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

[Guest]

K, NO ONE is protecting MY feelings by not telling God is false. I GET THAT GOD IS NOT "REAL"! I would like to be able to discuss concepts of faith, God, religion, etc... from MY viewpoint without constantly having to read someone else telling me that God is false.

There are discussions on this board that start out with a great post and sometimes slowly get beaten down by the idea that we can't talk about issues that religious people have because they believe in God. I don't care if they believe in God -- I would enjoy to discuss what are the ramifications of this belief. Every time I mention religion, God, etc... it would be nice if the CONCEPT could be discussed.

I have NO testimony and support this decision. There are many discussions that can revolve about God, issues, faith, etc.. that will not even necessarily appeal to active LDS on this board.

For instance, if there was a discussion on the ramifications of those that hold a certain belief this could easily get sidetracked into a thread about how the belief itself is false. So? So what that the belief is false? The purpose might be to discuss what occurs when this belief is held by people. If it devolves into a back and forth of "I do not believe in this *whatever*, yet recognize others do" and someone else replying "This belief is false" what is the freaking point of that? Let's discuss the belief and what follows.

[_skippy the dead]

Skippy, how does it further dialog if every time Joseph Smith is brought up, it eventually ends up with thread defending whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not??

I can definitely see the value is setting a parameter that Joseph Smith was a prophet in some instances.

It's no different than threads devolving into bearing testimony at MAD. Do you know how infuriating that is?

I really don't know that every time Joseph Smith is brought up the thread goes that direction. But if that is what happens, perhaps that's what people or more interested in discussing. Maybe it's better to allow the organic progression of the thread that way, then to have the thread originator deciding what can be discussed. Requiring a new thread to branch off each time basically just has a discussion bifurcated into two areas, and it serves no useful purpose. But to place a prior restraint on the speech is simply wrong.

It would be fine with me if a thread starter says "Hey, I want to discuss this particular subject, without debating the underlying premise"; but if the discussion does veer into another direction regardless, then that should just be how it is as long as the expression of the opinions otherwise meets the Celestial parameters. If some dorkfish comes in and tries to spoil the thread with inflammatory stuff, then deal with those individual instances. Or ignore them (I know, what an amazing thought!).

I'll repeat it again - it's simply a bad precedent.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here is what I'll do.

When I post replies to messages, I will post at the top of each one, that it is a FAITH BASED post, and that the Cult Lapdogs of MDB are not allowed to oppose it, but must create a NEW message in the Terrestrial Forum.

Essentially that is what you do anyway. You post angry and inflammatory comments, call the LDS Church a mindless cult, call anyone who speaks up in and way a lap dog and then you cry when people get hostile back and then refuse to post with them. Others here have pointed out to you that I have made constructive critical posts about the Church as well as defend it. If you would really ever bother to read what I write rather than go over the edge of the cliff anytime anyone opposed what you say maybe you would get a bit further along with some here.

And if you really think this is a haven for LDS TBM types you are frankly nuts. There are hardly any apologetic TBMs here. The ratio of believers to non believer has to be about 2 every 10 or so.

[_Yoda]

If you feel a strong urge to argue the existance of God in a thread where the OP has asked that the existance of God is an assumed truth, don't participate. If your only argument is to deny God's existance, how is that helping to foster good debate??

I honestly believe this rule will help to further good dialog.

I agree.

[_Infymus]

If you feel a strong urge to argue the existance of God in a thread where the OP has asked that the existance of God is an assumed truth, don't participate. If your only argument is to deny God's existance, how is that helping to foster good debate??

I honestly believe this rule will help to further good dialog.

I agree.

It's a bunch of crap. And no Liz, my messages are not full of vulgarities, unless of course I'm talking with a Lapdog.

So heres what we'll do. We will state at the top of our messages that everything in the thread is assumed truth, and that nobody is allowed to object. If they wish to object, they have to start a new thread.

What a bunch of malarkey.

