Are you a defender, critic, or neutral?

[_beastie]

Ray,

You had a very different experience on FAIR than I did. I think that is due to the fact that you were as likely to defend the church as criticize it. I am not critical of all LDS teachings and largely leave "spiritual" teachings alone, and just don't comment on those issues. But when I comment, normally in connection to the Book of Mormon or polygamy, it's as a critic. Certainly not every LDS poster is rude or engages in personal attacks, but there is a small, but very vocal, group that does so very consistently. I didn't just have one bad experience with Juliann, for example, but many.

But more than that it is the openly biased moderation I refuse to tolerate or condone any longer. Critics on FAIR/MAD were tolerated ony within certain parameters, with some high profile exceptions like Vogel and Metcalfe, and moderating is done without clear justifications.

I understand why they are this way, because otherwise believers flee. They're not fleeing bad behavior in general, because that wasn't tolerated on Z, and despite Juliann's rewriting of history, believers were just as inclined as nonbelievers to engage in "under the radar" bad behavior that wouldn't quite get them in trouble but still was an attack. But you just cannot get completely away from that on a message board. When PAC and the mods were trying to figure out how to change the board to make it more inviting to believers, I actually suggested the changes that MAD ended up using. (I'm not saying they "listened" to me, I think the board was probably already created by that point, but I'm trying to demonstrate how logical this path is, in its own way) Control the number of critics, so believers outnumber critics (at least in posting tendencies, which while polls may show a nearly even number of each, on threads it is clear believers outnumber nonbelievers). Don't give any clear "rules" for moderating so moderators don't have to justify themselves. I made these suggestions before experiencing FAIR. But I also made it plain that while these changes would likely make believers more comfortable, it wouldn't be a board I'd be interested in participating on.

I have pretty much concluded that it's just not possible to have open dialogue between believers and exbelievers, with some rare exceptions. Mormonism, as well all know, isn't just like "any other" religion (although there are other "one true" religions like it, most are not). It's a way of life, it's an entire worldview. So the idea of members actively (not passively) rejecting its truth claims is very threatening - to the church as a whole, and to individual members. It feels like a personal rejection, a personal attack, because so many LDS are emotionally enmeshed within the "church" (as the larger meme). So I think what happens on boards is that critics do what they do - criticize truth claims - but it feels like a personal attack to believers. They may feel justified in "returning" a personal attack (in fact, Juliann once explained on the Z board something very similar to that - she thinks believers are justified in personal attacks because THEY are being attacked - notice the enmeshment between the individual and the truth claims).