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

[_Mercury]

What this rule does is allows others who want to stay in their shell the opportunity to do so. This is a discussion board, not a self-affirmation board. If I see an OP that I do not agree with I expect to be able to challenge an OP. I do not expect to be excluded based on my disagreement with the use of religious language to establish fact.

[_skippy the dead]

Fine. Do whatever. But then Shades is going to need to change the front page:

Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard.

I suppose it should say:

Here is a place of free discussion, except when it's not. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, you word will be heard here, except when it's not.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here, except when you don't. We pride ourselves on a minimalistic moderation policy, so that your voice is always heard, except when it's not.

I hate to use the phrase, but the chilling effect of this silly new policy is probably more meaningful to me than the actual effect it may have on a few threads.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I agree with Skippy and Merc.

[_Scottie]

Call for ideas:

The "spirit of the law" for this rule is to stop threads from devolving into a "God doesn't exist", "the Bible isn't true anyways" types of threads.

It is so boring to have to re-debate the existance of God all the time. Do you all agree with this?

What we are trying to do it limit the amount of derailment in the CK. That doesn't mean a thread can't take on a life of it's own and follow a natural progression.

Are there any better suggestion on how we might implement the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Do you know how boring it is to have to re-debate the existence of God all the time?

Yes, actually I do. I don't care for those types of arguments, either. I'm not an atheist. I think that if folks simply ignored those "yeah, but God doesn't exist anyway, so you're whole argument is stupid" comments, then they would likely stop. But, even though I don't care for those arguments, I defend people's right to make them, as long as they don't break the rules of the forum on which they're posted.

I have no trouble supporting the functions of each forum. Keep off-topic posts in the Off-Topic forum. Keep content in the Celestial forum clean. No "F" or "S" words in the Terrestrial. Those rules are all fine and dandy. But prohibiting dissenting arguments at the request of the OP when such comments are otherwise appropriate to the forum? That's a bad idea.

Preemptively censoring remarks is a terrible precedent to set for this board.

KA

[Guest]

As I post infrequently at best, I don't expect my opinion to hold much weight. As much as I can see people's reaction against the idea of 'faith-based' posts and the seeming restriction on free speech, I think the approach in a limited nature could be very productive.

Although I'm more of a non-theist than anything, I'd love to see one of asbestosman's threads on "resurrection for gut bacteria" or something or other be examined on the level assuming a resurrection and not quickly degenerate to "there is no resurrection, move on". In a limited scope, I can easily see this making a richer board.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Funny, I wonder if it is that skeptics can see the problem with this whereas non questioning members don't. Sure we all see the problem with MAD but not in our own land. Sweet!!

[_Scottie]

Funny, I wonder if it is that skeptics can see the problem with this whereas non questioning members don't. Sure we all see the problem with MAD but not in our own land. Sweet!!

The difference here is that MAD has imposed this rule board-wide, with bannings as a real possibility if you break it. We are saying a poster may choose to implement this or not, and ONLY in the CK.

If you want to debate the existence of God, by all means, post a thread that doesn't have any parameters.

[_Nightingale]

Infymus:
"MDB started as a refuge for those kicked out of FAIR/MAD."

I'm reading into that statement that Infymus means "and so we shouldn't cater to Mormons". If that is so, maybe this expectation is contributing to a disconnect.

Perhaps having a group of "critics" banned from FAIR/MA&D precipitated the creation of this board (I'm not sure if that is so?) but it doesn't seem to dictate the purpose of the board, which is stated to be:

"Here is a place of free discussion. Whether you want to discuss the finer intricacies of doctrine, or whether you want to discuss the truthiness of the church in general, your word will be heard here.

Pro, anti, investigator, questioner, critic, apologetic, no matter what you call yourself, what you have to say, or what your agenda is, you have a place here."

There are three elements there that would seem to support the idea of a "faith-based" flag on posts.

1. Mormons are welcome here and, indeed, invited to the board.
2. "discuss...doctrine" is allowed here, by direct statement.
3. "...you have a place here" (includes "anti", ex, nevermo and Mormon or other).

For these purposes to be achieved there has to be something here that would appeal to at least some Mormons or else it's a doomed endeavour. When you have some in the crowd who intensely dislike Mormonism and are outspoken about it, how do you create or find balance for others who believe differently? Not every prospective Mormon poster may want everlasting debates about the same issues. That could curtail or prevent their participation. Some exmo posters might like that but that is not in line with the stated intent of this board.

If you're going to invite people here, you need to provide something they want and get something out of. I tried to express this in the past when I read posts by Shades and others that said they would really like to see DCP participating here. Then he did start to post (much to my surprise!) but was met by a barrage of heated criticism and animosity that never let up. I'm not trying to defend him or criticize ex-Mormons. (For one thing, I totally understand where the angst comes from). I'm just saying that when you invite someone here specifically by name, at least, if the board owner/manager/mods want them to participate there needs to be something in it for them. I dislike antagonism and would avoid it. In that way, I can understand why some people would just quit posting or would decline to participate in the first place.