You are just going to double the amount of posts causing everyone to start NEW threads in order to object. You are also going to be creating a moderative hell hole in trying to keep the posts clean of objections.

This is just as bad as you, Liz, hiding temple talk or things that you deem "sacred" or "holy" to other forums to keep it out of your own personal sight.

I think this is once again your Mormonism getting in the way of reality.

[_Scottie]

The other thing people seem to be missing here...

If you don't want to use it in your own threads, then don't use it!!! Let your threads go where the flow takes them.

If other posters want to limit the amount of derailment in THEIR threads, they are welcome to set some parameters.

It's not like we're forcing every member here to abide by some strict set of rules that completely handicaps their posting! This is ONLY in the Celestial, and ONLY if a poster wants to use it.

[_Scottie]

If you feel a strong urge to argue the existance of God in a thread where the OP has asked that the existance of God is an assumed truth, don't participate. If your only argument is to deny God's existance, how is that helping to foster good debate??

I honestly believe this rule will help to further good dialog.

I agree.

It's a bunch of crap. And no Liz, my messages are not full of vulgarities, unless of course I'm talking with a Lapdog.

So heres what we'll do. We will state at the top of our messages that everything in the thread is assumed truth, and that nobody is allowed to object. If they wish to object, they have to start a new thread.

What a bunch of malarkey.

You are just going to double the amount of posts causing everyone to start NEW threads in order to object. You are also going to be creating a moderative hell hole in trying to keep the posts clean of objections.

This is just as bad as you, Liz, hiding temple talk or things that you deem "sacred" or "holy" to other forums to keep it out of your own personal sight.

I think this is once again your Mormonism getting in the way of reality.

Infy, Liz was just the one who posted it. It wasn't her idea. All the mods had a long conversation about this.

You're over-reacting. This purpose of this isn't so members can post a thread that says, "Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and my parameters say he was! There, now try and argue that he wasn't!!!!"

[_Yoda]

So heres what we'll do. We will state at the top of our messages that everything in the thread is assumed truth, and that nobody is allowed to object. If they wish to object, they have to start a new thread.

What a bunch of malarkey.

You are just going to double the amount of posts causing everyone to start NEW threads in order to object. You are also going to be creating a moderative hell hole in trying to keep the posts clean of objections.

Not really, since, as Scottie stated, we're only talking about this occurring in ONE forum, the Celestial, and ONLY if a thread originator decides to place Faith Based in the thread title.

This is just as bad as you, Liz, hiding temple talk or things that you deem "sacred" or "holy" to other forums to keep it out of your own personal sight.

Um, for the record, dear, I did not make that rule. Shades did....Shades, who is the creator of the board, and who is an Ex Mormon. Take up the temple talk rule with him. As a Moderator, have I agreed to help enforce it, since I have agreed to assist Shades in his vision for the board? Yes. But don't start stating things that aren't true. I did not create that rule, and it was not created to appease me, personally, in any way.

I think this is once again your Mormonism getting in the way of reality.

And I think the fact that I am a Moderator and a Mormon pisses the hell out of you for whatever reason, in spite of the fact that my views regarding Mormonism are very liberal.

[_The Nehor]

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.

Yes we could. Why do you care?

You might note neither of us have. I guess you don't know members of the Church as well as you thought you did. But then, we've pretty much established that you were a crappy member before you left.

[_Jason Bourne]

It's a bunch of crap. And no Liz, my messages are not full of vulgarities,

yes they typically are.

unless of course I'm talking with a Lapdog.

Anyone who challenges you is a lapdog in your mind. Why can't you disagree civilly? I will tell you what. I will drop the name calling and condescension towards you in my posting if you will agree that I am criticize as well as defend. And when I challenge you on something argue back without the vulgarity, name calling and so on. I will try to do better if you will as well. On the other hand I refuse to be characterized and let unsubstantiated criticisms go unchallenged. But I am happy to be nicer about it to you.