Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[Guest]

On June 18, 2017 at 3:39 PM, juliann said:

This is a thread for those who generally defend Mormonism. 

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? 

For those who are here to make a defense of our Faith, we must ever endeavor to do so with as much love and longsuffering as possible. But I fear that those who have an eternal axe to grind, will still attempt to keep the grinding wheel turning. Our Father in Heaven (the very term that offends many here and elsewhere) does not judge us based on the outcome of the war, or in this context the discussion, but in relation to our actions in the battle for truth. It has become clear that many posters have come to this website, to do what they cannot do in our meeting houses. Hoping that here (to borrow from a recent thread) that the "mic will not be turned off", or that we lack the will to do so. The free exchange of ideas, should not mean that we must endure endless criticism of our "faith" (our personal beliefs) and our "Faith" (our institutional beliefs), since we hold them both sacred. The way for the experience to be better is for all parties to be respectful of a forum that deals with matters of Faith, but that would assume all posters present and future are willing to act in good faith. Sadly, in just a small number of post in any given thread things can go wrong very quickly, thus exposing all to degrading comments. 

[juliann]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.  

I've got a few spare moments, so....

I disagree. Cart before the horse. When posters are under continual assault they cannot possibly be expected to make much of anything. It is merely putting out one fire after another. Posters are making new threads everyday and they are overrun with unrelenting criticism, negativity, and mockery.  So it is about carrying water buckets not building anything. 

[juliann]

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.

 

I appreciate your gentle disagreement. But don't fall prey to a hostile critic's logic that we don't want skeptics or critics. We don't want hostile and mean spirited skeptics and critics who refuse to take us at our words or even let us have our words before they make sly changes to what was said or meant. It becomes An Offender For a Word game show and the topic dies and the accusations begin. And this is not an occasional thing.

[juliann]

There have been some good suggestions and a clear list of common concerns.  My intent is to go back through the posts and pull them out. But I have a deadline for some other stuff today.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.    

I feel the same way.  

[juliann]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

   There are no perfect posters and we all get exasperated and get on our high horse sometimes, that's a given.    

That is the difference between the hostile critic and the defender from what I have experienced, for the most part. The hostile critics agrees with one correction, subsitute "we" with YOU. All we are seeing is a demand to continue as is and insults lobbed at individuals who suggest hostile critics might want to do a bit of self-examination. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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 can't speak to your "kind of Mormonism."  I don't know you or what you believe. 

Quote

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.

Again, I don't know what your "current relationship with Mormonism is."

My beef with critics-who-are-also-members is rather simple: They are in a covenant relationship with God, and hence - to some extent - with His Church (His symbolic "bride").  I find it profoundly contemptible for a person to enter into the waters of baptism, to take upon himself sacred covenants and obligations, and then - usually some time later - to exploit that membership in God's Church.  To use it as a form of entitlement to heap abuse and scorn upon the Church.

I view critics-who-are-also-members as being somewhat in the same vein as husbands who publicly speak ill of or otherwise humiliate or mistreat their wives or children (to be sure, some wives do this to their husbands/children).  It is rank betrayal to do such things.  I have previously explained my perspective on this issue here:

Quote

I have been married for 18 years to a wonderful woman. She is kind, intelligent, warm, beautiful, gentle, spiritual, strong, creative and an all-around good and decent person. But on occasion she makes mistakes (as do I, but we're talking about her for the moment). When such events arise, we speak privately, one with another, and give and seek counsel, and we generally work things out. We have also on occasion received counsel from her parents and mine about how to strengthen our marital relationship.

With that said, what I would not under any circumstances is try to compel changes in my wife's behavior or choices by publicly "airing the family's dirty laundry." I think that if I were to go online and publicly castigate and find fault with my wife, if I were to itemize her faults and shortcomings in online blog rants, if I were to publish to the world demands as to how she should alter her behavior to suit my preferences and expectations, then I think very few people who find such tactics appropriate. Indeed, I think my wife would be justifiably upset at my betrayal of confidences, at my deliberate attempt to humiliate her, at my attempt to use public opinion as a coercive instrument to bend her to my will. I also think her parents and siblings (and, for that matter, my parents and siblings) would likewise be upset with me along these same lines.

