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

[_asbestosman]

There is still Jason and BCSpace and Bob on occasion.

True, but for some reason I never think of them that way.

And maybe once in a while there's asbestosman. Maybe.

[_Jason Bourne]

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!!!!"

Thanks, Scottie. As usual, Infymus is doing selective reading. I already stated everything you stated on the previous page of this thread, in answer to another of his ridiculous rants. Apparently, reading comprehension is not one of Infymus' strong suits. ;)

Edited to add----Yes, my above comment was ad hominem. Yes, I was "speaking as a man", not as a Moderator. ;)

Again with you Mormons, attack the person rather than look at the facts.

You and the Mods want to turn this into a Mini MAD board.

By all means, go ahead, enjoy it.

Once you weed out the dissenters, perhaps you'll attract more MAADites.

All I can say is WOW. Really. WOW. Can someone really miss it soooooo badly.


Facts:

1: Shades is the owner of this board. He is NOT a Mormon.

2: Liz is the ONLY Mormon moderator here and she is more of a liberal NOM type.

3: The proposal, while I do not think necessary, is for ONE little teeny weeny tweak in one segment of this board.

4: Dissenters, Exmos, and even fringe LDSers are far more abundent than TBM s on this board.

Please refute the facts.

[_Scottie]

I think it is wrong if members are mocked etc, but also think it is wrong to stop people from discussing anything against the church in CK. I think people should rather be open minded instead of demeaning others.

Where are you getting this??

Nobody has said this is what we want.

[_KimberlyAnn]

There is still Jason and BCSpace and Bob on occasion.

True, but for some reason I never think of them that way.

And maybe once in a while there's asbestosman. Maybe.

I didn't forget you, ABman! I've really been enjoying your posts lately.

KA

[_Imwashingmypirate]

From here:

As a sidenote when I first started here I was one among many LDS posters who would be called TBM here.

As far as I can tell it's now just me and Coggins occasionally but I think he's more religious in his politics than his religion in any case. I have a high tolerance for being mocked and demeaned and I've had to step away several times cause it got too crazy for me. This made Infy's comment about this becoming MAD a joke to me. If anything it's slowly turning into RFM without the banning of LDS.

[Guest]

There is still Jason and BCSpace and Bob on occasion.

True, but for some reason I never think of them that way.

And maybe once in a while there's asbestosman. Maybe.

AHH!!! I KNEW I was going to forget someone!! Sorry abman!

Yes, you're in there too!

Oh, and Will too.

[_dartagnan]

Principles are meaningless, and this is what Dartagnan wants (I suppose he could set up his own board this way, but chooses not to), so we may as well all give in or be subjected to line-by-line rejoinders and dissection.

I never said principles are meaningless, but if the freedom of speech principle is all you're interested in, then you should already be disappointed since this forum isn't completely open anyway. There are restrictions already imposed. You can't curse unless you go to certain quarters of teh forum. You can't show nude photos. Hell, you can't even show pictures of aborted babies in a discussion about abortion. But you're OK with all that, just so long as we continue to make the Mormn feel as uncomfortable as possible.

The only people I can see being upset about this are the idiots who get off on drive by cheerleading. They know they will be the ones who are affected by this.

The thing is, this idea of "no rules" was a lost cause from the start. It sounded like a good idea in theory, but it was based on the assumption that rules wouldn't be needed with a bunch of people who were mature and reasonable enough to abandon Mormonism. We've come to find out just how immature some posters here really are. They hinder cordial discussion. They annoy the hell out of people.

But hey, what's important is this fantasy principle of free speech, right? Who cares if discussion is hindered on a "discussion" forum!

[_quaker]

I don't contribute very much, so I don't expect any consideration given to my thoughts. Nonetheless, I think the idea of discussion/debate threads with underlying assumptions are a very good idea. I laugh heartily at some of the silly arguments and some of the hilarious insults thrown back and forth about the same topics. But I have noticed that many discussions that could otherwise be good turn into bash fests. One thing that is helpful are the many call-out threads that are formed from the bickering on otherwise decent threads. They help keep the bologna separate from the meatier stuff.

I don't see what could possibly be wrong or discomforting with some threads that mandate some assumptions for the thread. Most topics discussed here can eventually digress into a conversation on whether or not there is a God. Why not, for the sake of everyone who has passed this question in their life, allow them to discuss something relevant to their current situations or perspectives.

I assume this policy would allow threads to be made in the same manner for those who wish to start with an assumption, say, that there is no God, or that there are no absolutes, or that everything is relative?

But after writing this, I now realize that there are some people who moan regardless of the topic. So I wonder why I was surprised in any way to see the same thing on this thread? [/i]

[_marg]

If I had my way, we'd have LOTS more rules here.

I think this place is too liberal with allowing personal attacks.

If I had my way I wouldn't allow ad homs in the Celestial, the offender posts should be removed. The answer when someone in a thread dishes out ad homs is not to move the thread to an area where they are specifically allowed. Right now there is not much if any difference between Celestial and Terrestial. I just don't think it is worth taking a thread seriously and devoting lots of time, if it is going to deteriorate into off topic attacks.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I highly doubt that is what Shades was referring to.

If you want to run a "Mormon" forum you have to take minimal measure to make sure Mormons are welcomed. just saying they are welcome has proven to be empty rhetoric - time has proved that few of them actually believe it, and for good reason.

These measures were probably considered for the purpose of making Mormons feel more comfortable here. You guys talk up a storm about wanting discussion, but the people complaining here are not generally the ones who do the leg work. Skippy, Kim, Pirate, infymus, etc., no offense, but I haven't seen any of you guys doing much of anything, aside from the occasional pithy comment, in a long ass time - if ever. Yet, the mods talk about a possible policy change regarding a tiny corner of the celestial forum (where none of you go anyway!) and suddenly you're all coming out of the woodwork with your protest banners, insisting you care about "discussion."

I know from experience that nothing you're doing now will ever allow this forum to become what the mods probably envision. Meaning, a place where serious discussion takes place between non-Mormon and Mormon. Mormons do not feel welcomed here. Now you guys can argue amongst yourselves whether or not their feeling is justified, but all of this is irrelevant to the fact that they aren't coming over.

So what are you going to do about it?

You can just say screw the Mormons, and let the forum devolve where atheists get to hammer theism all day long. And then when all the theists are run off (which is inevitable I think), and an echo chamber of uniformity is created, we can start arguing about politics or the superiority of Mac over PC, or whatever.

The name of this forum is looking funnier and funnier through time.

Kevin's very compelling remarks have persuaded me. While I have not hoped on the threads were theism and atheism is argued I have read them. I don't jump in because it is for me usually a futile argument. Personally I do not think God can be proven. My theistic beliefs are personal and I do not really care to argue with an atheist about them. If they are comfortable in their atheistic views great.

But I do see how threads like the one about a historic Jesus get derailed by the rabbit trails on atheistic issues. A rule in one forum putting somewhat of a governance on the thread will not destroy the free wheeling uncensored MDB we all enjoy here.

I say try it out. If it does not work then scrap it.