Ray,
My opinion is that any board that is not heavily moderated with a pro-LDS slant is going to end up having many more critics than believers. I don't think even believers would deny that. When Shades started this board and hoped to have believers, too, I knew that, with a few odd exceptions here and there, (like Wade and Plutarch who prefer criticizing critics than engaging in substantial discussion about the actual issues), it just wouldn't happen. Believers could not even deal with the climate of ZLMB, where the moderating was unbiased and there were about an even number of believers and nonbelievers. They simply want more protection.
What I don't understand behind the psychology of believers who are drawn to internet apologetics and board "debates" is that they deliberately design these boards (like Z or MAD) to allow critics participation, but then they detest the critics who come to the board (with some odd exceptions). It's like some tribe deciding to invite the "other" tribe to debate, and then setting ground rules declaring: any people from the "other" tribe who accept our invitation have some inner psychological, emotional, or spiritual flaw and can/should be treated as the "enemy".
But none of this is surprising when so many believers do not appear to understand (to refer to my McGinn quote from another thread) tolerance does not equal "no criticism", and when so many believe that people who criticize or analyze their beliefs are "telling them what to believe" or how to live. These people really want their religious belief to be protected from criticism, but can't outright admit that because it makes them look weak and scared.
Are you a defender, critic, or neutral?
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
I'm All of the Above! LOL!
I'm a supporter of the church teachings concerning love, serving others, caring for one another. I think the church provides meaing, purpose, and guidance for many people. I'm happy for those members who embrace the church and enjoy their participation.
I'm a critic when the teachings harm families, community, and our world.
I'm neutral when it comes to some doctrine that sounds like nonsense to me but others wholeheartedly believe in it. I go with the idea that we have no idea (about some aspects of our universe) so each is left to believe what makes sense to them and feels right in their hearts. Because the world disagrees means we each have different biology, experience, environment, teachings, ancestry, etc. etc. etc.
I hold to my beliefs as one who does the best I can to make sense of the world, just like everyone else!
~dancer~
I'm a supporter of the church teachings concerning love, serving others, caring for one another. I think the church provides meaing, purpose, and guidance for many people. I'm happy for those members who embrace the church and enjoy their participation.
I'm a critic when the teachings harm families, community, and our world.
I'm neutral when it comes to some doctrine that sounds like nonsense to me but others wholeheartedly believe in it. I go with the idea that we have no idea (about some aspects of our universe) so each is left to believe what makes sense to them and feels right in their hearts. Because the world disagrees means we each have different biology, experience, environment, teachings, ancestry, etc. etc. etc.
I hold to my beliefs as one who does the best I can to make sense of the world, just like everyone else!
~dancer~
-
_Sam Harris
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2261
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am
I put "none of the above" because I am only a critic of certain things. I think Mormons are a part of the body of Christ, just like I think evangelical fundamentalists are (not to be confused with just plain evangelicals, we are a different lot all together). I just have a problem with certain teachings that I feel to be harmful to both church members and those who some church members may try to push these teachings on.
My theory is this: if you want to be Mormon, be Mormon. But the whole world doesn't have to be Mormon with you. If you are not strong enough in your faith to not have a billion people around you doing what you do, then something's wrong. My beliefs are based on me and my walk with God. That's it. Not fear of where I'll go when I die, not a conviction over whose faith is right. My path, my walk. Go get on yours, and if while on yours you or any part your beliefs are harming someone, expect to hear about it.
My theory is this: if you want to be Mormon, be Mormon. But the whole world doesn't have to be Mormon with you. If you are not strong enough in your faith to not have a billion people around you doing what you do, then something's wrong. My beliefs are based on me and my walk with God. That's it. Not fear of where I'll go when I die, not a conviction over whose faith is right. My path, my walk. Go get on yours, and if while on yours you or any part your beliefs are harming someone, expect to hear about it.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
-
_Ray A
beastie, I think your analysis is largely correct. I do believe, though, that some posters do post on MAD not just for protection from criticism (especially when directed at individual posters), but so there can be in an atmosphere where topics, rather than personalities are discussed. You'd have to admit, I presume, that a lot of discussion on this board turns personal, and sometimes nasty. That is not tolerated on MAD, and I think with very good reason, so discussions can flow along. Although I know the famous debates between you and Juliann might be an exception, and I don't believe you got personal. I think in the last very long debate the "asked and answered" policy was flouted. There are critics who seem to prefer to post on MAD (and I refer to posters like Tarski and The Dude, to name just two, but I could add Vogel and Metcalfe) for the reason I outlined.
