New Faith-Based Threads Rule = Mormon NON-Discussions Board

[_Scottie]

I think this was a good idea in theory, just not practical. If someone really wanted to post about matters of faith without argument, you think they would be here?

Again, where are you getting that disagreement and argument is not allowed??

We are simply trying to allow posters the ability to set a pre-defined framework on which discussion can move forth.

What kind of framework? That you have to accept the Bible as the infallible word of God?

That would mean disagreement and argument is not allowed. Maybe people can use the chat room function for like-minded discussion instead of the Forums?

Exactly!

Take my first example. Will the guy on the cross that defended Jesus be saved?

Now, normally, this would very quickly degrade to a debate on whether the Bible was true or not. Or whether Jesus was the savior or just a man.

As the originator of this thread, the LAST thing I want to do is debate these things. They have been debated to death already! I want to debate the subject at hand!

Feel free to disagree with anything I say on that thread WITHIN THE PARAMETERS I'VE OUTLINED!

If I say, "Christ, as the Messiah forgave the the man on the cross without repentance on his part", you might come back with, "Actually, Christ looked into his heart and saw her true intent, therefore it's quite possible that he DID repent!"

What is NOT allowed is, "He wasn't forgiven because Christ wasn't the Savior anyways! CFR on a single scholar that claims that Christ even lived, let alone was the savior of the world!!!"

Do you see how this completely stifles the OP?

[_Jersey Girl]

There is a new feature in the Celestial Kingdom which I feel is antithetical to the purpose of this board. Take notice of the new sticky announcing the creation of "Faith Based" threads. "Faith Based" threads may now be made in the Celestial forum which will not allow for contradictory views. Follows a direct quote culled from the sticky atop this forum page:

If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.

If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or derailed. [bold mine]

Never did I imagine opposing views wouldn't be allowed on this board! We can all agree that it is sometimes frustrating when threads become derailed. And, yes, the Celestial forum should be free of personal attack and vulgarity, but to make challenging views "off-limits"? That effectively quashes discussion! If one wants nothing more than a back-patting session, those can be found on other boards. Like MADB.

I would like to strongly voice my opposition to the new "Faith Based" board rule. It is in direct opposition to the stated purposes of this board.

Kimberly Ann

KA....what on EARTH are you talking about? Opposing views have always been allowed on this board. The premise behind the FAITH BASED thread labeling is to

(let's sing it mods!}

PREVENT THE THREADS THAT ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, EXISTENCE OF Jesus, EXISTENCE OF SATAN, EXISTENCE OF SANTA CLAUS, PROPHETHOOD OF JOSEPH SMITH (and the like) FROM BEING

(what's that called?)

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

[_skippy the dead]

There is a new feature in the Celestial Kingdom which I feel is antithetical to the purpose of this board. Take notice of the new sticky announcing the creation of "Faith Based" threads. "Faith Based" threads may now be made in the Celestial forum which will not allow for contradictory views. Follows a direct quote culled from the sticky atop this forum page:

If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.

If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or derailed. [bold mine]

Never did I imagine opposing views wouldn't be allowed on this board! We can all agree that it is sometimes frustrating when threads become derailed. And, yes, the Celestial forum should be free of personal attack and vulgarity, but to make challenging views "off-limits"? That effectively quashes discussion! If one wants nothing more than a back-patting session, those can be found on other boards. Like MADB.

I would like to strongly voice my opposition to the new "Faith Based" board rule. It is in direct opposition to the stated purposes of this board.

Kimberly Ann

KA....what on EARTH are you talking about? Opposing views have always been allowed on this board. The premise behind the FAITH BASED thread labeling is to

(let's sing it mods!}

PREVENT THE THREADS THAT ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, EXISTENCE OF Jesus, EXISTENCE OF SATAN, EXISTENCE OF SANTA CLAUS, PROPHETHOOD OF JOSEPH SMITH (and the like) FROM BEING

(what's that called?)

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

If it's only about derailments, then why is the word "challenged" included?

edited to add: removed somewhat snarky comment parroting Jersey Girl's "What do you not get about that", since it didn't help further the conversation.

