My experience with this board

[MustardSeed]

It’s the new year and I’m reflecting on the value of things that take my time energy and resources. I’m interested in the conversation that two members recently had regarding their opinion that this board has devolved. I don’t think I’ve been here long enough to comment on the evolution Of this site, But the conversation got me thinking about whether or not this is a good place to put my time.

I think it is. I personally need to work on my online patience. This will be my commitment to myself in order to continue participating. One thing that I value about this board is that I find People are willing to apologize when they have recognized a misstep. I admire that. I see this place as largely positive. Thank you all for that - I enjoy learning the perspectives of members of my church as well as those who are not, And I especially am interested in the variety of thoughts and feelings within. Sitting at church everyone looks the same and it’s easy to think everyone thinks the same and it’s nice to be reminded that we don’t.

I’m sorry that other members of the board don’t have a positive experience, or that they have lost what they once experienced here. I hope you find what you need!

[Kenngo1969]

If I've ever said anything that has made you feel unwelcome here, I apologize.  (And if I have given anyone else reading this cause to take offense, likewise, I apologize.)  While I do try to moderate the time I spend here, and while, as a result, I don't spend as much time here as I used to, I, too, think the Board is worthwhile,  And while I don't think there is any substitute for real, live, flesh-and-blood, face-to-face human interaction and relationships, I do value the relationships I have formed here over the years.  While I regret that not everything I have written here has been positive or uplifting, I hope others have drawn value from my participation and that they consider it a net positive influence in their lives.

Happy New Year!  

[Pyreaux]

I don't use social media but it I use this somewhat as analogue, sometimes I check in hourly and there are times it will be week or two. I spend a great deal of time writing something. I was also here many years ago, it's done just fine without me, it is basically same as it was ten years ago. I realize there is no great need for me to visit here daily. Take a break, because the posts will mostly all still be here in a month, even at the top if it was any good.

Edited January 3 by Pyreaux

[Chum]

The only thing worse than a place that changes is one that doesn't. My last ward was dynamic and proactive when I joined. Twenty-five years ago it changed and became dominated by a culture of No and that's when it stopped changing. Without change, there's nothing to wait or hope for.

I think this site works because the moderation is light, consistent and usually understandable. Very good moderation is tricky to do on a small scale*.

* (while largely impossible on a large one)

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m interested in the conversation that two members recently had regarding their opinion that this board has devolved.

Link?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Without change, there's nothing to wait or hope for.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, but within the context of the Church, I would say that the value of change depends very much upon the nature of the change.
 

If a change or reform is directed by the leadership of the Church, or even when it emerges from a grassroots movement that is eventually recognized, embraced and supported by the Church leadership, it can be very good indeed. 
 

A number of such grassroots movements come readily to mind. These include the Relief Society in Nauvoo as originated by Eliza R. Snow and Emma Smith; the Primary as originated in Farmington, Utah, under Aurelia Spencer Roger’s and others;  the Sunday School as originated in pioneer-era Salt Lake City by Richard Ballantyne; the welfare plan as originated by Harold B. Lee, who was then a stake president in Salt Lake City in the mid-20th century; and the Genesis group, originated in Salt Lake City in the early 1970s by Darius Gray and two companions. 
 

On the other hand, some grassroots movements can be very harmful, as illustrated by the numerous offshoot, schismatic and apostate groups that have sprung up since the Restoration of the Church. 

Edited January 2 by Scott Lloyd

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Link?

“What can faithful nonmembers do” thread, last page. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Link?

That would Bro Hamba and Yours Truly commenting on the unfortunate devolution of the board.

Edited January 3 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That would Bro Hamba and Yours Truly commenting on the unfortunate devolution of the board.

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

Edited January 3 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the new forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

History doesn’t change that often. How often can you discuss the succession crisis before you are just repeating the same sources?  Doctrine also does not change that often…a good thing in my view, but with our version of doctrine being revealed rather than reasoned out, that also limits how it can be discussed.  And such is discussed at church.  This seems to be a forum for what is not discussed at church, but members (and non) are still interested in enough to want to discuss.

Eventually discussing doctrine will end up being speculation, which may be fun for some (me, me, me), but not that meaningful for others.

The history of today is to a great extent sociopolitical…at least the stuff we have access to right now.  Later historians may have access to records that give greater meaning to stuff we miss as noteworthy.  We are discussing history; we just happened to be standing in the mess of its creation rather than being able to be semi clinical observers from a great distance.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I don't use social media but it I use this somewhat as analogue, sometimes I check in hourly and there are times it will be week or two. I spend a great deal of time writing something. I was also here many years ago, it's done just fine without me, it is basically same as it was ten years ago. I realize there is no great need for me to visit here daily. Take a break, because the posts will mostly all still be here in a month, even at the top if it was any good.