And you know what? These folks would be right and I would be wrong. This is not to say that my wife is without blemish or fault. Surely she has areas of her life and her ways of doing things that could improve. But the tactics described above are mendacious, coercive, manipulative, divisive, unrighteous, unkind and - perhaps most pertinent of all - ineffective. Such tactics would not affect positive change. They would only humiliate and anger and alienate my wife and make me a Grade-A Jerkface.

By analogy, critics-who-are-also-members (the ones I have in mind) are behaving this way on this board toward the LDS Church.  That behavior is mendacious, coercive, manipulative, divisive, unrighteous, and unkind.

Consider the beautiful words of Mosiah 18:

Quote

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

11 And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.

This is what Latter-day Saints are supposed to use their membership in the community of faith to do.  To "mourn with those that mourn," to "comfort those that stand in need of comfort," to "stand a witnesses of God . . . even until death."

Instead, critics-who-are-also-members (the ones I have in mind, that is) use their membership in the Church to "air the family's dirty laundry."  To denigrate and humiliate the Church and its leaders and members.  To publicly scorn sacred beliefs and practices.  To tear down instead of build up.  To foment discord instead of unity.  Faithlessness instead of faith.

And no, I don't buy the "I'm just trying to help the Church improve" or "I'm the loyal opposition" lines of crapola.  A husband who publicly berates and humiliates his wife, who publicizes her errors and flaws before the world, is being a bully and a jerk.  He's not trying to help her "improve" her, he's just abusing her.

I believe the LDS Church is what it claims to be.  I will therefore treat it much the way I try treat my wife, who is  is a magnificent, albeit flawed, person. She deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not undermine her or my relationship with her by publicizing the particulars of her occasional missteps to strangers (or, worse, to those who might seek to exploit such information to tear her down).  Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

So there you are.  I think the Lord expects the members of His Church to build it up, not tear it down.  To demonstrate loyalty and devotion, not abusive contempt and ark-steadying and armchair quarterbacking.

Quote

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.   

Same here.  That is a fine perspective to have.  But I'm not sure what it has to do with my remarks about critics-who-are-also-members. the characteristics of whom I have described a bit in previous posts and this one.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 20, 2017 by smac97

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.   

I think anyone who is civil and respectful adds value. FWIW, board rules do not allow individuals to be questioned about their level of belief or worthiness. I have disagreements with several LDS posters. I tend to be on the liberal side of Mormonism and am anxiously awaiting some changes, I just draw the line at nonstop carping about it. I support a lot of what feminism is trying to do but I can't handle a particular Mormon feminist site because it has turned into one extended complaint that involves  vicious ridicule of what "TBMs" do or say. There does come a point where if we are to claim we support the advancement of women, we have to support women of all stripes rather than an ideology. I struggle with that but I'm trying to be more tolerant of other women's views. Unless they are nonstop carping at Mormons or chastising "sinners."

[smac97]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

True enough.  But I think that, for most people, discussion is not an end unto itself.  It is an means of gaining knowledge and understanding.  Information about the Church, particularly information about thorny/difficult issues that may create confusion or concern for a person of faith, was previously more difficult to access and sort through.  Now, however, members of the Church have all sorts of readily-available resources which contain substantive information and scholarship about those thorny/difficult issues.  If that is the case, and if a sufficient number of this board's critics are becoming increasingly loudmouthed and contemptuous of and hostile towards the sacred beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, why would those Latter-day Saints feel inclined to put with such such yuckiness when they can instead get useful information from pleasant, "save" sources?

Don't get me wrong, though.  I think there is a place for adversarial critiques of our faith.  FAIR has an excellent article on this topic: The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship.  This thread, however, is not about reasoned, substantive critique, but is rather about . . . well, what this board is becoming.

Life is short.  Free time is finite.  Boorish behavior gets old.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

True enough.  But I think that, for most people, discussion is not an end unto itself.  It is an means of gaining knowledge and understanding.  Information about the Church, particularly information about thorny/difficult issues that may create confusion or concern for a person of faith, was previously more difficult to access and sort through.  Now, however, members of the Church have all sorts of readily-available resources which contain substantive information and scholarship about those thorny/difficult issues.  If that is the case, and if a sufficient number of this board's critics are becoming increasingly loudmouthed and contemptuous of and hostile towards the sacred beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, why would those Latter-day Saints feel inclined to put with such such yuckiness when they can instead get useful information from pleasant, "save" sources?