[_Jersey Girl]

There is a new feature in the Celestial Kingdom which I feel is antithetical to the purpose of this board. Take notice of the new sticky announcing the creation of "Faith Based" threads. "Faith Based" threads may now be made in the Celestial forum which will not allow for contradictory views. Follows a direct quote culled from the sticky atop this forum page:

If you would like to instigate a Faith Based thread, please indicate that the thread is Faith Based in the thread title.

If you indicate this, then the thread is off limits as far as being challenged or derailed. [bold mine]

Never did I imagine opposing views wouldn't be allowed on this board! We can all agree that it is sometimes frustrating when threads become derailed. And, yes, the Celestial forum should be free of personal attack and vulgarity, but to make challenging views "off-limits"? That effectively quashes discussion! If one wants nothing more than a back-patting session, those can be found on other boards. Like MADB.

I would like to strongly voice my opposition to the new "Faith Based" board rule. It is in direct opposition to the stated purposes of this board.

Kimberly Ann

KA....what on EARTH are you talking about? Opposing views have always been allowed on this board. The premise behind the FAITH BASED thread labeling is to

(let's sing it mods!}

PREVENT THE THREADS THAT ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, EXISTENCE OF Jesus, EXISTENCE OF SATAN, EXISTENCE OF SANTA CLAUS, PROPHETHOOD OF JOSEPH SMITH (and the like) FROM BEING

(what's that called?)

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

If it's only about derailments, then why is the word "challenged" included?


What do you not get about that?

Because there are posters who wish to discuss a topic that contains assumptions such as the existence of God, skippy, and there are posters on this board who will

DERAIL

the thread by challlenging the underyling assumption such as the existence of God

instead of challenging the TOPIC.

[_wenglund]

Rationalize the past however you wish (I didn't even mention your efforts to ban me from attending a gathering of board members last summer), and proceed now in whatever manner you desire, but either way, you can't excape the fact that your actions (like choosing not to respond to me now) essentially place me "off-limits" to you, disallow you from hearing my opposing views to your ex-testimonies, and effectively quash discussion between us, and are thus little different than what is being proposed for the Faith Based threads--about which you are ironically quite beside yourself. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, and in an even further twist of irony, it was YOU, Wade, who lectured continually about how FAIR/MAD has every right to boot people out, limit debate, and manipulate the terms of discussion. So: do you or do you not support the Faith Based threads? ;-)

Thanks, -Mister Scratch-

As would be expected, your recollection of my supposed "lectures" are quite foriegn to me, and likely a product of your knack for convoluting much of what I say. So, the presumed "twist of irony" is imagined.

Be that as it may, the fact is, I haven't formulated an opinion on the Faith Based matter, nor do I suspect that I ever will, since at present it is of little moment to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_KimberlyAnn]

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".

Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"

My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.

KA

[_skippy the dead]

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".

Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"

My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.

KA

As usual, that's kind of what I was thinking - on all counts. In fact, I edited my reply to remove my snarky comment, but it looks like it got captured in Jersey Girl's reply anyways. You'd think that the mods had some personal skin in the game, which is really quite the opposite of what the moderating should be on this point.

This will have to be my last post in this thread, because I sure as hell don't want my 1000th post to be memorialized here.

[_Scottie]

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".

Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"

My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.

KA

You're right, KA. I have acted poorly and I apologize to you and anyone else that I have offended in this quagmire today.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Thank you, Scottie! Apology accepted!

Kimberly Ann

[_Jersey Girl]

DERAILED.

What do you not get about that?

Jersey Girl

The wording in the Sticky notice doesn't stop at "derailing".

Also, I'm a bit surprised by the rudeness of you and some other mods. Liz immediately accused me of employing a straw man when I did no such thing. Scottie declared my post "idiotic" and now you ask "What do you not get about that?"

My opposition to the new rule isn't personally directed at anyone on this board. I think it's a bad decision, but I haven't derided any particular moderator because of it. I appreciate what each of you do to keep the board running. I have not, nor will I, personally insult any moderator over this issue. If any of you feel that I have, then I apologize.

KA

KA,

The entire sticky is about derailment. Show me where you think it's not about derailment. Please quote it here and bold the portion you think is not about derailment.