I think the board has changed. 10 years ago it used to be the doubters were outside the church now they are inside the church.

[Calm]

Who are the doubters here that are still inside the Church?  Serious question.  I remember more ten years ago who were questioning in the past who still identified as members.  Those who doubt now talk about themselves as members of record perhaps, but not in other ways besides attending to support family.  I went and looked at the board’s member list to refresh my memory of past frequent and semi frequent posters and I am just not seeing it.  There seem to me to be fewer posters in the grey areas, the ‘undecided’ column so to speak than in the past.

Edited January 3 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

Quote

Who are the doubters here that are still inside the Church?  Serious questions. I remember more ten years ago who were questioning in the past who still identified as members.  Those who doubt now talk about themselves as members of record perhaps, but not in other ways besides attending to support family.

It does seem there is a new / more pronounced phenomena of woke activism that infiltrated schools and media, that is also in the church. Now there are those who are truthfully ex-Mormons that retain their membership to actively trying to destroy / fix the church. Using their membership as a shield to actively preach critiques dishonestly framed as personal doubts, a badge that allows them to speak authoritatively on issues with conflicting narratives, a cloak to hide while trying to subversively enact change or start movements from the inside.

Edited January 3 by Pyreaux

[manol]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A number of such grassroots movements come readily to mind. These include the Relief Society in Nauvoo as originated by Eliza R. Snow and Emma Smith; the Primary as originated in Farmington, Utah, under Aurelia Spencer Roger’s and others;  the Sunday School as originated in pioneer-era Salt Lake City by Richard Ballantyne; the welfare plan as originated by Harold B. Lee, who was then a stake president in Salt Lake City in the mid-20th century; and the Genesis group, originated in Salt Lake City in the early 1970s by Darius Gray and two companions.

I had no idea.  For some reason I had assumed the Relief Society was Joseph Smith's idea, not to mention all those other great ideas that came from grassroots movements. Thank you for posting this!!

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

[From JLHPROF's signature]

"...when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives; it was thought there was no other cat to let out.  But allow me to tell you ... you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag ..." BRIGHAM YOUNG, 1853

I've been wanting to ask you, and now seems like as good a time as any... what are some of those cats Brigham was talking about? 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Eventually discussing doctrine will end up being speculation, which may be fun for some (me, me, me), but not that meaningful for others.

My recollection is that a fair number of Joseph Smith's revelations arose from his curiosity and subsequent seeking for greater light and knowledge.  Hopefully that's not a bad thing even if we don't get the kinds of paradigm-busting answers he often did, or at least not delivered the same way his often were. 

[pogi]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

I think that is a different devolution than the one Bernard is complaining about (he doesn’t like when people disagree with traditional views on here - he calls it “complaining”).  95% of the SSM and other sociopolitical threads/news articles are primarily generated by one poster that Bernard seems to align with and appreciate.  I am fine with discussing these things at times, but it feels more tribal and fear based than anything.  I agree that is a degradation that I would like to see less of.

I think same sex issues deserve to be addressed as they do pertain to doctrine, and it directly affects so many saints.    But the tribal sociopolitical us vs them wars are all that get attention though, while many faithful gay saints struggle to find their way/place in the church and after-life and would prefer not to get involved in these wars.  I would like to see these issues discussed and explored without the political ark steadying within church culture.

[Chum]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

IIRC, our overarching duty is to bring the Gospel to the world. While I absolutely get how insider discussions of arcane doctrine and historical minutia can be super satisfying*, it isn't very integral to declaring the Gospel.

Non members live in the large world that's invested in issues like SSM and stuff in newspaper articles. We can't reach them if we're unwilling to go there.

* A close friend once cited the lack of deep-geek-LDS discussions as the reason he quit attending. I think he was really attracted to the idea that some bit of arcanea would just blow everything wide open. No surprise that one of those became his justification for fully ExMo'ng.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This board seems to entirely focus on sociopolitical subjects related to the Church these days and rarely on doctrine or history.

I personally find it a devolution from where it once was.  I'm tired of discussing SSM, the latest happenings at BYU, or newspaper articles that should be in the news forum instead of the general one.

It's why I rarely post anymore.

I think those kinds of posts can be really interesting as well.  If there is something that you would like to discuss (that others would probably enjoy too), why not start those kinds of threads yourself?  