So I think there are several reasons defenders don't stick around too long, with minor exceptions in regard those who do. Again, I feel some of this is due to the nature of an open board. I know that's why I primarily posted on FAIR, because I don't need protection, but I did feel that discussions flowed much better, and there was more substance, less "noise". Perhaps the irony is that I feel discussions here are more interesting, because of the open nature of the board, thus the irony. I guess we can't have a perfect forum world where we have everything. The other irony I see is that Joseph Smith once remarked how good it felt "not to be trammelled", the liberty of thinking and speaking as he pleased, and once he berated the brethren for objecting to the ideas of Pelatiah Brown, which were heretical. They felt Brown should be excommunicated because of his ideas, but Joseph objected to that, saying that Mormons would not be like others who would "ask a man out of their church because of his ideas". The atmosphere today is very different. Just think of David Wright, Brent Metcalfe, and Quinn.
Having said that, I think Shades has accommodated for Mormons by having the Celestial forum, and the idea of more and less moderation stratified. I noticed too when Tarski posted, he posted in the CF, though on the old MBD he posted everywhere. By the way, I'm not trying to mind-read Tarski, I'm only saying what I observe, and my observation could be wrong, that for some the issue is not just protection, but "user friendliness" in the sense of moderated discussions which generally allow for facilitated discussion and more substance. I find few threads on MAD of interest, even with the moderation and facilitation. It was not always like this, for me, as I spent two years on FAIR and did over 3,000 posts, which is still a record. So weighing all the pros and cons, I have chosen an open board, and do chose open boards now, because I don't feel hankered by rules.
The ABC forums in Oz are even more heavily moderated than MAD. There all posts have to be moderator approved, and take about 5-10 minutes to get on the board. I posted there for a while (on politics), though it was annoying, and very politically correct. I did one post that was chopped up because it was politically incorrect, and I said goodbye. "Are you doing my thinking? See ya later." And I never went back. I was also a prolific letter writer to the media, with over 400 letters to newspapers in some 12 years, but in the end I also found the editing annoying, and the PC, so now I seldom write, though I don't mind some of the open blogs newspapers have online, which follow the openness idea. You can pretty much say anything there as long as it's not defamatory of another person. In the final analysis, openness is not for the faint-hearted, but I do think it's the better way to go. I always like to know what people really think, not what the PC of any medium allows them to think, or prefers that they think. This is Big Brother. Thought control. And for that I'm prepared to put up with personal criticism, and "noise". And I do think it's fair to say that there is self-censorship on MAD. Many posters will hold back, or be aplogetic if they think they've overstepped, to please the mods and the strong LDS atmosphere, because they know that banning could be a reality. That is natural. When in Rome, you have to do as the Romans do, at least in following their rules. And I've always said this, if you don't like the rules of FAIR, and you want to bash Mormons (not just criticise) or call them idiots - the door is right there, and I think I respected that when I posted on FAIR.
I also think it would be much better to have more defenders here, but they will have to have a thick skin, and it's not the fault of the board if someone doesn't have a thick skin, and I know at present it can be a bit like being fed to the piranha when so far some 70% are critics, from the poll, and I presume there will be more votes. So in that regard I can understand the LDS reservations about coming here. They want quality critical discussions about Mormonism, and let's face it, much of the discussion is Mormon bashing, and I mean Mormons individually and collectively, in other words, ad hominem. In one of my first posts here I was critical of Truman Madsen's biography skills, but I'd never dream of calling him names, because he's a person I respect, but that's the sort of criticism I'm talking about, not ad hominem but discussing the factual matters. I also happen to feel that much Mormon apologia is distorted, and does not mention real and possibly detrimental alternate opinions. This is a real lack I see in LDS apologia. Convenient ignorng, but if I make personal attacks, you can rest assured they will never listen. They probably won't anyway. But this ignoring works both ways, and I think you know that from your experiences on RFM.
