You get a World & You get a World & You get a World...oops, Not so Fast

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All you had to do to keep the "lively and engaging exchange of ideas" going was to say something like "Oops, I did forget to cite that source.  Here it is" when it was first mentioned, and all of the "tedious nitpicking" that you have engaged in trying to deflect her point wouldn't have happened.  Heck, you could have just ignored her post completely and she likely would not have brought it up again, having said it already once.  

Calm is one of the most beloved posters on here for a reason.  And you repeatedly struggle to have respectful discussions on here for a reason as well (and it's not because Calm is obsessed with citation).

Well it's all for naught. Calm poisoned my well.  I've already crossed the Rubicon. Enjoy chatting amongst yourselves.

 

Edited April 23 by Craig Speechly

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

For what its worth here is my advice for you, your annoying exactitude stifles honest and genuine expression.

Remarkable how the rest of us are managing just fine to converse….in spite of my efforts to stifle honest and genuine expression.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[let’s roll]

12 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Calm you are being excessively pedantic on this message board.  There I said it.  I guess, I'm now banned. Screw it, Enjoy your Silo. What could have been a civil conversation on something I felt was an interesting observation has quickly become an exasperating attack for the sin of failing to list the source of a collection of quotes of LDS leaders I found via a simple google search.  

But you've won. You have successfully disrupted the flow of the conversation, turning what could have been a lively and engaging exchange of ideas into a tedious nitpicking session of meeting your exacting standards for proper posting. Instead of focusing on the substance of my OP, you've put me on the defense, attacked my character and forced me to get bogged down in trivial details, detracting from the overall enjoyment of this conversation. You've Won, I give up.

You've sent your message loud and clear and I've received it. This board is not a safe place to ask questions or present subject matter unless it meets your exacting standard.  Perhaps not you intent, but your stilted, painfully irritating need to dot every i and cross every t, creates a hostile atmosphere for many of the posters here and honestly it drive us away. It's exhausting. But perhaps that is you intent.  You prefer homogeneity instead of a diverse platform of ideas and opinions. You seem to get more pleasure from the policing of this board than from creating an environment where a civil discussion and exchange of ideas can take place.  You've created a board where people like myself feel hesitant to express ourselves freely for fear of being scrutinized and corrected at every turn over seemingly minuscule matters that are of over whelming importance to you. 

For what its worth here is my advice for you, your annoying exactitude stifles honest and genuine expression. By driving folks like myself away, mind you I don't hide behind a wall of anonymity like everyone else here, you are diminishing the value of this community as a space for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding. You are shrinking the idea gene pool and you know what that does to the over all health of your close-knit community. In essence, while attention to accuracy and precision is important, your obsession with it just results in souring the experience for everyone involved and if not for everyone, it has for me. Everyone else is afraid to tell you the truth for fear of being banned, but you are an annoying influence on this board and frankly my dear I just don't give a damn.

 

Wow.  Can’t figure out if this is genuine or feigned.  Sad either way.  People get fired from jobs and expelled from universities for failure to follow the simple rules of attribution.  Craig, reading your responses, ii may be that you just don’t understand the concept of attribution.  When you insert the words of others in a post you need to cite the source of those words, so readers can go to the source for context, including identifying the author.  Attribution is an aspect of intellectual honesty and I trust honesty is important to you. It’s beneath you to attack someone for reminding you to attribute your sources.

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Same.  In fact, had I not read this thread I wouldn’t blink if somebody gave a talk on this today. I didn’t know that this wasn’t a thing for anybody? Isn’t that one of the basic criticisms people have for our church, the idea that we can become just like God? 

The doctrine of joint heirship with Christ is alive and well in the Church. I wouldn't blink if someone gave a talk about becoming just like God and creating worlds under His direction.

My pushback on this thread has been against the notion of having one's owns planet. Others have pushed back against that specific angle as well.

The notion was well on its way out the door in the late 90s and early 00s when I was joking with my wife about evolving a species of sentient velociraptors on our own planet. My velocirapter planet just isn't going to happen (sadly). Such independent silliness is not what the doctrine teaches or inplies.

Edited April 23 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Each and every quote I posted in my OP is cited.

Thanks,

-Craig

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/what-constitutes-plagiarism-0

https://www.plagiarism.org/blog/2018/04/03/what-are-secondary-sources#:~:text=Hiding either of your sources,re pulling that information from.

added:  just in case it isn’t clear to someone yet, I am not talking about the individual quotes, but the totality of those quotes.  Someone at mrm or elsewhere took the time to do the research and pulled together all those quotes, including proper citations of them.  It is that work product that needs the citation, not the individual quotes.  It would be very important to have the citation if they had altered the quotes at all with ellipses or anything else, but it is still required for proper citation even if all the work they did was gather them in one place….if only so one knows it might be wise to doublecheck to make sure the quotes are accurate since they weren’t lifted from the original texts before being posted here.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

. Calm poisoned my well. 