[Chum]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think those kinds of posts can be really interesting as well.  If there is something that you would like to discuss (that others would probably enjoy too), why not start those kinds of threads yourself?  

You're right. This is a good home for posts on esoteric doctrine. And right that those who are into it have to start them.

[Calm]

I think it might be helpful if those unhappy with the current character of the board made a commitment to put up one thread a month on a topic they wanted to discuss and did enough research to be comfortable discussing it, collected a few accessible sources for others to study.  Others who are unhappy with the board could commit to reading the accessible sources and posting on the thread to carry it for at least two pages perhaps so the effort made by the OP would feel worth it.  If we had several of those threads each month, it might shift the character of the board or at least provide variety of subjects.  If I saw effort being made by others to bring and sustain more variety to the board, I would put some effort into finding some solid topics myself to contribute to the effort and I bet I would not be the only one.

If the type of thread that is desire is a debate between defenders and the older style critic, unless one finds that type of critic and persuades them to come post (maybe bribe with a gift certificate to sodalicious or whatever popular spot exists in their state), not sure how else to get those unless Nemesis agrees to let Nehor or someone else talented in acting get a sock puppet alias and they do a great imitation of such a critic.  
 

On a more serious note…several currently dissatisfied posters could choose a topic and together create what they see as the best argument against the Church along with hopefully constructive criticism from the rest of us and then once that is constructed, they can proceed to challenge it and take it apart as best they can.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it might be helpful if those unhappy with the current character of the board made a commitment to put up one thread a month on a topic they wanted to discuss and did enough research to be comfortable discussing it, collected a few accessible sources for others to study.  Others who are unhappy with the board could commit to reading the accessible sources and posting on the thread to carry it for at least two pages perhaps so the effort made by the OP would feel worth it.  If we had several of those threads each month, it might shift the character of the board or at least provide variety of subjects.  If I saw effort being made by others to bring and sustain more variety to the board, I would put some effort into finding some solid topics myself to contribute to the effort and I bet I would not be the only one.

If the type of thread that is desire is a debate between defenders and the older style critic, unless one finds that type of critic and persuades them to come post (maybe bribe with a gift certificate to sodalicious or whatever popular spot exists in their state), not sure how else to get those unless Nemesis agrees to let Nehor or someone else talented in acting get a sock puppet alias and they do a great imitation of such a critic.  
 

On a more serious note…several currently dissatisfied posters could choose a topic and together create what they see as the best argument against the Church along with hopefully constructive criticism from the rest of us and then once that is constructed, they can proceed to challenge it and take it apart as best they can.

I think the bolded part is one reason the 'tenor' of the board has changed.  A lot of the older type discussions (that some are lamenting) require a healthy amount of critical nonmember participation.  How much can active members really discuss church doctrine and history before we've said all that can be said? 

That is not a board that a bunch of active and ex-mo participants can really re-create.  You need the critical types of Christians on here telling us why we are going to hell to get that back.

 

[Nemesis]

The church no longer needs apologetics from a rag tag group of people. So that explains why it’s not longer doing that.  Most of the current issues that come up as topics,  I think are important for membership to flesh out and have a place where their views can still be challenged but void of the toxic cast of characters we divested long ago.   
 

for what it’s worth.  I debate every year if it’s the last year, but if a core group continues to visit I will keep the lights on.   
 

Nemesis 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the bolded part is one reason the 'tenor' of the board has changed.  

At least you recognize that the board has undergone a recognizable change in the past couple of years.

33 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

The church no longer needs apologetics from a rag tag group of people. So that explains why it’s not longer doing that.  Most of the current issues that come up as topics,  I think are important for membership to flesh out and have a place where their views can still be challenged but void of the toxic cast of characters we divested long ago.   
 

for what it’s worth.  I debate every year if it’s the last year, but if a core group continues to visit I will keep the lights on.   
 

Nemesis 

I'm glad you do and I agree with everything you say here.

My issue is mainly that the description of the general discussion forum hasn't matched its content in several years.  I for one will keep reading and occasionally posting.  But I miss the scripture chase/angels on the head of a pin debates we used to have.

[Nemesis]

They do it because they feel their threads will get more traffic.  I got tired of moving them.  

[Chum]

19 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

They do it because they feel their threads will get more traffic.  I got tired of moving them.  

I'm just following the crowd.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

At least you recognize that the board has undergone a recognizable change in the past couple of years.

I haven’t noticed so much in the last couple of years but over the last couple of decades there’s definitely been a change.

But I don’t consider the change to be a devolution, as some do.