Sad...

[_Dr Moore]

Because that’s my argument, that each time I pop in here I really don’t see much that is different from the time before. The people may change but the criticisms pretty much remain the same. A lot of glass half empty rather than glass half full kind of stuff.

I'm sorry, which discussion were you engaging on the merits and facts again? Or was it the plan all along to drop a few platitudes and insults and then vanish again before getting too far in the weeds with these obviously over-zealous heathens? I must have missed the part where you attempted to make a meaningful, insightful contribution this time around.

Bias isn't the color of anyone's hair here, MG. Are you so unwilling to acknowledge that everyone on this forum came to their current world views by overcoming biases in the first place? We all share one thing in common, which is that our line of scrimmage was a deeply indoctrinated Mormon background. How exactly does it work when a person allows herself/himself the privilege of stepping outside comfort biases to examine truth claims critically, follow evidence over dogma, and begin to trust logic and conscience over the teachings of flawed authoritative leaders? Please do enlighten me on how the process of allowing beliefs to evolve constitutes "bias" and why your version of bias is superior to those who no longer kneel before the purely-internal experiences of others.

And before you respond to that, consider the question outside of Mormonism.

Are you so callous that you would be likewise willing to drop in on a group of former Scientologists or JWs who gather online to examine current events, apologetics and teachings of their former leaders, to remind them that their bias is super obvious and obviously tired and lame? Do you doubt whether anyone here experienced the same "spiritual confirmation" that you've had, MG? And if you'd allow for that, would you also allow that reasonable people can start there, but still -- in the face of the evidence -- arrive at entirely different conclusions regarding the reliability and value of LDS leaders and their doctrines, policies and actions? While we're at it, what exactly is it that you are so convinced makes your bias superior to mine? Perhaps you'd like to get specific here, since you seem in the mood to preach.

[_Kishkumen]

Bias isn't the color of anyone's hair here, MG. Are you so unwilling to acknowledge that everyone on this forum came to their current world views by overcoming biases in the first place? We all share one thing in common, which is that our line of scrimmage was a deeply indoctrinated Mormon background. How exactly does it work when a person allows herself/himself the privilege of stepping outside comfort biases to examine truth claims critically, follow evidence over dogma, and begin to trust logic and conscience over the teachings of flawed authoritative leaders? Please do enlighten me on how the process of allowing beliefs to evolve constitutes "bias" and why your version of bias is superior to those who no longer kneel before the purely-internal experiences of others.

And before you respond to that, consider the question outside of Mormonism.

Are you so callous that you would be likewise willing to drop in on a group of former Scientologists or JWs who gather online to examine current events, apologetics and teachings of their former leaders, to remind them that their bias is super obvious and obviously tired and lame? Do you doubt whether anyone here experienced the same "spiritual confirmation" that you've had, MG? And if you'd allow for that, would you also allow that reasonable people can start there, but still -- in the face of the evidence -- arrive at entirely different conclusions regarding the reliability and value of LDS leaders and their doctrines, policies and actions? While we're at it, what exactly is it that you are so convinced makes your bias superior to mine? Perhaps you'd like to get specific here, since you seem in the mood to preach.

Powerful words, Dr. Moore. An excellent reminder.

[_mentalgymnast]

Because that’s my argument, that each time I pop in here I really don’t see much that is different from the time before. The people may change but the criticisms pretty much remain the same. A lot of glass half empty rather than glass half full kind of stuff.

I'm sorry, which discussion were you engaging on the merits and facts again?

Over a fairly significant amount of time...longer than you I would guess...I’ve engaged in many discussions on this board centered on “merits and facts”. And I spent a LOT of time doing so. The point I’m making is that nothing really changes. Same tired arguments. Same glass half empty views. Same regurgitated issues. Same thing over on Reddit I would suppose. Probably a younger crowd going through a similar angst that others have already gone through and ended up in one place or another. I find it interesting that the crowd here essentially seems to be ‘lifers’ or long term residents. That may be a distinguishing characteristic from Reddit. When new folks do show up, the circle of life begins all over. But nothing, on the whole, really new or interesting. In times past I did join in on many discussions that, at least to me, were ‘new approaches’ and I found them interesting. Not so much nowadays. At least that’s my perspective.

YMMV.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

I would argue this reflects more poorly on the church. Why? Because there isn't anything coming out of it with which to engage in examination.

Last year when the World's Greatest Guesser article was published on the Interpreter the response volume and interest was high. It was something new from the defenders of the church arguing that the evidence for the Book of Mormon was overwhelming. The thread here quickly ran hundreds of posts and thousands of views. It was treated roughly and deservedly so, in my opinion. But it was addressed with intense interest.

