Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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. 

Juliann doesn't post on the other board, neither do I.  I am posting about what .I have seen her say on this board.

If you have only seen it a few times, I don't think it is appropriate to write it as if this was Juliann's SOP, which was, imo, very much how it was written.

[juliann]

I cut and pasted a list of comments to illustrate what people thought. Then I lost it. 

For those who can't handle me speaking out, there are others saying the same things (who are strangely, not the topic of two threads.)  So if you can't get past my saying it, read Don Bradley saying the same thing. 

This board will continue to lose Mormon posters and this thread and it's companion thread are Exhibit 1. If we ask for one thread where we can talk, it becomes a pile on with a very weird accusation that not being able to take over one thread is silencing someone. 

The common thread in this thread is that those who usually defend the church have had enough of hostile critics doing almost nothing but attack posts. After reading all this, I guess my solution is tighter, much tighter, moderation. 

ALarsen, I've heard it all before.  I will call out racist behavior. I will call out sexist behavior. And shame shame on you and anyone else who thinks that isn't the right thing to do. I have not called a person a racist or a sexist but I do call words or behaviors racist or sexist. It would be more convincing were you to scold your peers for calling church members/leaders racist on a regular basis. 

The difference is, I own my behavior. If someone comes to my door and attacks, I can be rude. I might meet disrespect with disrespect. See how easy that is? I even apologize occasionally. I was rude to stem. He apologized to me and I apologized to him. He is a class act. He owns his behavior. But what you are making up isn't my behavior. I have too many posts up for you to get away with it which is why I suspect that you are ramping up the vilification sans any evidence.

This is the most telling of your similar dismissiveness of BD and everyone else who has offered their thoughts you don't approve of, "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! 

This is how I know you really haven't read even this thread. I have not used names, I have used behaviors. We were immediately confronted by poster claiming they didn't engage in those behaviors so why was I talking about them. They have self-identified as hostile critics and then behaved as one. 

I can't remember the last time you were here so why you feel the need to breeze by somebody else's board and instruct posters and moderators is more than a little odd to say the least. I remembered you as a reasonable, informed poster who had good things to say for the most part. What an unfortunate shock. 

Hostile critics can draw and quarter me, but the problem still remains. Where is this irrational belief that pounding me into the ground will make it go away even coming from? Good grief, all one has to do is count the likes to see why we are losing our core posters. 

 

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

I cut and pasted a list of comments to illustrate what people thought. Then I lost it. 

For those who can't handle me speaking out, there are others saying the same things (who are strangely, not the topic of two threads.)  So if you can't get past my saying it, read Don Bradley saying the same thing. 

This board will continue to lose Mormon posters and this thread and it's companion thread are Exhibit 1. If we ask for one thread where we can talk, it becomes a pile on with a very weird accusation that not being able to take over one thread is silencing someone. 

The common thread in this thread is that those who usually defend the church have had enough of hostile critics doing almost nothing but attack posts. After reading all this, I guess my solution is tighter, much tighter, moderation. 

ALarsen, I've heard it all before.  I will call out racist behavior. I will call out sexist behavior. And shame shame on you and anyone else who thinks that isn't the right thing to do. I have not called a person a racist or a sexist but I do call words or behaviors racist or sexist. It would be more convincing were you to scold your peers for calling church members/leaders racist on a regular basis. 

The difference is, I own my behavior. If someone comes to my door and attacks, I can be rude. I might meet disrespect with disrespect. See how easy that is? I even apologize occasionally. I was rude to stem. He apologized to me and I apologized to him. He is a class act. He owns his behavior. But what you are making up isn't my behavior. I have too many posts up for you to get away with it which is why I suspect that you are ramping up the vilification sans any evidence.

This is the most telling of your similar dismissiveness of BD and everyone else who has offered their thoughts you don't approve of, "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! 

