Why So Few Faithful?

[_Coggins7]

To follow the main currents of anti-LDS thought, match my wits and knowledge with serious critics of the Church, and, in a less noble manner, take people to the woodshed when I'm in a bad mood.

Unfortunately, both this forum and the Internet email and message board world encourage this kind of behavior (its the anonymity, I believe, above all other considerations), And I fall into this trap myself too often (and with my particular sense of humor, and the particular kinds of people one encounters in forums such as this, the temptation is well nigh impossible on occasion).

In any event, I've left ZLMB long ago and will not be back unless that forum becomes something worthwhile again. Debating here allows me, sometimes, to sharpen my own arguments, reflect upon their philosophical quality, and search out research and data that would support my contentions (although I have found that this practices is mostly a waste of time, as many won't suffer information that doesn't hail from an already ideologically approved source (i.e., Foritgurn won't even bother with analysis regarding AGW that comes from the Idso's, who support free market solutions to environmental problems and who don't support environmentalist philosophy, but would freely quote IPCC scientist as if they represent the last word on the matter).

I limit myself to a couple days at a time here, precisely for the reasons mentioned above.

[_Coggins7]

Oh, and I forgot, they don't lick cupcakes at ZLMB, so it got really boring after a while.

How, like, totally un-Seventies...

[_wenglund]

If one wishes to know why so few faithful LDS members may post here, and how more may be attracted here (assuming that is the group's wish), then I think it important to honestly answer at least two questions:

1) Comparitively speaking, what value does this board offer to faithful LDS over what may be available on other boards?

I can think of several things:

a) Some of the faithful, like many here, may have been banned or disgruntled with FAIR/MAD, and may wish to whine and complain about FAIR/MAD. This board provides ample opportunity for doing just that--even to the point of obsession.

b) Some of the faithful may enjoy steadying the ark, so to speak, and criticizing and nit-picking the Church on this and that and every little thing. This board is more open to that than LDS run boards

c) Some of the faithful may, at times, prefer a rough-and-tumble verbal brawl with those who like to pick fights with the Church. This is one of the few remaining places on the web that will allow both sides to go at it in that way.

d) Some of the faithful may have the false hope that they may re-convert somebody here, or persuade some, to one degree or another, to their point of view, or a least have a mutually respectful discussion. Or, as in my case, they may have the false hope that they might help some here to over-come certain emotional hurts, anger, hatred, etc., and provide insights and skills for improving interfaith relations. As long as they have that false hope, this is as good as place as any, if not better, than elsewhere on the net. However, once they loose that false hope, as I have begun to, the value to them in participating here may wane towards zero.

2) Comparatively speaking, how do various repelling factors (to faithful LDS) of this board compare with other boards?

I would say that for most faithful LDS, while the repelling factors here are not to the subterreanian levels of RFM, they can be sufficient enough to keep them from participating here--that is, unless the value they believe they can derive from participating here, outweighs the repelling factors (for the longest time I was more than willing to hold my nose and let things just roll off my back because I had the false hope that I could affect positive change in people here. That no longer is the case.)

I think most here are aware of what those repelling factors may be. Certainly, I and others have enumerated them on a number of occasions (virtually every thread I have started, and most every post I have made here, has either explicitly stated or implied what those repelling factors may be; and others at FAIR/MAD have noted them as well). As for those who may still be puzzled about those repulsions/impediments, I doubt seriously that they would ever see them no matter how clearly and self-evidently they may be presented to them. But, as a clue, beyond the occasional vulgarities and bad behavior, some of the very things I listed above as a draw to this site, may for other LDS faithful be a repelling factor. Many faithful LDS are disinclined to become involved with teeth-gnashing, gossip, ridicule, whining and complaining (particularly about petty things) about their faith and leaders and defenders and fellow members, particularly if those doing these things appear to be closed-minded and dogmatic and lacking in understanding and empathy (this tends to dispell the fales hopes mentioned above). They may also be put off by contention and mean-spiritedness and brawling on either side.