I think there is quite a disparity between what Shades/keene want for the board and what some individuals want or expect. That is why having different forums would seem to be a great option. If you don't want to post with Mormons or don't want to read about Joseph Smith et al, you don't have to visit that forum or don't have to read those threads. It would seem to be a necessary compromise to further the purpose of the board. (I don't care to read Mormon scripture or long theological discussions about Mormon teachings but I can see that others might and that such discussion could be fruitful for all sides so don't have a problem with it going on, especially if it is literally out of sight, away from the main forum).

Regarding flagging a post, this is something I have suggested at RfM a few times. There is a great majority of non-believer to believer there ("believer" in this case being usually Christian) and often when a Christian writes a post about anything at all to do with faith or belief, the very first replies are along the lines of how stupid it is to believe in God and other similar remarks and attitudes that are not helpful to the original poster who may not be looking for a theological debate or battle on that particular thread. (I must say that if they express a problem or a need this often does not happen, where believers and atheists alike rally round to try and help out). But I understand how sometimes you just want to write a post and not have it turn into a "there is no god, you idiot" type of thing. In the rare case when someone there does flag their subject line "please no debate" or "Christian content" etc (which I've done myself) it is usually respected.

However, most people seem to drift to places that better meet this or that particular need rather than trying to make one place be exactly how they want or need it to be. That is why a variety of resources works better than just having one. Just as a Christian wouldn't likely expect to find a lot of Christian fellowship at RfM and for that would choose a different venue, if someone really can't stand Mormonism or Mormons, they would choose to avoid exposure. Perhaps that is part of the clash here, that some people just don't want to talk to Mormons at all or see Joseph Smith material or read anything apologetic at all or even know it is in another forum in the same place. If so, on this board, the stated purpose would not meet their wishes. But as long as the purpose or mandate does not change, there will be a clash about what the board should be like.

I understand KA's objection if things turn out the way she describes. Maybe it's a case of waiting to see if or how it develops? Or maybe it's better to just let market forces, so to speak, determine how it will fall out? In other words, each thread rises or falls, literally, according to the way it is crafted. Just choosing to put your thread in the C. forum largely determines how it will go (due to the board rules there). Is that enough? Maybe it's a case by case or post by post basis? I think it ends up being an issue of respect, perhaps. Respect that Shades/keene have invited Mormons to participate here. Respect for other posters in general. Respect that a fellow poster has requested certain parameters in their thread.

At least here we can start a new thread to discuss anything without fear of treading on big toes that will end up squashing us. When I tried to post a few times at FAIR/MA&D I felt like a new kid in high school who wasn't given the right rule book and as serious and honest and useful a participant as I tried to be I was always running into brick walls. Indeed, I remember even writing a post here to ask about a particular rule there that I just couldn't get my head around. It really doesn't help that some mods there at the time seemed to assume that every non-LDS poster was purposely trying to offend. You would get the hammer for something unexpected and then the boot for asking what's up. As moderate a poster as I think I am, I often got my threads there closed, a post completely deleted (doesn't happen there often - they leave up even completely egregious remarks but *I* got deleted? wow!) and I received quite a few red-print tell-offs by mods. It was not a comfortable posting experience for me. Even so, I do understand they have a board purpose too and pull no punches in stating that their intention is to create a certain atmosphere for their own LDS posters. Anyone who wants to post there has to find a way to fit into that or else leave by choice or by boot. Every place is sorta like that, ultimately. There has to be rules to help things go smoothly and to achieve the main purpose of anything.

What is a desirable variable is having the freedom and choices to state your own opinions. KA's post at MA&D could get her 10 days in Spirit Prison or even eternity in Outer Darkness. Here, you can question the mods, the board, the Mormon posters, the exmo evangelist, the nevermo jokester. And live to talk about it tomorrow.

HOW you talk about it - that is the question!

So, bottom line is, I like that KA speaks out, I like that she can, I like that people have different opinions and I hope that everyone can find a way to communicate with each other if they want to - or not - but the choice is the great thing.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

As I post infrequently at best, I don't expect my opinion to hold much weight. As much as I can see people's reaction against the idea of 'faith-based' posts and the seeming restriction on free speech, I think the approach in a limited nature could be very productive.

Although I'm more of a non-theist than anything, I'd love to see one of asbestosman's threads on "resurrection for gut bacteria" or something or other be examined on the level assuming a resurrection and not quickly degenerate to "there is no resurrection, move on". In a limited scope, I can easily see this making a richer board.

Everyone's opinion holds weight, or so I am told. I usually don't have an opinion.

I am beginning to see what you people mean. So then the sticky threads need to be changed and if people are allowed to say "God exists" without proof and without criticism then why can't people say "God doesn't exist" without criticism. So are you all gonna make a sub forum for non faith based discussion without criticism?????