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

[_skippy the dead]

I wasn't being serious skippy.

It depends what you mean by discriminating thought.

Ah. Gotcha.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

LOL

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

And that is one of the main points for these new instructions. The Celestial Forum IS NOT FOR DEBATE.

(not yelling, too short on time to mess with the [b] feature)

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

And that is one of the main points for these new instructions. The Celestial Forum IS NOT FOR DEBATE.

(not yelling, too short on time to mess with the [b] feature)

Does that mean there can be no disagreement? No. It means that when a poster starts a thread that assumes the existence of God (Do you think God sends earthquakes as punishment?) they don't want to be needled to death about the existence of God. They want to discuss their topic.

[_asbestosman]

I could be wrong, but I don't think many if any of the LDS posters want to bear their testimony on this board.

My own thoughts are that I do not wish to limit people from challenging my posts even if the challenge is harsh and includes plenty of opinion instead of just scholarship. That's why I tend to stick in the Terrestrial forum. I do occasionally wish to keep a thread from getting derailed as I did recently whith a thread on conservativism in Christianity. I didn't want the thread to be dominiated by a discussion about abortion even though I normally wouldn't have minded a short tangent. I wasn't afraid of discussing the other topic, I was just didn't want to lose the chance of discussing why Christians often seem to be conservative or even about how liberal Christianity works.

To be honest, I am unsure about the purpose of the Celestial forum. Scholars can often have heated debates, but on the other hand the Celestial forum seems to be dedicated to polite converstaion which often seems to be interpreted as gentle instead of heated or argumentative. Thus when someone shares an experience of a dead relative or something, I think we generally don't wish to challenge it even if such a thing is perhaps the subject of the thread. Me, I wouldn't share that which I don't wish to be challenged, but that's me.

[Guest]

But Kim, if you're the majority then you are the silent majority. I haven't seen you in any of these dozens of threads debating theism.

So what are you complaining about since you're not in the discussions anyway? You say "just ignore" these threads, well why can't you just ignore these threads under debate now?

I am the one taking on most of the load here, defending theism against a slew of antagonistic atheists. I get PMs from other theists telling me to keep fighting, but I could really use some help here. I simply cannot keep up with all of the threads. The theme of this thread over the past few months has gradually shifted from Mormonism to theism. If it keeps going on this path we'll need to change the name of the forum. Mormonism seems to be a thing of the past that people aren't even interested in anymore.

And in defense of Liz, a few days ago she asked me if it was OK to use my old forum for this purpose. I said sure. But I think she is having a hard time trying to get people over there, so she is taking this measure as a last ditch effort. This is where everyone posts.

Furthermore, I know from experience that this measure will foster more discussion. You guys are operating on assumptions driven by nothing more than a fear of change.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Dart these threads are not against theism! They are for freedom of speach and discussion. This argument is not for or against theism.

[_Dr. Shades]

It's already proven unpopular.

I agree with you on that count. I was a hair's-breadth away from going ahead and overturning the ruling, but then dartagnan came along and posted something that made perfect sense.

So now I'm back to being of two minds on the subject.

[_skippy the dead]

It's already proven unpopular.

I agree with you on that count. I was a hair's-breadth away from going ahead and overturning the ruling, but then dartagnan came along and posted something that made perfect sense.

So now I'm back to being of two minds on the subject.

Go with your previous thought - dartagnan's professed overload on trying to defend god is no reason to be of two minds. He has no divine mandate to address every anti-god post on the board. He can ignore whatever he wants.

[_Scottie]

You guys are SOOO over reacting to what is a minimal change!!