Don't get me wrong, though.  I think there is a place for adversarial critiques of our faith.  FAIR has an excellent article on this topic: The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship.  This thread, however, is not about reasoned, substantive critique, but is rather about . . . well, what this board is becoming.

Life is short.  Free time is finite.  Boorish behavior gets old.  

Thanks,

-Smac

True enough. I think it can be relatively easy to fall into a critical mode of thinking. It is easy to criticize. Hindsight is always 20/20. I think everyone struggles with that somewhat. I am probably worse about it than others on this board. I wish I had one of those cheery, always positive outlooks, but I guess I let my knowledge of things get in the way.

What kind of things would you like to see when you come to this board?

Would it be helpful if there was a non-debate subforum to discuss things LDS?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I've got a few spare moments, so....

I disagree. Cart before the horse. When posters are under continual assault they cannot possibly be expected to make much of anything. It is merely putting out one fire after another. Posters are making new threads everyday and they are overrun with unrelenting criticism, negativity, and mockery.  So it is about carrying water buckets not building anything. 

So true, this is why I stopped trying to engage anti-Mormons on other websites. Their tactic is to keep the Mormon hoping from one foot to the next, in an attempt to put out such fires. By doing so the member remains of balence and distracted from ever making a defense. It certainly is not as bad here, but more disheartening is that some of the attacks are coming from members, as well as ex-members, and I don't mean "excommunicated members" when I say "ex-member", least someone see that as an opening to start one of those brush fires. As the name implies "dialog and discussion", there is a lot of "discussion" but very little meaningful "dialog", when cheap shots and disrespect are the order of the day (thread). 

[Five Solas]

May I be on the panel that gets to decide "intellectual honesty."  My feelings tell me I'm very qualified (and you can't deny those).

;0)

--Erik 

PS.  mfbukowski - yer toast!

[Maureen]

8 hours ago, juliann said:

I appreciate your gentle disagreement. But don't fall prey to a hostile critic's logic that we don't want skeptics or critics. We don't want hostile and mean spirited skeptics and critics who refuse to take us at our words or even let us have our words before they make sly changes to what was said or meant. It becomes An Offender For a Word game show and the topic dies and the accusations begin. And this is not an occasional thing.

Shouldn't this apply to all posters whether Mormons or critics? Shouldn't all posters take others at their word. Who decides when a skeptic or critic becomes hostile or mean spirited? Is this a forum so biased that it thinks only skeptics and critics can become hostile or mean spirited and that the regular Mormon posters are never hostile or mean spirited?

If you're going to make rules about "discussion behaviour", make sure the rules apply to everyone, not just the critics.

M. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 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 would like to address for a moment your last sentence. 

It might appear to a non-Mormon that a temple recommend is a fool-proof litmus test for fidelity, but many of us on the inside know that, generally speaking, for one who is determined to lie his way into the temple, it is not all that diifficult to do so. The crafty apostate John Dehlin, he of the Church of the Holy Podcast, before his recent excommunication, was, for a time, teaching nominal but unbelieving Mormons how to rationalize in their own minds responding to the yes-or-no questions in the temple-recommend interview in such a way as to keep their unbelief hidden. It brought a new dimension to the concept of going through the motions. 

I'm guessing those on this board who have served in bishoprics (and I don't mean clerks or executive secretaries; if you hold one of those positions, you're not in the bishopric) will confirm that, when conducting a temple recommend interview, if you have nothing else to go on, the standard procedure is to accept the response of the interviewee. Background checks are not routinely done. 

Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

 I find it profoundly contemptible for a person to enter into the waters of baptism, to take upon himself sacred covenants and obligations, and then - usually some time later - to exploit that membership in God's Church.  To use it as a form of entitlement to heap abuse and scorn upon the Church.

I view critics-who-are-also-members as being somewhat in the same vein as husbands who publicly speak ill of or otherwise humiliate or mistreat their wives or children (to be sure, some wives do this to their husbands/children).  It is rank betrayal to do such things.  I have previously explained my perspective on this issue here:

First, let me thank you for explaining your perspective, this is very helpful.  I'm seeking to understand and you're helping me see into how you view things, and I feel like I'm gaining some insight here that is important.  Let me also say, that the way you describe someone making covenants that are sacred and then exploiting that position, I can completely empathize with you feeling so strongly about that.  There are things that I take very seriously and hold sacred, family being a key one.  