So, if you really wish to know why so few faith LDS wish to participate here, or remain here for long, and how you may go about attracting more, then you may want to seriously consider the answers I have given to the two important questions I posed--though I wont hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Or, as in my case, they may have the false hope that they might help some here to over-come certain emotional hurts, anger, hatred, etc., and provide insights and skills for improving interfaith relations. As long as they have that false hope, this is as good as place as any, if not better, than elsewhere on the net. However, once they loose that false hope, as I have begun to, the value to them in participating here may wane towards zero.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Part of me is convinced that it's your presentation, not so much the approach, that renders your suggestions ineffective. Have you really done some soul-searching introspection to discern the problem, or are you content to externalize the reasons for your lack of success?

I would say that for most faithful LDS, while the repelling factors here are not to the subterreanian levels of RFM, they can be sufficient enough to keep them from participating here--that is, unless the value they believe they can derive from participating here, outweighs the repelling factors (for the longest time I was more than willing to hold my nose and let things just roll off my back because I had the false hope that I could affect positive change in people here. That no longer is the case.)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Wade. I hope this does not mean that you are leaving us.

[_Alter Idem]

Another reason we don't have as many "faithful" LDS post here is that the posters need to share common ground. If you never agree with those you interact with, you'll soon get frustrated and leave.

I used to post on a board where we had a general topics area. I got tired of being the only one who espoused conservative ideals--I was always on the wrong side of the majority opinion and after a while, I just didn't bother to even post because there was no point. I wouldn't change anyone's minds, they'd either ignore me or attack me. I really think a board does best when there is some balance. No one wants to speak up if they are constantly going to be in the minority and always feel like they don't fit in.

Naturally, if we have LDS and ex- or never been LDS, it will be harder to find common ground because we don't share the same faith. Successful boards do seem to need some comradery among the posters. That is definitely found here, but it is among the core, ex or critical LDS that it exists. Those of us who are devout LDS will probably always feel like we don't quite belong, I'm afraid and I suspect that was how the critics or non-LDS felt or feel about posting on MADB.

That, and the profanity. I know it's supposed to be relegated to Telestial, and for the most part it is, but it still can be found in Terrestrial and for many LDS, that and the vulgarity is a big turn off.

[_wenglund]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Part of me is convinced that it's your presentation, not so much the approach, that renders your suggestions ineffective. Have you really done some soul-searching introspection to discern the problem, or are you content to externalize the reasons for your lack of success?

Yes, I have done some soul searching, and I have considered both internal and exteranal reasons for the lack of success. In fact, some time ago I came to the conclusion that there were a number of internal reasons, and I have worked to change them, but to no avail. For instance, I found that people tend not to respond well when they perceive they are being criticized. So, rather than criticizing people, I have opted to merely mention certain challenges I have personally faced, and what I have found to be healthy and functional ways of meeting those challenges. But, even that benign "presentation" didn't work.

Now, I am still open to the possibility that it is my "presentation" that is behind the lack of success, rather than external causations, but I am at a loss in figuring out what exactly I could functionally change that would make the difference. Besides, I am not sure helping people should be this difficult--that is, unless the people don't wish to be helped or don't think they are the one's needing help (in which case, it wouldn't matter what I did or how I did it, there is little or no chance of success under those conditions).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wade, you said:

I had the false hope that I could affect positive change in people here. That no longer is the case.)

Allow me to set you straight Bro. As i see it, your hope wasn't false, it was sincere. I appreciate that in you.

Is the person who runs into a burming building to rescue a child, and dies trying, any less courageous than the person who comes out with the child? I think not.

Let me assure You: You have affected positive change--in me. :-) I have watched, indeed "I" have experienced, Your change for the better--the best, because You tried! This makes me feel encouraged that change is brought about by personal effort & faith in ones' self! (And, i venture to say i am not alone in this observation.)

While we have had more disagreements than not, that does not effect my respect of, and appreciation for You. Enemies can reach agreement. Friends don't have to ;-)

Any one who signs-off, "Thanks, (Full Name)" is an OK Guy!! Stay with us, Bro!! Warm regards, Roger

[_wenglund]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Wade. I hope this does not mean that you are leaving us.