This is how I know you really haven't read even this thread. I have not used names, I have used behaviors. We were immediately confronted by poster claiming they didn't engage in those behaviors so why was I talking about them. They have self-identified as hostile critics and then behaved as one. 

I can't remember the last time you were here so why you feel the need to breeze by somebody else's board and instruct posters and moderators is more than a little odd to say the least. I remembered you as a reasonable, informed poster who had good things to say for the most part. What an unfortunate shock. 

Hostile critics can draw and quarter me, but the problem still remains. Where is this irrational belief that pounding me into the ground will make it go away even coming from? Good grief, all one has to do is count the likes to see why we are losing our core posters. 

Brava!

[juliann]

Here is the OP. Again.

Quote

 

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

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? 

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by juliann

[juliann]

Here is someone else saying the same thing. It got 17 likes.

Quote

 

Juliann is right to be concerned about this.

She will remember as I do the time when ZLMB was a thriving forum. It was really amazing. But gradually, as the balance of posters and posts shifted more and more to the critical side, it just became an unpleasant place for believers to be. (For the record, I was one of the critics.) More and more believers withdrew, the dynamism of the board waned, and the place ultimately fell apart.

As a "critic," I saw the moderation, which was heavily tilted toward the believers, as largely a nuisance. In retrospect, it was this moderation, which aimed in good measure to make ZLMB a safe place for believers, that had allowed ZLMB to thrive in the first place and enabled it to continue to do so for as long as it did.

Critics need to realize that what they are devoting themselves to is attacking what is the very most important thing in the world to these other people. This kind of constant attack interrupts believers in talking to each other about what matters to them, and it puts believers in a constant defensive mode, making for a generally unpleasant environment.

To use an analogy, suppose you got onto a discussion group and day after day many or most of the people there wanted to attack members of your family, and you were constantly in the position of defending your family members, rather than talking about, or to, those family members in more constructive ways, or talking about other things that interest you.

I'm not saying that nonbelievers should never offer their critiques of LDS beliefs, practices, and the like. I'm saying that would-be critics should recognize that when any forum becomes too inundated with such criticism, religious believers are going to find it a hostile and toxic environment, not pleasant and not worth the time, effort, and emotion that goes into it.

No one wants to invest their time and emotion in experiences that are inimical to them and to what they most highly value.

Believers and critics do not come to a forum like this with equivalent goals. One comes to affirm, defend, explore, and better understand what they love and value; the other, insofar as they come in the role of critic, comes to challenge, attack, refute, and often mock what others love and value. These are not equally valuable or ethical activities, and those who manage the playing field should not pretend that they are. That field should be tilted in favor of protecting an environment where people can affirm and discuss what is most important to them. And critics should exercise some voluntary restraint, recognizing how they would feel if it were their deepest values and most important life meanings--families, political ideals, candidates, moral principles, etc--under attack, and recognizing, too, pragmatically, that creating an environment that believers experience as hostile will simply lead to the exit of more and more believers. Eventually, this would result in critics just talking with each other, and the dynamism and interestingness of the forum would deteriorate. It happened to ZLMB, and it can happen here.

 

 

[juliann]

BTW, I've been writing about gendered communication so this persistent pin the tail on the moderator game fascinates me for one reason: men are never targeted, even though there are more men on the board. The attacks on women always involve allusion to or open resentment of their imagined power or authority. Most telling is that the women who are picked for this parade are the most outspoken or active.  (That you have no clue as to why I might "act like this board is mine" is another reason I'm pretty sure you haven't read this thread, AL.) 

What is happening could be used as an example in what is becoming a mountain of serious research on this topic.  

 

[juliann]

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

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.

Nemesis did a mass banning of the worst antagonizers some time ago. I thought it would kill the board. It didn't, more people started posting with only the nicer critics around. To be honest, I think our current problem is because it wasn't that long ago when Nemesis did a mass unbanning.  

