Infymus wrote:This should make Nehor and Bourne ecstatic. They can now sit and write happy messages about how everything is wonderful and perfect in their closed-in world of the Cult.
MDB started as a refuge for those kicked out of FAIR/MAD. On the Mormon Curtain I purposefully do not direct anyone to this site who is looking to recover from Mormonism. Look at this place, mods who are all Mormon, Lapdog Cult members who attack anyone who says anything contradictory about their Cult - and they do so by calling names and making kindergarten statements such as "Have your mommy change your diaper", etc, etc.
No, I think it's par for the course here on MDB. It is moving more and more to a pro-Mormon site to discuss only Mormonism. I'm pretty sure the Cult members here (including the Moderators) will move this site into another MAD board.
Infymus,
Why are you commenting on this when you obviously don't read the board frequently or carefully (take your pick) enough to know the religious affiliation or non-affiliation of the mod team?
The mods on here are not all Mormon. What do you get this from? One is Mormon.
GoodK wrote: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?
Ya I see your point now. Changing the subject is the issue... right?
tumult wrote:I think that John Larsen made a good comment regarding Will's april 1 post that it did not seem to carry any emotion. I think that because people have been hurt by the Church for not being forthright with certain information that they will get emotional when a Mormon pops up and says certain things that seem to tear off old scabs. Just start talking about Church courts and I run in my room and get my bat and come back to the keyboard.
Tumult, I'm afraid just the mere presence of LDS believers on this board upsets a couple of ex-mormons posters. To a small minority of posters, believers are the "enemy" and they don't want to encourage any more of "that kind" to participate on this board. While I can understand the reservations some like KA have voiced with the "faith based" thread designation, I'm afraid that some on the board will oppose any and all suggestions which might encourage LDS believers to join and participate on this board. They don't want more believers--in fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be happier with none.
The Nehor wrote:As a sidenote when I first started here I was one among many LDS posters who would be called TBM here.
As far as I can tell it's now just me and Coggins occasionally but I think he's more religious in his politics than his religion in any case. I have a high tolerance for being mocked and demeaned and I've had to step away several times cause it got too crazy for me. This made Infy's comment about this becoming MAD a joke to me. If anything it's slowly turning into RFM without the banning of LDS.
Nehor, I'm still here. I've been on this board from the beginning when Dr. Shades set it up. I was off for a few months after it was revamped, and I took a break for a couple of months last year, but I'm still here. I don't have a high tolerance for mocking and demeaning--I'm not interested in that kind of interaction. I read mostly and I don't open threads I can tell will be offensive. and I post when I feel I can contribute without having all hell break loose on me. But, I'd post more if I felt it was not a waste of my time--but so far, even the celestial forum has seemed futile. I read the "evidence of Jesus" thread and found it to be interesting, considered contributing but then watched it hijacked by derailments, the typical ridicule of believers and the contributions of posters who just like to argue.
I understand completely that something needs to be done if the celestial forum is to be successful. Just what to do, I don't know. But I'd rather support the mods and give this a try. If it doesn't work, then scrap it and try something else.
Infy does not want Mormons to get "comfortable" on this board. He'll say anything to try and scare or encourage the others into opposing any suggestions which might bring more of "our kind" to this board.
We weren't freaking out. I, for one, was mocking you.
No, you were misrepresenting me, which as a result, you were only mocking yourself.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
dartagnan wrote:Amen to that. In fact I would take it a step further and preclude certain posters from stepping foot in the celestial. In my opinion, some have to earn the right to be taken seriously, especially those who have established track records of drivebys.
Oh - maybe we can have prospective celestial posters submit their credentials and an essay to a committee of self-appointed judges to be evaluated before being allowed to set foot in the celestial forum. And there should be a measurement for ego, self-importance pomposity, to make sure that those posters are properly qualified. And then we should put a double-secret password on it, to keep the riff-raff (e.g., me) out.
I know! We could use the above process described by Skippy to cull from the board only the most worthy posters for a new forum: The Holy of Holies! The folks there could congratulate one another on their worthiness and intelligence whilst the rest of us hoi polloi remain at a respectable distance. Their forum could remain unsullied by dissent or contrary opinion.
Oh, and they should have a secret password accompanied by a secret handshake for admittance. ;)
KA
Sounds like that has already been done on Dartagnan's board.
Kimberly and Skippy are freaking out in hyperbole mode. I didn't advocate any of that nonsense. But it should be taken for granted that some people have no business being in the celestial. Polygamy Porter and mercury come to mind. I know this will never be implemented, I was just commenting on a remark by marg about restrictions that she would support.
God, you are such a douchebag. Of course, Mormons who leave for evangelical christianity are inherently douchey.
We weren't freaking out. I, for one, was mocking you.
No, you were misrepresenting me, which as a result, you were only mocking yourself.
This reminds me of the response the slow kids in school used to give when they did nto know how to respond to others by saying "im paper u are glue..."
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Since the main guff everyone has seemed to have with this rule is the choice of the word, "challenge", I have removed it from the sticky.
This is now how it reads:
liz3564 wrote:Marg made a suggestion which the Mods have decided to incorporate into the Celestial Forum. 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 the base assumptions laid out by the OP being derailed. The following perimeters immediately exist:
If the discussion involves God, then someone shouldn't come in and start arguing the existence of God. For the purpose of that thread, God exists. That's the given. (I.e....God, Buddha, whatever the higher power being discussed is).
If the thread is discussing, for example, points of LDS doctrine, then someone shouldn't come in and start challenging the validity of LDS doctrine For the purpose of that faith based thread, LDS doctrine is valid. Or Catholic doctrine is valid...or whatever type of religious doctrine is being discussed.
As the thread originator, it is your responsibility to set the guidelines for this type of thread, and place "Faith Based" as part of the thread title. This will give participants a better understanding of the desired direction of the thread.
Alternately, if you would like to declare a thread "Atheist based", you may detail the parameters of your assumptions as well. Such as, "Atheists have morals". Thus, any argument about atheists and their perceived lack of morals would be off limits in this thread.
As a Moderation Team, we hope that this will help with derailment issues, and also allow those who desire to participate in faith based discussions an "attack free" zone to do so.
Happy everyone? Probably not. At this point, I really don't give a sh*t.
