Are cynical critics driving away Mormons?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

I think there is truth in this.
I also think that there is very much a desire to achieve that validation by getting others to join them.  If they can convince another believing member that the doubt that led them from the Church is correct and cause another member to leave then it in some way would validate their decision.  It's not just about validation, it's about validation through sharing doubts.

Or to put it another way, misery loves company even when someone doesn't think they are actually miserable because of the decision to leave.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I think there is truth in this.
I also think that there is very much a desire to achieve that validation by getting others to join them.  If they can convince another believing member that the doubt that led them from the Church is correct and cause another member to leave then it in some way would validate their decision.  It's not just about validation, it's about validation through sharing doubts.

Or to put it another way, misery loves company even when someone doesn't think they are actually miserable because of the decision to leave.

I agree people like to congregate in groups regarding belief and that goes both ways. If I'm hearing Juliann correctly, she wants more like-minded discussion and less division. I don't think that would make for a popular discussion board as the controversy posts seem to have the most comments. I think respectful discussion from all is the most that can be expected without turning this into an echo-chamber.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree people like to congregate in groups regarding belief and that goes both ways. If I'm hearing Juliann correctly, she wants more like-minded discussion and less division. I don't think that would make for a popular discussion board as the controversy posts seem to have the most comments. I think respectful discussion from all is the most that can be expected without turning this into an echo-chamber.

I think after nearly 11,000 posts on this board that I am qualified to say that even if EVERY single board member who was critical of the Church were instantly removed and only faithful believing members remained that there would still be more than enough variety of opinion to avoid the "echo chamber" fear.

It's not like all those who believe have the same opinions on everything...
 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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.

Rock, I appreciate your comments above; however, I caution with the stating all threads should be supportive or positive about our religion. My personal objective or interest is not to sanitize the Board.  If someone has questions, difficult questions or are seeking to comprehend Mormon history then this should be a welcoming place.  If someone is frustrated or just cannot find an answer, this should be a welcoming place.  Again, the difference is the motivation for statements, questions, etc.  If is simply to attack - this is not the place for that - there are other locations where an individual can take a rip and keep on going and all will be well there.  This is just not the place or at least it is not a place I am interested in participating.  Does this make sense or am i dreaming?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rock, I appreciate your comments above; however, I caution with the stating all threads should be supportive or positive about our religion. My personal objective or interest is not to sanitize the Board.  If someone has questions, difficult questions or are seeking to comprehend Mormon history then this should be a welcoming place.  If someone is frustrated or just cannot find an answer, this should be a welcoming place.  Again, the difference is the motivation for statements, questions, etc.  If is simply to attack - this is not the place for that - there are other locations where an individual can take a rip and keep on going and all will be well there.  This is just not the place or at least it is not a place I am interested in participating.  Does this make sense or am i dreaming?

It makes sense to me and I don't think you're dreaming.  I agree that not all threads can or should be supportive or positive with respect to the Mormon faith.  We ought to take on challenging issues here (I think Juliann agrees with that, as well) -- it just needs to be done in a respectful, constructive manner.  I share in Juliann's concern that I think sometimes the behavior on these boards (not pointing a finger at any particular person or point of view) could be pushing us towards the style of other forums that we don't really want to become.

[why me]

18 hours ago, juliann said:

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. 

 

If I could go back some years, perhaps three or four, the board seemed to favor the critics over the defenders. If one was too hard on the critics, the critic supporters would click on the report button. And many of the defenders were put on limited. The stress was on members being lovingly and kind to the critic....and have love. I think that this had a tremendous impact on the board if true and maybe it still has. The question is: would members find this board faith promoting or does it undermine faith. I think that this is the discussion that should take place.

Edited June 21, 2017 by why me

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think after nearly 11,000 posts on this board that I am qualified to say that even if EVERY single board member who was critical of the Church were instantly removed and only faithful believing members remained that there would still be more than enough variety of opinion to avoid the "echo chamber" fear.

It's not like all those who believe have the same opinions on everything...
 

Ah hem... I thought we were all programmed robots from the time we were little.... 

or at least since the time the correlated teachings were introduced  

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

If I'm hearing Juliann correctly, she wants more like-minded discussion and less division.

I don't think you are.

I think she wants respectful dialogue, not like-mindedness nor no opposition (just unnecessary and over the top opposition).

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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. 

