Reviving the Board

[Res Ipsa]

Ceebs, were you a member of the board back when Dan Peterson, Will Schryver, etc. posted here. I think you’ll find that what you object to all went on during that period of time. in my opinion, the Board culture that developed during those times of direct interaction was combative, to the point of toxicity at times. At some point, the apologists started calling this board the trailer park, with the implication being those who posted here are “trailer trash.” If I recall correctly, they used it pretty commonly before they left. I think that the conduct you are alluding to is the inheritance of that culture.

Another point that is worth considering is the growing use of the non-Mormon side of the board. That side of the board used to be Kingdom called “off topic.” in my opinion, it was always rough and tumble. I don’t recall what the conduct rules were for “off topic,” but the behavior there reminds me more of Spirit Prison than Spirit Paradise.

You aren’t the only member of the board whose interest in Mormon issues has waned over time, and the result has been an increase in use of the non-Mormon side of the board, especially when it comes to politics. And politics has gotten so polarized and toxic that it’s not surprising political discussions aren’t welcoming.

And that’s part of the dilemma of a free speech board. That all are welcome to participate and post, people also have to be free to speak their minds. We don’t demand that people “welcome” The contents of everyone’s speech.

There is a tendency for people to construct a vision of a rosy past that was “better” than the present. When examined more closely, I think what we find is that we’ve simply forgotten what the past really was like when it was the present.

I don’t think there is a going back to “better” times. There is only going forward and doing the best we can. I’m happy to talk about both problems and suggestions for change in private.

Do you know anywhere online where apologists still engage critics in discussion?

That’s a huge difference now than the past. And one that the apologists alone are responsible for.

I don't know of any, but I haven't looked recently. One of the difficult issues the "sides" had was agreeing on the terms of engagement. I understand that it worked well for a time at the immediate predecessor to Shades's board (I never posted there). It also worked here for a time. Its very difficult for people who internalize their belief system and consider it sacred to have their beliefs subject to disrespectful speech, including outright mockery. No matter how much we try to draw a clear distinction between respecting people and respecting beliefs, the two are pretty closely intertwined. "Critic" isn't a belief system comparable to Mormonism, and that asymmetry is always going to cause problems unless critics agree to some standard of civility when it comes to criticizing LDS beliefs.

There are also asymmetries when it comes to defending a belief system as opposed to attacking a belief system that I think wear more heavily on the defenders.

[drumdude]

Do you know anywhere online where apologists still engage critics in discussion?

That’s a huge difference now than the past. And one that the apologists alone are responsible for.

I don't know of any, but I haven't looked recently. One of the difficult issues the "sides" had was agreeing on the terms of engagement. I understand that it worked well for a time at the immediate predecessor to Shades's board (I never posted there). It also worked here for a time. Its very difficult for people who internalize their belief system and consider it sacred to have their beliefs subject to disrespectful speech, including outright mockery. No matter how much we try to draw a clear distinction between respecting people and respecting beliefs, the two are pretty closely intertwined. "Critic" isn't a belief system comparable to Mormonism, and that asymmetry is always going to cause problems unless critics agree to some standard of civility when it comes to criticizing LDS beliefs.

There are also asymmetries when it comes to defending a belief system as opposed to attacking a belief system that I think wear more heavily on the defenders.

It seems the critics are at least having an effect. Apologists have abandoned the heartland model, abandoned smith translating from the plates, abandoned a literal book of Abraham. They’ve abandoned Lamanites as the principal ancestors, they’ve allowed parents into bishop meetings with youth. Limited flood instead of global. Intelligent design instead of creationism. All these issues the church changes in after the discussion from critics reaches a critical mass and can’t be ignored any longer.