I haven't decided for sure, but I am leaning strongly towards seeing little value in me participating here. But, if it is of any consolation, the pleasant interactions I have recently had with you is one of the few things that continue to draw me here and make hesitate leaving for good. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

You must demonstrate your lack of agenda (which seems to be, right now, to find a slightly different way of saying the same old thing "there's no problem with the LDS church, the problem is with the exmormons") by addressing the problems on BOTH side of the fence, which you do not. You do not attempt to get YOUR OWN PEOPLE, who would be far more open to a message and less inclined to suspicion, to address their own dysfunctions that anyone can see contribute to the problems. I've told you this before, you refuse to consider it as a real possibility. That's your choice, but I think this reality is plain to see.

In regards to why so few faithful here - this board was too heavily populated by critics at the beginning for believers to feel comfortable, and the initial lack of censorship was problematic for them. I understand that. The board has changed somewhat and more believers are venturing in.

I know I have said this many times before, but the history of Z must be considered in any of these conversations. Before the believers decided to flee, there were just as many believers as critics, and the moderation was determinedly neutral, and would "zap" either side for blatant disrespect. That still wasn't enough to make the majority of believers comfortable. It seemed to be enough when the majority of critics were EVs from the Tanner's old board in the early days of Z, but when secular critics came onboard, suddenly neutral moderation wasn't enough. They needed their own mirror image of the Tanner's board: FAIR. One of those ironies in life that you couldn't make up.

I think the problem has to do with the disparate views of what "respect" means in regards to exchanges like these. I think critics think "respect" means refraining from personal attacks and sticking to debating the issues at hand. I have come to believe that believers think "respect" means not dwelling on certain issues that make them uncomfortable. They want these issues to be considered "settled" and hate to see them come up time after time - particularly issues that directly address foundational claims of the LDS church or talk about the past very flawed behavior and teachings of prophets. They are more comfortable talking about issues that one could envision being discussed between conservative and liberal Mormons, rather than believers and complete nonbelievers. They want to feel victorious in their conversations, like we all do. But, being brutally frank, that is just going to be harder for a defender of the faith to obtain. So they need a handicap, so to speak - a board whose moderators demand more respect be shown to believers than to critics, a board that keeps the number of critics contained and controlled so believers don't feel overwhelmed even by just even numbers of both, a board whose moderators will take action against critics without feeling obligated to provide explanations, a board where high profile posters are given more latitude - a board like MAD. But at the same time they want to insist they have no problem dealing with critics' issues at face value. They want their cake and want to eat it, too.

It's their board and they can do what they want. But I think what they want to do with their board gives an insight into some of the reasons they fled Z and few post here, even with the modifications that make it "safer" (in terms of language)

[_Yoda]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Part of me is convinced that it's your presentation, not so much the approach, that renders your suggestions ineffective. Have you really done some soul-searching introspection to discern the problem, or are you content to externalize the reasons for your lack of success?

Yes, I have done some soul searching, and I have considered both internal and exteranal reasons for the lack of success. In fact, some time ago I came to the conclusion that there were a number of internal reasons, and I have worked to change them, but to no avail. For instance, I found that people tend not to respond well when they perceive they are being criticized. So, rather than criticizing people, I have opted to merely mention certain challenges I have personally faced, and what I have found to be healthy and functional ways of meeting those challenges. But, even that benign "presentation" didn't work.

Now, I am still open to the possibility that it is my "presentation" that is behind the lack of success, rather than external causations, but I am at a loss in figuring out what exactly I could functionally change that would make the difference. Besides, I am not sure helping people should be this difficult--that is, unless the people don't wish to be helped or don't think they are the one's needing help (in which case, it wouldn't matter what I did or how I did it, there is little or no chance of success under those conditions).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this may be part of the problem in your approach, Wade. Don't assume that everyone here "needs to be helped". Some are seeking help, but it seems to me that the majority of posters who come here are simply interested in discussing different issues involving the Church. Some of these issues are positive, and some are negative. Sometimes, it is simply the act of discussion, and discovering different viewpoints that helps one form their own conclusion, or leads them to a place where they can find answers, if answers are what they are seeking.

Maybe your approach should be to simply be a person wanting to discuss things, instead of feeling like you are on some mission to help people change.

You and I had some very heated arguments, but were able to come to an understanding. I think that in the past month or so, we have been able to treat each other with mutual respect.

I hope you reconsider, and decide to stay with us.