I think you did that yourself when instead of just accepting you made a mistake, you used Smac’s lack of providing links as an example of my double standard…the lack that doesn’t exist and now it appears you are trying to act like it never happened.  It is going to be a bit hard to forget that piece of carelessness on top of the drama of your posts blaming me for getting you banned when all you had to do was say “oops, yep, that’s where I got them” and instead you chose to invest in post after post protesting.

As bluebell said, you did not have to respond at all or you could have accepted responsibility for a minor error and moved on as has most every poster that I or someone else pointed out they had a missing link..  Smac, with his different, more significant error, even just simply explained he grabbed a website as his source instead of an original study in a squeezed in moment and didn’t doublecheck it first to make sure it was accurate when I spent more time criticizing his error last week.

If it turned out that you got stuck on the criticism, that is on you, not me.  I am not what’s different between posters who didn’t get dinged for missing a link or making another error and the few that do.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

@Stormin' Mormon (LOVE your moniker!), I can't speak to this subject from a place of scholarship, but I once studied with a fundamentalist group who claimed to teach the authentic Brigham Young Adam-God theory.  The way they explained it ties in with the idea that "you get a planet if you're really good". 

Briefly, they believe Adam was an advanced "graduate" of a previous Earth, that he had progressed to the point where he got to create a planet, and the spirits here are his kids (and no I don't recall any specifics about "how" the kids were created).  In their teachings, Jesus is Adam's firstborn spirit son; in other words, they rank Adam higher than Jesus but lower than God (Adam's father).  But as part of Adam's on-the-job training, he and Eve are actually the ones our prayers get routed to, even if we don't actually phrase our prayers that way.  So by this paradigm, Adam & Eve are what our (presumably far distant) future could look like. 

Anyway when I saw @Stargazer mention the Adam-God "doctrine" upthread, it jogged my memory.  Assuming this group actually was teaching what Brigham taught, perhaps the "you get a planet if you're really good" concept is an aspect of the Adam-God theory that survived and persisted? 

I invite correction from anyone who knows this subject better than I do, and/or can speak to it from a place of scholarship.

One thing is for certain is that we are told only the most elementary things about eternity. In the paraphrased words of Colonel Jessep, we can't handle the whole truth. For one thing, our temporal minds are incapable of it. For another, even the watered down versions we get are frequently too much for us. What we do get must necessarily have holes. This is why I refuse to be disheartened when I encounter inconsistencies. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

52 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Calm you are being excessively pedantic on this message board.  There I said it.  I guess, I'm now banned. Screw it, Enjoy your Silo. What could have been a civil conversation on something I felt was an interesting observation has quickly become an exasperating attack for the sin of failing to list the source of a collection of quotes of LDS leaders I found via a simple google search.  

But you've won. You have successfully disrupted the flow of the conversation, turning what could have been a lively and engaging exchange of ideas into a tedious nitpicking session of meeting your exacting standards for proper posting. Instead of focusing on the substance of my OP, you've put me on the defense, attacked my character and forced me to get bogged down in trivial details, detracting from the overall enjoyment of this conversation. You've Won, I give up.

You've sent your message loud and clear and I've received it. This board is not a safe place to ask questions or present subject matter unless it meets your exacting standard.  Perhaps not you intent, but your stilted, painfully irritating need to dot every i and cross every t, creates a hostile atmosphere for many of the posters here and honestly it drive us away. It's exhausting. But perhaps that is you intent.  You prefer homogeneity instead of a diverse platform of ideas and opinions. You seem to get more pleasure from the policing of this board than from creating an environment where a civil discussion and exchange of ideas can take place.  You've created a board where people like myself feel hesitant to express ourselves freely for fear of being scrutinized and corrected at every turn over seemingly minuscule matters that are of over whelming importance to you. 

For what its worth here is my advice for you, your annoying exactitude stifles honest and genuine expression. By driving folks like myself away, mind you I don't hide behind a wall of anonymity like everyone else here, you are diminishing the value of this community as a space for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding. You are shrinking the idea gene pool and you know what that does to the over all health of your close-knit community. In essence, while attention to accuracy and precision is important, your obsession with it just results in souring the experience for everyone involved and if not for everyone, it has for me. Everyone else is afraid to tell you the truth for fear of being banned, but you are an annoying influence on this board and frankly my dear I just don't give a damn.

 

I kinda understand where you're coming from. It seems to me a little overkill to demand exact citations on a fast and furious discussion board that doesn't claim to be a scholarly think-tank.

That being said, calm is just a stickler in that, she not trying to stifle conversation, or have her worldview only promoted. In fact, in my prejudiced thinking I think she, at times, gives too much allowance to those questioning the Church.

My 🪙🪙

Edited April 23 by ZealouslyStriving

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I kinda understand where you're coming from. It seems to me a little overkill to demand exact citations on a fast and furious discussion board that doesn't claim to be a scholarly think-tank.

That being said, calm is just a stickler in that, she not trying to stifle conversation, or have her worldview only promoted. In fact, in my prejudiced thinking I think she, at times, gives too much allowance to those questioning the Church.