Or maybe it’s just a huge coincidence.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't know of any, but I haven't looked recently. One of the difficult issues the "sides" had was agreeing on the terms of engagement. I understand that it worked well for a time at the immediate predecessor to Shades's board (I never posted there). It also worked here for a time. Its very difficult for people who internalize their belief system and consider it sacred to have their beliefs subject to disrespectful speech, including outright mockery. No matter how much we try to draw a clear distinction between respecting people and respecting beliefs, the two are pretty closely intertwined. "Critic" isn't a belief system comparable to Mormonism, and that asymmetry is always going to cause problems unless critics agree to some standard of civility when it comes to criticizing LDS beliefs.

There are also asymmetries when it comes to defending a belief system as opposed to attacking a belief system that I think wear more heavily on the defenders.

It seems the critics are at least having an effect. Apologists have abandoned the heartland model, abandoned smith translating from the plates, abandoned a literal book of Abraham. They’ve abandoned Lamanites as the principal ancestors, they’ve allowed parents into bishop meetings with youth. Limited flood instead of global. Intelligent design instead of creationism. All these issues the church changes in after the discussion from critics reaches a critical mass and can’t be ignored any longer.

Or maybe it’s just a huge coincidence.

I'm not saying that critics haven't had an effect. It's that there are some pretty understandable reasons why disagreement over the terms of engagement would keep adherents and critics of Mormonism from engaging each other in a fairly wide-open venue. The newness combined with the FARMS mandate of "no slam dunks" created a window during which a generation of apologists were willing to take the fight to where the critics were. With FARMS-style apologetics having fallen out of favor, we may not see that kind of engagement again for the foreseeable future.

[Gadianton]

Nobody is going to go in for a more "balanced" forum with mixed moderation because that was already tried. It was called Zion's Lighthouse Message Board, it ran from about 2001 - 2006, and it featured a panel of moderators who were LDS, skeptical, evangelical, and everything in between. The owner was also a faithful Mormon, and he made an honest effort to treat everyone fairly and give everyone a voice; he even favored the Mormons a bit and was more lenient with them. The board failed because the LDS apologists were caught in an enormous lie and decided they needed the safe spaces of extremely biased moderation in their favor.

Yeah, that was probably the closest you'd ever get to a "balanced" board. Unlikely to ever happen again. I can't remember when I joined, I wasn't in on the ground floor, but I was one of the earlier members. The thing is, even by the time I got there, most of the "heavy-hitter" apologists had already dropped off. The ones left were for the most part the ones who liked the banter. And so for what it actually intended to be, it had failed within months of launching. But there was enough interest from second string posters to ride it out a few years. As a mod there, I usually recommended going easy on the apologists and giving them more leeway -- I was all for the "affirmative action" A-Mike and Binger seem to want in order to keep the numbers somewhat equal, as the apologists were more inclined to have the "take ball and go home" attitude. The reason why you ended up with SeN, is because even after the exodus of the FAIR crowd to FAIR, The DCP faction of apologists had a difficult time integrating into FAIR. They were protected from critics the way they insisted, but had run-ins with the mods over clashes with other LDS posters. Old-school FARMS are boisterous conservative men, and the core FAIR crowd are pretty liberal women. Binger has no idea what he's talking about; not even FAIR could retain DCP and Kiwi57 and Hamblin. Some people were born to have the world on their terms.

I'm positive nobody would agree with me to do this but I'll throw it out there -- a wager, if you will. We could bench the three mods we have right now, make Binger and Atlantic Mike mods for three months, and see what happens to the board. If it doesn't grow and flourish the way they insist it will, then they agree to leave and never come back. LOL. Just imagine all the sock puppets they'd have to keep in action to pretend it was going great for them. The class clowns won't know what to do once they're handed the class. Same reason why the "Freedom Caucus" could never run a country or even a state. The reason why they are so angry at this board, is because they got away with so much more than any other forum allowed before banning them permanently that it raised expectations too high. Like letting a five-year-old eat candy all morning and then suggesting nicely it's time to go to school.

Although, we could ask them to point to the forum they feel is respectful to Mormons and apologists and all the people they think need to be treated with respect. Let's see the message board they think achieves what we're failing to achieve.