This isn't just a Mormon board thing, there seems to be general unrest, especially from women's groups, with the males who try to take over their forums and instruct them on where they are going wrong. The recent Money/Dehlin blow up created a firestorm of complaints from prog/postmo women about the problems they were having with the same behaviors they called out Mormon men for. To listen to our camp followers, banning and deleting just never, ever happens. r/exmormon wiped out so many sexist posts over the Dehlin fracas that there was a rebellion and a new uncensored forum was established by those who wanted to continue. Considering what r/exmormon allows that is saying something. 

In other words, this is actually common behavior of forums who are more concerned about the forum surviving than keeping troublemakers happy. We are just supposed to believe that refusing to accede to those who are only here at the pleasure of administration is unique to this board and everyone else allows aggressors to destroy their forums at the risk of being told they are silencing them. Ridiculous.

[Skylla]

This thread isn't about Juliann.  Stop making it so.

Skylla

[Storm Rider]

I have stated before that we need honest, sincere critics as well as we need to think critically.  I am an addict to this site in that I keep coming back for small doses, but it has not been a pleasant experience for a long time.  I wish it was a more different place or at least one that I did not feel like a weirdo for having faith and being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.  The most virulent attacks come from those that pose, or at least claim, to be or have been LDS.

Having said that, what I don't want to see happen is that this site become so sanitized that honest criticism and questioning is verboten.  It is not an easy task to objectively determine when a member crosses the line to the point of needing to be banned or reprimanded in other ways. 

It would just be nice to feel like I was among my own "tribe" when I visit here instead of as an outsider. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I have stated before that we need honest, sincere critics as well as we need to think critically.  I am an addict to this site in that I keep coming back for small doses, but it has not been a pleasant experience for a long time.  I wish it was a more different place or at least one that I did not feel like a weirdo for having faith and being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.  The most virulent attacks come from those that pose, or at least claim, to be or have been LDS.

Having said that, what I don't want to see happen is that this site become so sanitized that honest criticism and questioning is verboten.  It is not an easy task to objectively determine when a member crosses the line to the point of needing to be banned or reprimanded in other ways. 

It would just be nice to feel like I was among my own "tribe" when I visit here instead of as an outsider. 

You do understand that this statement makes you my follower, right? 

I think we are going to have to say this on every page " we need honest, sincere critics"

Edited June 21, 2017 by juliann

[hagoth7]

When I do the kinds of things that sparked the OP (and march on seemingly oblivious or uncaring),  will someone be kind enough to tap me on the shoulder, with clarity, and invite/encourage me to improve?

Please?

[Calm]

"Honest, sincere critics"

I would rephrase that as 'critics who sincerely want a civil discussion and who are willing to push themselves to open up to imagine why the other thinks differently to the point that they can find reasonable and compassionate reasons the other may hold and if they can't get there, at least give the other the benefit of the doubt'.  And that 'other' needs to include the Church as a whole and the Church leadership because many 'faithful, traditionally believing for the most part' LDS look on the Church as simply one very big, extended family.  (I do not exclude faithful, nontraditionally believing or even nonfaithful---as in not having faith, not unworthy---critics from seeing the Church as extended family, they as a group just seem to have less issues with negativity being piled on).

Yeah, it's tons wordier, but given how people tend to impute meanings into what is being said, I prefer to go with specifics.  And I think depending on how one uses those two words, there have been very few posters who were not honest and sincere (as in they mean what they say at the time) by some reasonable standard (while by another reasonable standard there are many who are not...if one only focuses on limited facts, ignoring others presented to them and continuing on as if they don't exist, that in one sense is neither honest or sincere).  But that does not mean they have been respectful or open to trying to understand the other POV, which imo are both essential to actual civil dialogue.

And conversation will increase in quality when all posters work from the position of trying to understand and giving the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, imo, though there are reasons why the board can survive if the more traditional group doesn't try as hard, though I hope we do and will.

