and it asks a lot. Its heavy demands might be amply justified if its teachings were all true, but I feel that I am praising Mormons when I say that they would be the first to admit that if Joseph Smith were a fraud, then he would have to answer for a lot.

So, I can understand that committed Mormons may really want a place to discuss Mormon issues without having to read attacks by critics and skeptics. Toleration of criticism, however, is an aspect of Mormonism more striking to outsiders than any number of choirs and temples. Toleration of criticism implies confidence, but it also implies something even more impressive than confidence: a commitment to truth, whatever it may turn out to be, that is even deeper than confidence in having the truth.

Well gosh, I wanted to rep this, but you need to make 2 more posts.  

What the thread is about is not really so much that the board allows criticism but the tone of the criticism that many posters are tired of.

Quote

What I expect to see, if I am spared for the next few decades, is not a collapse of Mormonism, but some kind of Mormon reformation into a synthesis that will remain very Mormon. And it probably still won't make sense to me. But no-one should care about that.

You won't have to wait that long - a reformation and new scriptures. I am impressed with you that you stick around. Maybe you should start a thread on what does not make sense to you.

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

You know Rev, you have a point there.  I look at my own comments that you quoted here, "I don't take this from Juliann's comments at all.  It is about the tone of any discussion.  I'm surprised this point is so hard to understand.  Maybe we could learn to discuss difficult topics with our esteemed colleagues here with the respect that we all deserve.  How hard could that be?  And wouldn't it be more enjoyable for everyone, regardless of the topic?"  I did not intend to come across as snarky at all, but being away from the forum for an hour, and seeing my comment at the top of your post, I can see how it could come across.  It may be, as you say, the nature of the beast.  Maybe we can try harder to be careful in our own communications, and at the same time look with grace upon the apparently (but not necessarily) snarky comments of others.  And, for those of us who need a day of peace and rest once in awhile, maybe a separate forum with a different tone, as you suggest.

No worries there Meerkat - I didn't think you were being snarky. I thought perhaps you just didn't understand my point. I agree that the tone of the critics could be better, but I just feel to expect that to happen is expecting a lot - perhaps too much. Nevertheless on the whole I believe the tone of the debate in this forum is generally good. I have certainly seen much worse on other forums, and it was allowed probably because certain members were paying members, etc. Indeed I made somewhat of a friend in another forum who left because he could not stand the nastiness of some of the supposedly Christian posters. I told him try being LDS!

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

Actions are just more demonstrable. How do you prove what someone is thinking? Here actions speak louder than words, but may be misconstrued. One's true intent is really only known by them and God. Even confessions sometimes have ulterior motives/intent.

But for our purposes here, I think constant and repetitive actions certainly do speak loudly.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

So, I can understand that committed Mormons may really want a place to discuss Mormon issues without having to read attacks by critics and skeptics. Toleration of criticism, however, is an aspect of Mormonism more striking to outsiders than any number of choirs and temples. Toleration of criticism implies confidence, but it also implies something even more impressive than confidence: a commitment to truth, whatever it may turn out to be, that is even deeper than confidence in having the truth.

My sense, although I can't speak for everyone, is that they are fine with critics and criticism but that a certain approach to criticism is wearying. At least that's how I take what Juliann and a few others are saying. I think it's more a certain kind of civility and charity that they want. Although I'd obviously add that it has to be a two way street.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Entitled Critics (Who Are Members): I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming here and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

I have some questions about this perspective, because it sounds to me like you are essentially calling the kind of Mormonism that I practice "approaching apostasy".  I would like to better understand why my current relationship with Mormonism is something you might be less patient dealing with than even a non-member critic of the church.  Personally I feel like I add value to conversations on this message board when I choose to participate, and I try to be respectful and empathetic of the perspectives of others even when I have strong disagreements with them.   

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Actions are just more demonstrable. How do you prove what someone is thinking? Here actions speak louder than words, but may be misconstrued. One's true intent is really only known by them and God. Even confessions sometimes have ulterior motives/intent.

But for our purposes here, I think constant and repetitive actions certainly do speak loudly.

I agree we can't know what is in someones mind, nevertheless I am constantly asked to prove peoples intentions to the government. You do it by showing their actions.  usually their testimony to their own intentions are is considered self serving and unreliable. The actions are what we use to give evidence of intent.

 

I am constantly having the following conversation with my clients.  

They say "I always intended  it to be . . . "

I have to say "It really doesn't matter what you thought, if you didn't do . . . t nobody will believe that is what you really wanted."