Gosh I hope they do actually before they leave the Church. Sometimes people cannot find answers to their doubts in the official channels. I think places like this provide an important resource for alternative points of view one may not hear in church. There are still many things which can be addressed to make it "easier" for church members. Some just have trouble with doubts. I think the Church was just designed for those who don't mind exercising some faith - for some this presents a wall - they want something more tangible. But when they get it, what then? When is "evidence" enough? It isn't enough for many modern Christians who are leaving their churches even though there is a tangible Jerusalem they can go visit, and there are third party reports of the execution of a  man named Yeshua. With evidence will come responsibility to live the truth. If Jesus appeared to you and answered all your questions, do you think you would be treated the same if you went out and committed a rape as the usual secular rapist? Or do you think Yeshua may hold you to a higher standard like he told the unbelievers of His day?

Edited June 21, 2017 by RevTestament

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, why me said:

The question is: would members find this board faith promoting or does it undermine faith. I think that this is the discussion that should take place.

I don't think the choice has to be between faith promoting and faith undermining,  It can be neutral or at least balanced as well.  We need to get away from black and white expression, if not actual belief, because too often that sets up opposition and conflict where there isn't any (as in creating straw men of others' positions).

I wouldn't want the board to shift to intentionally faith promoting.  I prefer to find my spiritual enlightenment in my own ways here.

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't want the board to shift to intentionally faith promoting. 

Internet Church? Yeah, no thanks.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

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.
 

Maybe things have changed now, but I killed the old FAIR board by trying to turn it into Sunday school. I think the battle is over who controls the Mormon community, not evidences for the BOM type stuff. And social issues are what bind the community. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

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.

Whatever their reasons, I would love to see your position work here. I do understand the anger because, like I said, I think it is really about losing the community. And we, as a whole, have behaved badly when it comes to people leaving the church. As in they want to sin stuff. But proxy is a good way of putting it. It is never helpful to unload on those who had nothing to do with the problems. 

So my question has always been....why the need for validation (when accompanied by meanness)  from US...this particular place? 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think after nearly 11,000 posts on this board that I am qualified to say that even if EVERY single board member who was critical of the Church were instantly removed and only faithful believing members remained that there would still be more than enough variety of opinion to avoid the "echo chamber" fear.

It's not like all those who believe have the same opinions on everything...
 

I think that gets too close to boring. Maybe the only advantage of having hostile critics is they create unity, as we have seen here.  Otherwise, we can get pretty rowdy amongst ourselves. So it is good to have a reminder once in awhile that when push comes to shove, we come together. And that is the community they lost. It is beyond value, and as Givens said, probably JS's greatest achievement was creating it. (So badly paraphrased, I'm sure.)

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

Maybe things have changed now, but I killed the old FAIR board by trying to turn it into Sunday school. I think the battle is over who controls the Mormon community, not evidences for the BOM type stuff. And social issues are what bind the community. 

Fair enough.

But if the board continues to focus on social issues over gospel ones, you can't really complain when those hyper-critical of the Church position on social issues come out in droves.
And control of the community is beyond irrelevant to those who truly believe the Church is God's Church.

Nothing brings out the critics like those things that transcend the Sunday school room and venture out into society at large.
Just ask Joseph Smith.
 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, why me said:

If I could go back some years, perhaps three or four, the board seemed to favor the critics over the defenders. If one was too hard on the critics, the critic supporters would click on the report button. And many of the defenders were put on limited. The stress was on members being lovingly and kind to the critic....and have love. I think that this had a tremendous impact on the board if true and maybe it still has. The question is: would members find this board faith promoting or does it undermine faith. I think that this is the discussion that should take place.

Some posters say really rude stuff to critics. I don't mind critics. I do mind hostile critics that turn every thread into their personal playground. I have equal discomfort with defenders who are hard liners and who say judge-y stuff nonstop. What I remember a few years ago is the really gross and disgusting ways some poster would describe homosexuality ...when they were posting with us. Next to the hostile critic, there is also nothing worse than posters who come in here and give sermons, citing Bible verses as weapons. 

I have always said the spirit is a little behind times with the internet. It is not a good conduit. I don't want a faith promoting board, I only want a place where I can say what I think without being steam rolled by angry resentful people. At least when I tick off the ultra conservative Mormons they are a lot more graceful by just telling me I'm satan's pawn rather than going on a smear campaign.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

And control of the community is beyond irrelevant to those who truly believe the Church is God's Church.


 

Think about it. We wouldn't draw apostasy boundaries or fight over who is a "real" Mormon if we weren't defending community. Community is everything. And I think we defenders have been missing the boat by thinking it is about horses in the BOM.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Think about it. We wouldn't draw apostasy boundaries or fight over who is a "real" Mormon if we weren't defending community. Community is everything. And I think we defenders have been missing the boat by thinking it is about horses in the BOM.