There are times when actions should be called out.  For example, if one wants to claim that the Church is spending too much on one thing and not another, that to me is a valid topic if one has specifics as in how much money is being spent because it deals with actual actions, but suggesting because they do that in one's opinion, that makes leadership hardhearted or unconcerned with the poor or insisting one's opinion on the Church spending too much is enough without documenting the claim....that falls in the category, imo, of choosing to be negative because of bias, not reason and makes for poor quality lectures, not interesting or at least engagable dialogue.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

When I do the kinds of things that sparked the OP (and march on seemingly oblivious or uncaring),  will someone be kind enough to tap me on the shoulder, with clarity, and invite/encourage me to improve?

Please?

I don't associate any of that with you. Are you being naughty in some hidden thread?

[hagoth7]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't associate any of that with you.

Thank you. Will see what I can do to change that. ;0)

22 hours ago, juliann said:

Are you being naughty in some hidden thread?

Yep.

So 2 Nephi 4 had me looping in a spin cycle several times tonight.

As to suggestions for forum improvement:

1) Less is more. I think Senator's self-imposed term limits is golden....I simply *have* to take time from here to unstring the bow and refill the well. More importantly, in the week+ that I recently decided not to post here, IRL, I found myself dealing with people on a *exponentially* more direct/genuine/open manner than I had in years. It's like I woke up. When I took a break from posting, reticence vanished, and I found myself getting out and saying what's really on my heart. Even a few difficult conversations that I've put off for years. And I finally got a very important writing project off the ground. From that experience, for the benefit of all concerned (here and elsewhere) I need to take at least a week's posting sabbatical every month. Not wanting to make this thread about me, but as an introvert, hoping that more like me might find their lives *and* their participation here improved by regularly dropping the sword/pen.

2) Sanctuary. Just like a home or church or a temple, I think there should be space here where things of a progressively more tender/sacred nature can be discussed on terms that suit the timbre of a thread's OP/purpose. Meaning  something approximating what others have suggested (that there be tiers of participation...which I would actually prefer to avoid for a large number of reasons), or  empowering an OP's author to silence content (or participants) that repeatedly detract from the stated intent of a thread. Dunno to what degree the software allows for that. But it would allow for more focused/constructive discussion, and would grant OP authors practice in exercising what would hopefully become increasingly-just patience/judgment.

3) Courtesy. It ties back into what you and others have said here. To quote Don, "No one wants to invest their time and emotion in experiences that are inimical to them and to what they most highly value." Basic game/psych theory. For any activity to retain and/or snowball participants, the experience has to maintain a sufficient degree of win state. If any such activity doesn't allow sufficient "win state," one side or both will eventually associate pain with engaging, and will eventually walk away. I've seen it happen too much in relationships lately. I'm guessing a real key to success here (and elsewhere) is for each of us to look beyond *our* desired win state but to rather help generate win states for others...which ideally snowballs into a win-win state. If more of us are genuinely seeking for *that* kind of end in mind, I think forum participation here will step up a healthy notch...in quality.

Gonna shut up now. G'nite, and God bless. :0)

Edited June 22, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

"as an introvert, hoping that more like me might find their lives"

I agree, this can be a good stepping stone to becoming more outgoing IRL.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

You do understand that this statement makes you my follower, right? 

I think we are going to have to say this on every page " we need honest, sincere critics"

I am a follower of truth and I believe that truth is found by the honest, sincere critic.  What I find here, more often than not, are individuals more interested in attacking - there is no attempt at searching or seeking answers.  As has been said it leaves every faithful member of the Church in the position of constant, incessant defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

This appears to be a difficult concept for some of the Board's participants.  To me I recognize knee-jerk responses or complaints with little desire to hear or listen to what is being stated or requested.