The reality is most people who leave the Church eventually find there isn't much time in a life to spend on Mormonism when there are so many other areas that need or deserve ones attention. So there's a certain limited amount of benefit in relation to the cost for researching and preparing a novel item to bring to the table. And it seems that for those interested in putting in that effort, message boards aren't the best location for creating the best benefit to cost ratio. Consig's podcast serves as a good example where his investment in time and creativity is much more rewarded with engagement, praise, recognition, and social capital that he is able to use to attract participants with high name recognition and even further engagement. Clearly there is an incentive for those who have the desire and edges that still need some chipping at to find other venues than a message board.

Our board has a certain culture that works best when it comes to engagement with subjects at a level above reddit. We have experts in many fields and a higher ratio of people with advanced degrees than one likely finds elsewhere on public forums of this type. Years ago there was a poll that established this. Maybe it's not the same balance but on the whole I think Gad has it right in noting the traffic may be lighter here than in similar format venues, but the quality is different. We just aren't spending our valuable time penning multi-page reviews of feel good apologetic materials that have apparently replaced the attempt to ground the Church in the world of scientific discovery and ancient history. Instead, as with MG, the Church is becoming limited to the lived experience of the membership within the identity of being Mormon.

[_moksha]

One item that can be theoretically addressed is fixing whatever software glitch that is not allowing new members to join this forum.

With or without mathematical confirmation, was Joseph a good guesser?

[_Jersey Girl]

One item that can be theoretically addressed is fixing whatever software glitch that is not allowing new members to join this forum.

Gadianton made a post about that on this very thread directing people to the Paradise thread he started on the topic. Check out what's in Paradise. He has his reasons for not re-posting it here in Terrestrial. He states so in Paradise.

[_Dr Exiled]

One item that can be theoretically addressed is fixing whatever software glitch that is not allowing new members to join this forum.

With or without mathematical confirmation, was Joseph a good guesser?

New blood is definitely a must. So, whatever it takes and if we passed around the hat, people here would contribute to hiring a computer website guy to do the proper fixes.

As for Joseph being a good guesser, I think he was in the sense of the psychics are. I think he knew how to do cold readings and if one believes Bennett, he did hot readings as well from the information the spies he had deployed would tell him. He also did some hot readings with the ladies, after dark, but this site is a family friendly site and we will all assume that no sex was ever involved, right Dr. Hales?

[_honorentheos]

New blood is definitely a must. So, whatever it takes and if we passed around the hat, people here would contribute to hiring a computer website guy to do the proper fixes.

My understanding is it isn't about hiring someone to help. It's due to the actual board owner, who isn't Shades, having reasons for restricting access to the back end having something to do with his operating multiple websites. Gad noted that even the best PHP guy may not be willing or able to take on the project with those restrictions.

It really would behoove the board members to read Gad's thread in Spirit Paradise. The issues involved are layered and have consequences for the board overall.

[_Gadianton]

thanks H, you are correct, i think money is the easy part of the fix.

it's so bad now that none of us can pin topics, otherwise we'd pin the topic.

[Guest]

How many times, and in how many ways, can one beat a dead horse before one sees clearly the pointlessness of the exercise? I don’t know how many denizens here have heard of Bill Shunn; in 1996, I came across his first humorous account on the Internet of having phoned in a bomb threat in 1986 as a missionary to try to impede another missionary’s leaving his mission on the “sly.” I wrote Bill to compliment him on his writing and to state my own difficulties with church membership. Bill was both friendly and wickedly funny, and I became a regular visitor to his Mormon Matter website and exchanged various emails with him.

Over time, I noticed a change in Bill. His criticism of the church lost its satirical tone and became more dry and acid. He gradually came to the conclusion that maintaining the website wasn’t a rewarding use of his time. I also think he found that notoriety as a church critic did not translate into greater success as a science-fiction writer, the career he would have preferred over coding. Even the definitive version of his missionary memoir, a very well-written book titled The Accidental Terrorist, was all but stripped of humor. Today, Bill and I have virtually nothing in common, largely because of his stone-serious online demeanor, but mostly because the church has grown almost invisible in his rear-view mirror. I’m still where I was 25 years ago, still loving satire, and still married to Molly Mormon’s first cousin; however, what I find impossibly boring is the over-intellectualizing of reasons to conclude the church isn’t what it claims to be. It’s totally inconsequential to me, so if there isn’t any light-hearted humor involved in it, it holds nothing for me.