(emphasis added)Mister Scratch wrote:I suppose that I wonder a bit about the whole "faith-based" limiting device. What does this mean, exactly? I understand how some (e.g., Dartagnan) might want to launch threads in which it is a foregone conclusion that, say, God exists... But will this be applicable to other subjects? For example, would we expect threads considering the prophethood of Joseph Smith in which posters are prohibited from mentioning, say, polygamy, or stone-gazing?
This is where I see the disconnect between what some people are asking for and how others are interpreting it. It is not a "foregone conclusion that God exists" that would be the premise for participating in the thread. It is to acknowledge that the OP has that belief and that it is just an accepted fact that they do, not that God exists, even while others do not hold that view but that it is, in effect, asked and answered, and the thread is moving on from that point.
It's just a case of asking how we get past the ubiquitous"Joseph Smith was a pedophile" jab, for example, to discussing other issues, that one aside (unless the premise of the thread is "was Joseph Smith a pedophile" of course.
That is all anybody is trying to find a way to do, as far as I can see.
Say someone asks "Have you ever had a spiritual experience?" and they get 49 replies along the lines of "There is no god, no spirit, no heaven, no life after death and anyone who believes there is must be a certified idiot". This is not really answering the meat of the post. Or what if I say I had a prayer answered and wanted to talk about it to others who believe the same but that type of post serves only to cue the onslaught of "what hokum" type replies? And what purpose does it serve to have an LDS poster (on a board where they are specifically invited to participate) met with the epithet "cult lapdog" every time they put a finger on their keyboard?
I see a twofold issue:
1. Some people are speaking past each other and not understanding what the other is saying in terms of the idea of a "flag" on certain threads.
2. Some people don't want LDS posters here. Or maybe Christian posters at all?
To solve the first element, it's useful to keep trying to discuss it.
To solve the second, that would take a change of policy from the board owner, I would think. Absent that, even the harshest "critics" will have to accept that there will be Mormon/Christian posters (maybe, if they can feel it is a place in which they'd like to participate).
I don't really see why making accommodations to appeal to the widest possible group is a problem. If it can't be done then maybe it means this type of board can't survive. Is that true? Making accommodations doesn't take the steam out of the objections we have to Mormonism or religious belief in general, does it?
To reiterate, I can talk to an LDS poster about an issue, within the parameter of their belief, and have a useful discussion about whatever they have raised. That is to say, I accept that they believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet - and then we start from that point and move forward. Unless the issue at hand is "was Joseph Smith a prophet?", that does not need to be discussed on that particular thread. Leaving that point aside on a thread to discuss another issue doesn't mean I am indicating my belief in Joseph Smith but rather just that I am interested in talking to an LDS person about something other than that question, at least in that particular thread.
I think maybe what isn't helping is the way this idea was explained in the sticky post? I think by the very nature of the stated purpose of the board it should be obvious that "accommodations" would have to be made for people. That is one of the most difficult parts of running any discussion board - to find the happy balance to make the thing thrive. I think that board owners find out sooner or later that they can't run a 100% democracy, as appealing as that idea may be in theory, and that at some point, on some things, more of a "dictatorship" reigns. That would certainly apply to working out what the mandate of the board is and how to achieve it. I think we always have a tendency to want a place to be exactly right for us. But even in a democracy (especially in a democracy?) you are just not going to find that. Unless you create it yourself, if you can find a way to do that.