At the end of the day we as participants have zero ability to change the current functioning of the Board. The main players are the mods - what they want and what direction they want to go.  It is ineffective to lay blame at the feet of those who have no control.  Blame may not be the right word because it often is associated with doing something wrong or incorrect - that is not the way I intend the word.  It is more a function of direction.  Where are we going?  Only the wizards behind the curtain can tell us. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I am a follower of truth and I believe that truth is found by the honest, sincere critic.  What I find here, more often than not, are individuals more interested in attacking - there is no attempt at searching or seeking answers.  As has been said it leaves every faithful member of the Church in the position of constant, incessant defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

This appears to be a difficult concept for some of the Board's participants.  To me I recognize knee-jerk responses or complaints with little desire to hear or listen to what is being stated or requested.

At the end of the day we as participants have zero ability to change the current functioning of the Board. The main players are the mods - what they want and what direction they want to go.  It is ineffective to lay blame at the feet of those who have no control.  Blame may not be the right word because it often is associated with doing something wrong or incorrect - that is not the way I intend the word.  It is more a function of direction.  Where are we going?  Only the wizards behind the curtain can tell us. 

You have no power to post issues or subjects you would like to see discussed?

Come now. We can all take some responsibility for what this board is to its users. If I don't want to respond to LGBT critics, I don't have to visit their threads, and often I don't because I find that issue gets old fast. While I agree that some of the critics get stuck and boorish, I don't have power as you note - to ban them. But I do have the power to choose not to read their stuff, which is what I usually choose to do, so I here I disagree with Juliann somewhat. I will just have to rely on the mods to keep critics within acceptable boundaries. I think they must do a pretty good job, because I have seen much worse on other boards. But to expect every critic here to be a scholarly critic, I think is just not going to happen. Some want to try to embarrass the Church or shame it into changing. I hope I am not perceived that way although I do sometimes make criticisms regarding things I would like the Church to do or become. I also tend to think a good number of past GAs said things or made interpretations they had no business saying. There is a lot of guessing and speculation, which tends to come back and haunt the Church and causes trouble for investigators. I think the Church will eventually have to own up to this kind of stuff. However, I love the restored gospel and the Church, and I really don't want to harm it, but I think for it to resume a good growth, some changes will have to be made, and some past dealt with.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 I disagree with Juliann somewhat. I will just have to rely on the mods to keep critics within acceptable boundaries. I think they must do a pretty good job, because I have seen much worse on other boards. But to expect every critic here to be a scholarly critic, I think is just not going to happen.  

No one has said that. No one. It is a strawman, to be blunt. I'm puzzled why we have to keep correcting this when it isn't coming from us. To go back to SR:

Quote

 

 I believe that truth is found by the honest, sincere critic.  What I find here, more often than not, are individuals more interested in attacking - there is no attempt at searching or seeking answers.  As has been said it leaves every faithful member of the Church in the position of constant, incessant defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

This appears to be a difficult concept for some of the Board's participants.  To me I recognize knee-jerk responses or complaints with little desire to hear or listen to what is being stated or requested.

 

I didn't even catch that when he requested honest sincere critics, he was referring to every poster. There should be no problem with seeing the difference, it is as wide as the Grand Canyon, between that and those whose main purpose is to attack each and every time, whether it is the drip drip drip of negativity or all out name calling and ridicule. 

So again, No one has asked for scholarly critics. We are asking that the hostile critics either treat us as they would treat us if we weren't Mormon. Or that they stay in their own forums where anything goes. They can even go to those places and talk about us and our religion using any language they like.  We are certainly willing to give them the same consideration and let them be in their own spaces. 

[juliann]

11 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

 

3) Courtesy. It ties back into what you and others have said here. To quote Don, "No one wants to invest their time and emotion in experiences that are inimical to them and to what they most highly value." Basic game/psych theory. For any activity to retain and/or snowball participants, the experience has to maintain a sufficient degree of win state. If any such activity doesn't allow sufficient "win state," one side or both will eventually associate pain with engaging, and will eventually walk away. I've seen it happen too much in relationships lately. I'm guessing a real key to success here (and elsewhere) is for each of us to look beyond *our* desired win state but to rather help generate win states for others...which ideally snowballs into a win-win state. If more of us are genuinely seeking for *that* kind of end in mind, I think forum participation here will step up a healthy notch...in quality.