[Marcus]

...I'm positive nobody would agree with me to do this but I'll throw it out there -- a wager, if you will. We could bench the three mods we have right now, make Binger and Atlantic Mike mods for three months, and see what happens to the board. If it doesn't grow and flourish the way they insist it will, then they agree to leave and never come back. LOL. Just imagine all the sock puppets they'd have to keep in action to pretend it was going great for them.

The class clowns won't know what to do once they're handed the class. Same reason why the "Freedom Caucus" could never run a country or even a state. The reason why they are so angry at this board, is because they got away with so much more than any other forum allowed before banning them permanently that it raised expectations too high. Like letting a five-year-old eat candy all morning and then suggesting nicely it's time to go to school.

Although, we could ask them to point to the forum they feel is respectful to Mormons and apologists and all the people they think need to be treated with respect. Let's see the message board they think achieves what we're failing to achieve.

Iol. Another experiment would be if they started their own forum, and ran it the way they think is right. Will they do it? No. Because what they want is to disrupt boards, not to create boards.

[malkie]

There's another board - mormondialogue - where Mormonism is discussed - several of the posters here have also posted there.

I'd be interested to know what people unhappy with this board think of the other one.

Actually, I'd be interested to know what anyone here thinks of mormondialogue. I've been pleasantly surprised at the range of belief levels that seem to co-exist over there, in spite of the fact that freedom of expression is somewhat narrower there.

But maybe AM, Binger, and Fernando (however many individuals that encompasses) would find a home to their liking at mormondialogue.

To be clear, I have no intention of disinviting them from discussmormonism - just wondering how they might like mormondialogue.

[Res Ipsa]

There's another board - mormondialogue - where Mormonism is discussed - several of the posters here have also posted there.

I'd be interested to know what people unhappy with this board think of the other one.

Actually, I'd be interested to know what anyone here thinks of mormondialogue. I've been pleasantly surprised at the range of belief levels that seem to co-exist over there, in spite of the fact that freedom of expression is somewhat narrower there.

But maybe AM, Binger, and Fernando (however many individuals that encompasses) would find a home to their liking at mormondialogue.

To be clear, I have no intention of disinviting them from discussmormonism - just wondering how they might like mormondialogue.

AM came here straight from being banned from there. If he posted there like he does here, Binger would be banned in about a minute. Fernando’s first post here would likely get him banned over there if he made it about their board. Either Binger or AM bragged in an early post about being thrown off other boards, so it’s possible that whichever it was doesn’t really play well with others.

[malkie]

There's another board - mormondialogue - where Mormonism is discussed - several of the posters here have also posted there.

I'd be interested to know what people unhappy with this board think of the other one.

Actually, I'd be interested to know what anyone here thinks of mormondialogue. I've been pleasantly surprised at the range of belief levels that seem to co-exist over there, in spite of the fact that freedom of expression is somewhat narrower there.

But maybe AM, Binger, and Fernando (however many individuals that encompasses) would find a home to their liking at mormondialogue.

To be clear, I have no intention of disinviting them from discussmormonism - just wondering how they might like mormondialogue.

AM came here straight from being banned from there. If he posted there like he does here, Binger would be banned in about a minute. Fernando’s first post here would likely get him banned over there if he made it about their board. Either Binger or AM bragged in an early post about being thrown off other boards, so it’s possible that whichever it was doesn’t really play well with others.

Ahhh - thanks.

Looks like I'm either not good at connecting the dots, or failing to recall their history.

[Res Ipsa]

AM came here straight from being banned from there. If he posted there like he does here, Binger would be banned in about a minute. Fernando’s first post here would likely get him banned over there if he made it about their board. Either Binger or AM bragged in an early post about being thrown off other boards, so it’s possible that whichever it was doesn’t really play well with others.

Ahhh - thanks.

Looks like I'm either not good at connecting the dots, or failing to recall their history.

Part of the moderator gig.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

So this is apparently not a thread about resurrecting FLAK.

Who would have guessed!

I fondly remember FLAK.