I've been a fairly private person my whole life, I'm actually trying to get better at not being so private in recent years, but I am extremely protective of my immediate family and loved ones, so I can completely understand how you've described that you feel similarly about having people talk about the dirty laundry of the church.  Ouch, I hadn't thought about someone feeling this way about the church in such personal terms.  I had considered that for individuals like Joseph Fielding Smith, there is a component of family involved in his desires to craft a very polished picture of the church publicly, but I guess I hadn't considered how similar feelings of might manifest in others because of how you cherish your membership.  

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

By analogy, critics-who-are-also-members (the ones I have in mind) are behaving this way on this board toward the LDS Church.  That behavior is mendacious, coercive, manipulative, divisive, unrighteous, and unkind.

This is what Latter-day Saints are supposed to use their membership in the community of faith to do.  To "mourn with those that mourn," to "comfort those that stand in need of comfort," to "stand a witnesses of God . . . even until death."

Let me say that these words in Mosiah I find to be some of the most inspired scripture for me personally.  I strive to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those who need comfort.  These scriptures speak to my soul, and I wholeheartedly believe this message is of vital importance and is central to my convictions.  

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Instead, critics-who-are-also-members (the ones I have in mind, that is) use their membership in the Church to "air the family's dirty laundry."  To denigrate and humiliate the Church and its leaders and members.  To publicly scorn sacred beliefs and practices.  To tear down instead of build up.  To foment discord instead of unity.  Faithlessness instead of faith.

And no, I don't buy the "I'm just trying to help the Church improve" or "I'm the loyal opposition" lines of crapola.  A husband who publicly berates and humiliates his wife, who publicizes her errors and flaws before the world, is being a bully and a jerk.  He's not trying to help her "improve" her, he's just abusing her.

I believe the LDS Church is what it claims to be.  I will therefore treat it much the way I try treat my wife, who is  is a magnificent, albeit flawed, person. She deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not undermine her or my relationship with her by publicizing the particulars of her occasional missteps to strangers (or, worse, to those who might seek to exploit such information to tear her down).  Similarly, the LDS Church also deserves my allegiance, fidelity and devotion, and I will not seek to undermine it or my relationship with it by publicizing the particulars of its occasional missteps to strangers or enemies.

So there you are.  I think the Lord expects the members of His Church to build it up, not tear it down.  To demonstrate loyalty and devotion, not abusive contempt and ark-steadying and armchair quarterbacking.

As I think more about your analogy and comparing the airing of dirty laundry in a family setting, to members who have questions and concerns about the church, I can better understand where you are coming from.  I have to say that what you've expressed is much more understandable from this perspective.  In this thread I just want to better understand your POV, and I feel like I'm getting a better explanation of where you are coming from now which really makes me think.  

I have a different vantage point from which I'm viewing things, but ultimately since I take the Mosiah scriptures seriously, I feel like its important for me to mourn with your mourning.  Even though my beliefs and perspectives about Mormonism are very unorthodox and have changed dramatically, my desire to understand, to show empathy and to respect the perspectives of others continues to be compelling reasons for me to engage in the religion.  That is also a main reason for my frequenting this board, I want to contribute, but I also learn a great deal through trying to understand others.  Thank you for the insight, I will continue to reflect on these ideas and try to keep them in mind in the future.     

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

I think anyone who is civil and respectful adds value. FWIW, board rules do not allow individuals to be questioned about their level of belief or worthiness. I have disagreements with several LDS posters. I tend to be on the liberal side of Mormonism and am anxiously awaiting some changes, I just draw the line at nonstop carping about it. I support a lot of what feminism is trying to do but I can't handle a particular Mormon feminist site because it has turned into one extended complaint that involves  vicious ridicule of what "TBMs" do or say. There does come a point where if we are to claim we support the advancement of women, we have to support women of all stripes rather than an ideology. I struggle with that but I'm trying to be more tolerant of other women's views. Unless they are nonstop carping at Mormons or chastising "sinners."