 

I would love to see the interactions here posed in game theory!  You can only push people so far before there will be an expected reaction. And there will be an expected reaction in return from those who are self-identifying as hostile critics. Coming moves will be interesting to watch. 

[rockpond]

On 6/18/2017 at 1:39 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? 

I think there are two things we should do:

1) Just refuse to engage in dialogue with those who don't seem to interact in good faith and intellectual honesty.  I've done that with a couple individuals here - I don't block them.  I just don't engage with them.

2) work on creating/supporting threads that highlight the positive in our religion and faith.

[juliann]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I think there are two things we should do:

1) Just refuse to engage in dialogue with those who don't seem to interact in good faith and intellectual honesty.  I've done that with a couple individuals here - I don't block them.  I just don't engage with them.

2) work on creating/supporting threads that highlight the positive in our religion and faith.

That would be wonderful if everyone would do that. But enough do engage, in fact the nastiest threads tend to be the most active I think, that the place looks like a dog park after the plastic bags ran out.  The second, yes, absolutely. And I don't even care if it is not positive, as long as it is respectful.

I come here to be with my friends and exchange and pick up new ideas. It is my cyberMormon home, I helped build it, and we should feel safe here. 

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

No one has said that. No one. It is a strawman, to be blunt. I'm puzzled why we have to keep correcting this when it isn't coming from us. . 

Wo...I was referring to your disagreement with me about multiple critic threads:

Me: 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.  

You:

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. 

This is what I disagree with you about. I realize I didn't say it well, but you said you disagree with me, so I disagree with you. That is all. I wasn't inferring that you were casting any dispersions on the moderation nor anything about the type of critics on the board. I just feel I can deal with multiple critic threads. I don't feel I have to respond to them all. I pick and choose what I care to respond to on this board.

Edited June 21, 2017 by RevTestament

[Maureen]

15 hours ago, Skylla said:

This thread isn't about Juliann.  Stop making it so.

Skylla

 Comments removed.  It might not be a good idea to mess with mods when you only have 10 posts under your belt. 

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

Here is the OP. Again.

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 to flood the board with legitimate discussion topics.
Topics that are about Mormonism, theology, doctrine, Church history.
And to stop these endless debates about how non-inclusive the Church is to homosexuals, doubters, progressives, feminists, and whatever other group of the week.
Threads on the stipend received by GA's.  Threads on how many members the Church has.  Threads about silly little girls who are used to promote an agenda by former members.
It's all so ridiculous.  (And yes, I fully admit I get as sucked in as anyone.)

How does any of this increase our understanding of the restored gospel?  These topics are nothing more than an invitation to critics to badmouth the Church.

If we want this board to be a better example of Mormon dialogue we need to actually discuss Mormonism, and not what everyone else thinks about the Church.
Maybe rather than banning critical board members we can automatically close any sociopolitical threads for a while and focus on doctrine and Church history for a bit.
We'd still have the critics, but the board would much more pleasant.

How about a thread on fasting?  Or the Council of Fifty (the minutes were just published)?  Or Patriarchal Priesthood?  Or Tithing vs Consecration?  Or covenant making?  Or the degrees of glory?
It doesn't matter to me.  Any would be better that the latest complaint of the gay community against the Church or claim that the Church is losing members/missionaries/converts or whatever.

It's up to us what we discuss.
 

Edited June 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think part of the problem is that some critics want validation for their doubts or decisions to leave.  I think this might drive some to post on provocative subjects.  In my own experience, I would take a position to see how knowledgeable posters on sites like this would respond, in order to help me reason through the thorny issues.  Also, I suspect that some may be using this site and other believing sites as a proxy for what they may want to say to certain family that look askance at their doubts or decision to leave.  It's a very emotional subject.