Well I completely agree with you about "horses in the BOM".  Utterly meaningless.

But for personal reasons I won't go into here I have a real beef with people who think "community" is the be all and end all.  I have seen people put community over correct teachings in the past, with bad results.
There is only one community that matters, and it isn't the Church.  However, the Church is the entrance to find that community.

Personally I don't see a need to defend the Church community.  Apostasy boundaries should be directly connected to God's teachings first and the Church rules and regulations a distant second.
I don't care who doesn't follow Church community norms.  I care very much who fights against the revelations of God.  Sometimes there is overlap I will admit.

 

[juliann]

JLH, have you noticed how many times in this thread you have been told you have not understood what the person was saying when you respond them? I don't even know what to do with your response.

[bluebell]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I completely agree with you about "horses in the BOM".  Utterly meaningless.

But for personal reasons I won't go into here I have a real beef with people who think "community" is the be all and end all.  I have seen people put community over correct teachings in the past, with bad results.
There is only one community that matters, and it isn't the Church.  However, the Church is the entrance to find that community.

Personally I don't see a need to defend the Church community.  Apostasy boundaries should be directly connected to God's teachings first and the Church rules and regulations a distant second.
I don't care who doesn't follow Church community norms.  I care very much who fights against the revelations of God.  Sometimes there is overlap I will admit.

 

I think you and Juliann might be using the word community in different ways/with different definitions.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Whatever their reasons, I would love to see your position work here. I do understand the anger because, like I said, I think it is really about losing the community. And we, as a whole, have behaved badly when it comes to people leaving the church. As in they want to sin stuff. But proxy is a good way of putting it. It is never helpful to unload on those who had nothing to do with the problems. 

So my question has always been....why the need for validation (when accompanied by meanness)  from US...this particular place? 

I don't know about others, but in my case, during my anger phase, I would go to believing sites with angry questions wanting to be convinced that things were not as I was seeing them. In a sense, the non-answers, im my point of view, validated my path.

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't know about others, but in my case, during my anger phase, I would go to believing sites with angry questions wanting to be convinced that things were not as I was seeing them. In a sense, the non-answers, im my point of view, validated my path.

 Would you have accepted any answers at that stage?

 

 

 

[Honorentheos]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

So my question has always been....why the need for validation (when accompanied by meanness)  from US...this particular place? 

My honest opinion is that people who are struggling with issues of belief, history, and the claims of the church aren't looking for validation but the truth in as simple but authentic a form as they can find it. And in my experience, it turns out that isn't something one just finds spelled out for them anywhere.

So I think seeking for and finding truth makes for conflict between conflicting views, but there is authenticity in that conflict that one can typically discern if one isn't concerned about defending a particular position. Once a person has established a position and is no longer interested in seeking for the truth - and by that I mean truth not dictated by some authority but what is left after all the dross has been burned away, what has survived the assault of investigation - then validation and defense is what will be left. And both sides engage in this when they've left the thirst for truth behind in favor of, well, let's call it defense of the community whether that is community for believers or those who feel negatively towards the church.

In that sense, I think what you are asking is really if this is a place interested in the pursuit of truth in any form it can be found? Or, as it seems you suggest above, it is more about ownership of the community of those who self identify as Mormon. If you can be honest in answering that question, you'll probably find the main answer you are seeking.

Personally, I think there will always be those who are thirsting for truth, again the kind that withstands the violent assault of investigation. But there will also be those who are would prefer to commune with their supposed like-minded community...until they find the seams between their different realities and understanding of the truth. Smaller, smaller still grow those circles.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 Would you have accepted any answers at that stage?

Again, personal opinion, but I think part of the reality for the majority of those struggling with issues of faith when they first begin that journey is that they are beginning from an environment where truth is something revealed or dictated to them. And they are grappling with the problem of this dictation not sliding into reality as easily as they either once found it did, or at least assumed it did. So expectation that answers, truth, is something dictated is part of the problem one is grappling with not just with the answers themselves.

And frankly there isn't a great way to learn to engage with a crumbling worldview while trying to build an entirely new approach to epistemology at the same time.

Just to be fair to those who are in that position, if one is interested in being part of that process and engage them from a place where they could find a new place within the faith community I think that's an important thing to understand.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Honorentheos

[hagoth7]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

I would love to see the interactions here posed in game theory!

My knowledge of game theory is quite thin.

I was referring almost exclusively to zero-sum mentality (the belief that in order for someone to "win" in an exchange, someone else must lose.) I prefer to avoid that default setting, if possible.

What aspect(s) of game theory were you thinking of?

Edited June 22, 2017 by hagoth7