I completely agree with you here.  I think a challenge that this board has is how do we value perspectives that are very different by being respectful and civil, at the same time as expressing our own perspective which may contradict what others have said.  Unfortunately there are limitations with the written word that we wouldn't experience in a personal face to face interaction, and that is a big challenge when discussing emotionally charged topics like religion and politics.  What I take away from this thread, is that we all need to redouble our efforts at civility and at trying to understand the perspective of others and remembering how important it is to be respectful first and foremost.  Those are difficult things, but I think worthwhile.  

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

 

Considering this in your post after: Your post was removed because it was a personal attack. Blue Dreams got to it first. All personal attacks are being removed now along with people who make them. This is not a free speech zone.... I think it's best I remove the quoted part and the parts that I mentioned about Juliann. My main point is that this isn't simply about her and that point just to her is not the concern. Something is currently off about the board and I agree with the main concern mentions in the OP. I also agree with this sentiment that it would be nice to move past dissecting one poster's behavior.

I rep Juliann for the same reason I've repped Hope_for_things, Rain, BB, Calm, Miserei, and others on this thread.....because there's something I agree with or can acknowledge as a valid point. Sometimes I rep to say thanks or because someone made me laugh. 

At no point do I think mormon should be exempt from civility. I've watched mormons do some things that were just as, if not more, horrifying in the past. A couple of years ago, there was a string of race-related posts that entailed some uber-believers veering into promoting racist ideology. It got so bad that several of the posts were shut down and I was given an apology in PM from the moderators. It wasn't okay. This is no where like that....but there's still a problem. It's still grating. And frankly sometimes It's just tiring. I would love to see something better for this board. And right now, though the TBM sorts still have their days, there's still a current from a number who are more critical that is as I mentioned: cynical, unnecessarily pessimistic, eeyore-like, etc. Even the most mundane posts may come with random church oriented digs. They're not really based in facts or thought out criticism. Just random digs again and again and again. Random streaks of pessimism again and again. Random point of hyperbole again and again. And it's easy to poke holes at this, to point out really major problems into these phrases....but what it does is just muddy up dialogue into silly strings that go nowhere. 

 

I could say more, but I'm late for a hike. 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 20, 2017 by BlueDreams

[ALarson]

45 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Considering I'm one of the people who have a tendency to rep Juliann, I figure I might say something. Ya know as a follower of her (disciple? Groupie?  ....sorry that description just tickles me pink. That's got to be one of the last things anyone has ever remotely described me as), I figure I might as well speak up and bare my testimony of Juliann. Alright I'll stop. Really, I've just never been described as a follower before.

I rep Juliann for the same reason I've repped Hope_for_things, Rain, BB, Calm, Miserei, and others on this thread.....because there's something I agree with or can acknowledge as a valid point. Sometimes I rep to say thanks or because someone made me laugh. 

Stylistically speaking, Juliann and I are probably foils when it come to board presentation. There are things I disagree with in her style and there's probably things she sometimes disagrees with mine. I do think at times she can be too blunt or too sharp in her criticism. On those, I don't rep. It's too different from how I would have approached it or I may thing (surprise!) she was a little wrong in this or that way. Could Juliann be "nicer" on the board and more civil? Yes. But if this thread and others keep focusing on Juliann's many flaws, it's missing the point that the rest of us, who may or may not agree with Juliann, also are noting a similar concern. Juliann's bolder style means she just doesn't put up with it and is more likely to bring it up front for discussion. She also can be protective. I once told her she's like a mama bear who if she sees potential injustice the teeth come out. 

At no point do I think mormons, even the great Juliann , should be exempt from civility. I've watched mormons do some things that were just as, if not more, horrifying in the past. A couple of years ago, there was a string of race-related posts that entailed some uber-believers veering into promoting racist ideology. It got so bad that several of the posts were shut down and I was given an apology in PM from the moderators. It wasn't okay. This is no where like that....but there's still a problem. It's still grating. And frankly sometimes It's just tiring. It's easy to point out Juliann's problems, but it still doesn't point out that there are those concerned who are NOT Juliann. Who would love to see something better for this board. And right now, though the TBM sorts still have their days, there's still a current from a number who are more critical that is as I mentioned: cynical, unnecessarily pessimistic, eeyore-like, etc. Even the most mundane posts may come with random church oriented diggs. They're not really based in facts or thought out criticism. Just random digs again and again and again. Random streaks of pessimism again and again. Random point of hyperbole again and again. And it's easy to poke holes at this, to point out really major problems into these phrases....but what it does is just muddy up dialogue into silly strings that go nowhere. 