My 🪙🪙

That's what I like about Calm, it doesn't matter where you sit with the church, she'll just set people straight where they go wrong on the discussion forum on both sides. And it's not out of spite it's because she cares about the discussion being clear enough for a good discussion. I respect her for seeing past others' beliefs and goes further to see what they have to say and go off that. 

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Each and every quote I posted in my OP is cited.

Because the author of the website did the work to do so, not you, and therefore it is SOP to give them the credit for the work they did.

I am not the one who established the academic slant of the website or put the rule in the guidelines or who chooses to enforce it, though I love it because it makes it so easy to do additional research when I want to.

You want to post on a website, you should respect the choices of the owner of what they want the board to be.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And it's not out of spite it's because she cares about the discussion being clear enough for a good discussion

You nailed it, my dear.   It is important for people to be able to not only understand what a poster is saying in a post, but to be able to dig deeper into the ideas if they want to…that is why a link to whatever someone used, original material or secondary or third or collection of quotes, whatever is important.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you did that yourself when instead of just accepting you made a mistake, you used Smac’s lack of providing links as an example of my double standard…the lack that doesn’t exist and now it appears you are trying to act like it never happened.  It is going to be a bit hard to forget that piece of carelessness on top of the drama of your posts blaming me for getting you banned when all you had to do was say “oops, yep, that’s where I got them” and instead you chose to invest in post after post protesting.

As bluebell said, you did not have to respond at all or you could have accepted responsibility for a minor error and moved on as has most every poster that I or someone else pointed out they had a missing link..  Smac, with his different, more significant error, even just simply explained he grabbed a website as his site in a squeezed in moment and didn’t doublecheck it first to make sure it was accurate when I spent more time criticizing his error last week.

If it turned out If you got stuck on the criticism, that is on you, not me.  I am not what’s different between posters who didn’t get dinged for missing a link or making another error and the few that do.

I stand by my earlier comments about your attention to details, it is suffocating.  But you got my dander up when you called the quotes I cut and pasted as having come from, your words, an anti-mormon site.  It poisoned the conversation. The quotes were not anti-mormon, they were just the opposite they were very Mormon. The quotes just happened to have been accessed from a site google provided that provides quotes that embarrass the church because it places the church in a less than flattering light.

 

Any how, it was fun while it lasted.  Cheers and good night.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It seems to me a little overkill to demand exact citations on a fast and furious discussion board that doesn't claim to be a scholarly think-tank.

It doesn’t claim to be a scholarly think tank, but it does claim the discussion is going to be “substantive and civil” and the owner (not me) was the one who went with “Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own” as bannable behaviour.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/#comments

I don’t have a clue if Nemesis bans anyone for leaving out a link, I would actually be surprised if they did in fact.  It is going to be the context that matters, I am guessing, including whether it’s a habit even after someone has asked for links from them multiple times or they are being a sock puppet or breaking another board rule, which is what gets them banned actually.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

It poisoned the conversation. The quotes were not anti-mormon, they were just the opposite they were very Mormon. The quotes just happened to have been accessed from a site google provided that provides quotes that embarrass the church because it places the church in a less than flattering light.

You used a collection of quotes meant to embarrass the Church in a conversation with devout members of the Church and I am the one who poisoned the conversation?

I gave the mrm link for two reasons, the first is they deserved the credit for the work, even if it’s work I don’t appreciate…trying to embarrass the Church (your description, not mine, but I agree that is part of their motivation).  The second is I think context is important and you being willing to use an anti Mormon site as a reference (cited or uncited) is imo important context.

Added:  and again you are misrepresenting what I said, I never called the quotes antimormon, I called the site antimormon…as you just admitted when you said their purpose of providing the quotes was to embarrass the Church, though I call it that for its long history of attacking the Church.

Edited April 23 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

The quotes just happened to have been accessed from a site google provided that provides quotes that embarrass the church because it places the church in a less than flattering light

Bro.... I can't even defend that!! 🤣

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It seems to me a little overkill to demand exact citations on a fast and furious discussion board that doesn't claim to be a scholarly think-tank.

Think of it as not only being grateful for the farmers and others who produced the food you eat and the guy who delivered it to your window after you ordered “pickup”, but giving respect to the grocery store that brought all your favorites together so you can pick them up in one spot…that is if they gave it to you for free.  

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I stand by my earlier comments about your attention to details, it is suffocating.  But you got my dander up when you called the quotes I cut and pasted as having come from, your words, an anti-mormon site.  It poisoned the conversation.

The thread was poisoned from the start, right in the title. It wasn't going to allow for trust in the conversation from those who believe in the faith.

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

The quotes were not anti-mormon, they were just the opposite they were very Mormon. The quotes just happened to have been accessed from a site google provided that provides quotes that embarrass the church because it places the church in a less than flattering light.

 

Any how, it was fun while it lasted.  Cheers and good night.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's what I like about Calm, it doesn't matter where you sit with the church, she'll just set people straight where they go wrong on the discussion forum on both sides. And it's not out of spite it's because she cares about the discussion being clear enough for a good discussion. I respect her for seeing past others' beliefs and goes further to see what they have to say and go off that. 

It is nice to know I am understood in this.  

Edited April 24 by Calm