 

I could say more, but I'm late for a hike. 

With luv,

BD

I'll respond to your post in more detail in a bit, as I do respect your views here, BD.  I meant to add that I do think highly of many who continuously rep juliann's posts, but do wonder why they seem to condone how she treats others.

Also, I wonder why my post that you quoted has now disappeared from this thread (along with some others on this page such as the one from HJW)?

This is not a fair discussion....not at all.  Not how it's being handled and if posts are disappearing that may contain some unpleasant truths or opinions, but are not breaking any board rules.

ETA:

I'm not sure who referred to you as: "disciple Groupie?  ....sorry that description just tickles me pink. That's got to be one of the last things anyone has ever remotely described me", but it wasn't me.  Maybe you're quoting someone else here?  I just stated "avid followers".

 

Your post was removed because it was a personal attack. Blue Dreams got to it first. All personal attacks are being removed now along with people who make them. This is not a free speech zone.

Well, I disagree with the removal of an honest post or opinion.  Where is there a "personal attack" in my post?  I was simply expressing my disapproval of how she treats others just as she is expressing disapproval of others here.  I think it's wrong how this entire topic is being handled and posts that are disappearing is an example of how juliann is choosing to deal with anyone she wants to silence.   Oh well....I'll stay off this thread and let her continue....

Edited June 20, 2017 by ALarson

[Bobbieaware]

On 6/18/2017 at 3:39 PM, 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? 

The solution is simple. Have a 4th forum on the board where only active members of the Church who believe they have genuine testimonies of the Restored Gospel and who can honestly say they sustain the General Authorities are permitted to participate. It could be called the TBM forum and could be a place where real believers can discuss Mormonism without carping detractors and snarky anti-Mormons sidetracking each discussion into debates that inevitably devolve into stressful, unproductive and unedifying contests about opinions. It's important to consider that there is more than enough diversity of opinion among the true believers to keep each TBM thread informative and lively.

Now here's the key: Unbelievers will still be able to read the threads on the TBM forum and if they want to sound off on a particular discussion they will only need to start a new thread on whatever topic or question that has piqued their interest on one of the other forums. Then any TBM forum participants who want to engage with the critics, anti's, naysayers and exLDS in debates will be free to do so. In other words, the critics and negativists will still be able to get into the fight because there will, no doubt, be some TBM Forum participants who will be willing to participate on the threads initiated by critics who want their questions answered.

Short of a new TBM type forum, the only other available options are either electronically blocking board participants one doesn't want to deal with or or simply ignore nasty posters and refuse to respond to their statements and questions.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'll respond to your post in more detail in a bit, as I do respect your views here, BD.  I meant to add that I do think highly of many who continuously rep juliann's posts, but do wonder why they seem to condone how she treats others.

Also, I wonder why my post that you quoted has now disappeared from this thread (along with some others on this page such as the one from HJW)?

This is not a fair discussion....not at all.  Not how it's being handled and if posts are disappearing that may contain some unpleasant truths or opinions, but are not breaking any board rules.

I figured I'd point out that I've drastically edited my previous post. I don't want this to really be about Juliann specifically. You're welcome to respond to the other things I mentioned, of course. And I agree that with the volume as well both in this thread and the other short-lived on, it was becoming all about criticizing Juliann and not really about the substance...it was becoming a personal attack on an individual rather than discussing the question brought up.  

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure who referred to you as: "disciple Groupie?  ....sorry that description just tickles me pink. That's got to be one of the last things anyone has ever remotely described me", but it wasn't me.  Maybe you're quoting someone else here?  I just stated "avid followers".

Yeah, it was a joke on describing me and others "avid followers." It just sounded really funny to me and not at all accurate for me in any meaningful way. Follower is not what anyone has ever used to describe me IRL. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by BlueDreams

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I figured I'd point out that I've drastically edited my previous post.

Well, no worries.  It's magically reappeared now (my deleted post) 

I wonder if all the other deleted posts will be re-posted (by HJW that I quoted, etc.)?  There are some strange things happening here!

And by the way....

YOU are the one who placed yourself among juliann's followers, I did not mention anyone by name.  I actually wasn't even thinking of you!

Edited June 20, 2017 by ALarson

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, no worries.  It's magically reappeared now (my deleted post) 

I wonder if all the other deleted posts will be re-posted (by HJW, etc.)?  There are some strange things happening here!

 

Huh....weird. 

Ah well. I still think it's probably best if this didn't become all about Juliann. 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Huh....weird. 

Ah well. I still think it's probably best if this didn't become all about Juliann. 

Hear! Hear!

[Calm]

Since this was returned, I assume it is acceptable to discuss.

"Then she laughs or mocks anyone who infers that she's a mod here."

The context of this is that on another board there are a number of posts creating some elaborate (in my view) explanations of both myself and Juliann being moderators and how and why we ban people. 

If you make the assumptions we are not mods, it is rather humorous.  We find it amusing because we know I have never been a mod on this board and Juliann hasn't been moderating for eons (as she explained, she has been mod in the past).  We have to be sociopathic in order to fit many of the claims being made.  We may do too many jokes between the two of us, but it is impossible to take seriously at this point.

"But if she's trying to silence any who disagree with her"

There have been masses of people who disagree with Juliann (and plenty of others).  It has always been about how disagreement is expressed.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Since this was returned, I assume it is acceptable to discuss.

"Then she laughs or mocks anyone who infers that she's a mod here."

The context of this is that on another board there are a number of posts creating some elaborate (in my view) explanations of both myself and Juliann being moderators and how and why we ban people. 

Calm, I'm not going to continue posting on this thread, but I do want to correct you here.  I think I know the board you are referencing and you couldn't be more wrong.  I do not read or follow any of what is posted there (and have no idea what has been posted over there about juliann or anyone from this board).  I haven't seen anything that juliann has posted elsewhere. This is really the only board I do try to follow when I have the time now.

I have only seen this done on here (and please don't CFR me) a few times and that is what I was referring to with my comment.

And now, I'll go back to just reading.  I've given my opinion and observations of the change in tone on this board over the last few months.  You can disagree and I respect your's (and anyone's) right to do that.  

Since we are discussing my original post (you and others), here it is again for reference since it keeps disappearing, reappearing and then disappearing again:

Quote

 

I haven't posted her for quite awhile for different reasons.  But I do still read on here and keep up with most of the threads.  Here's my take on this thread:

- juliann seems to feel she is more important or has more to say with what goes on here than most others on this forum.  She treats others in a way that most members would be banned for doing (at least thread banned).  She is more disrespectful and rude than I have ever personally seen any nonbeliever treat another on this board.

- She either owns this board or is a moderator here or she is personally acquainted with whoever is, and is able to get other posters banned at will.  Then she laughs or mocks anyone who infers that she's a mod here. 

- If she does own this board, she should continue doing what she's currently doing, as she will end up with the board she seems to want.  If she does not own this board, maybe she should take her avid followers (who like nearly every single one of her posts as soon as it's posted) and start her own board where she can create an environment where it's allowed to treat those she deems deserving with rudeness and open disdain without any consequences.  However, it appears she's already allowed to do this here, so I go back to wondering why this is being allowed if she is not the owner or a moderator.

- There are many posters here and a full spectrum of beliefs and opinions.  That's what makes it interesting to read and why there can be some really good and lively discussions at times.  Even the great majority of non-believers (or Mormons, but not good enough Mormons according to juliann) are great people and are civil in discussions.  But if she's trying to silence any who disagree with her, she appears to have the power to do so (a great example is the banning of Stem here and then the closing of his thread where he attempted to continue discussing it since he couldn't here).

- juliann does not discriminate who she chooses to attack especially if she can accuse them of sexism or racism and it appears she is able to do this with almost every topic she enters.

I'd imagine I'll be punished for this post, but it's my honest appraisal.  I think this board has taken a turn for the worst since juliann reappeared and started posting much more often.  The entire tone and feel of the board has changed over these last months and every thread she enters involves contention and rudeness after she enters them.  I hope there's a solution here, but a one sided discussion isn't the way to resolve it, in my opinion

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by ALarson