So I think there are several reasons defenders don't stick around too long, with minor exceptions in regard those who do. Again, I feel some of this is due to the nature of an open board. I know that's why I primarily posted on FAIR, because I don't need protection, but I did feel that discussions flowed much better, and there was more substance, less "noise". Perhaps the irony is that I feel discussions here are more interesting, because of the open nature of the board, thus the irony. I guess we can't have a perfect forum world where we have everything. The other irony I see is that Joseph Smith once remarked how good it felt "not to be trammelled", the liberty of thinking and speaking as he pleased, and once he berated the brethren for objecting to the ideas of Pelatiah Brown, which were heretical. They felt Brown should be excommunicated because of his ideas, but Joseph objected to that, saying that Mormons would not be like others who would "ask a man out of their church because of his ideas". The atmosphere today is very different. Just think of David Wright, Brent Metcalfe, and Quinn.
Having said that, I think Shades has accommodated for Mormons by having the Celestial forum, and the idea of more and less moderation stratified. I noticed too when Tarski posted, he posted in the CF, though on the old MBD he posted everywhere. By the way, I'm not trying to mind-read Tarski, I'm only saying what I observe, and my observation could be wrong, that for some the issue is not just protection, but "user friendliness" in the sense of moderated discussions which generally allow for facilitated discussion and more substance. I find few threads on MAD of interest, even with the moderation and facilitation. It was not always like this, for me, as I spent two years on FAIR and did over 3,000 posts, which is still a record. So weighing all the pros and cons, I have chosen an open board, and do chose open boards now, because I don't feel hankered by rules.
The ABC forums in Oz are even more heavily moderated than MAD. There all posts have to be moderator approved, and take about 5-10 minutes to get on the board. I posted there for a while (on politics), though it was annoying, and very politically correct. I did one post that was chopped up because it was politically incorrect, and I said goodbye. "Are you doing my thinking? See ya later." And I never went back. I was also a prolific letter writer to the media, with over 400 letters to newspapers in some 12 years, but in the end I also found the editing annoying, and the PC, so now I seldom write, though I don't mind some of the open blogs newspapers have online, which follow the openness idea. You can pretty much say anything there as long as it's not defamatory of another person. In the final analysis, openness is not for the faint-hearted, but I do think it's the better way to go. I always like to know what people really think, not what the PC of any medium allows them to think, or prefers that they think. This is Big Brother. Thought control. And for that I'm prepared to put up with personal criticism, and "noise". And I do think it's fair to say that there is self-censorship on MAD. Many posters will hold back, or be aplogetic if they think they've overstepped, to please the mods and the strong LDS atmosphere, because they know that banning could be a reality. That is natural. When in Rome, you have to do as the Romans do, at least in following their rules. And I've always said this, if you don't like the rules of FAIR, and you want to bash Mormons (not just criticise) or call them idiots - the door is right there, and I think I respected that when I posted on FAIR.
I also think it would be much better to have more defenders here, but they will have to have a thick skin, and it's not the fault of the board if someone doesn't have a thick skin, and I know at present it can be a bit like being fed to the piranha when so far some 70% are critics, from the poll, and I presume there will be more votes. So in that regard I can understand the LDS reservations about coming here. They want quality critical discussions about Mormonism, and let's face it, much of the discussion is Mormon bashing, and I mean Mormons individually and collectively, in other words, ad hominem. In one of my first posts here I was critical of Truman Madsen's biography skills, but I'd never dream of calling him names, because he's a person I respect, but that's the sort of criticism I'm talking about, not ad hominem but discussing the factual matters. I also happen to feel that much Mormon apologia is distorted, and does not mention real and possibly detrimental alternate opinions. This is a real lack I see in LDS apologia. Convenient ignorng, but if I make personal attacks, you can rest assured they will never listen. They probably won't anyway. But this ignoring works both ways, and I think you know that from your experiences on RFM.
-
_Bryan Inks
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:03 pm
-
_Gazelam
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5659
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am
Thanks for the post Ray. Very well stated.
If I remember correctly, Joseph had an open pulpit policy, and all foreign ministers were invited whenever they wanted to preach to the Mormons, although Joseph couldent guarantee an audience. So what you say has merit in regards to an open forum, although these days language is an issue in the land of "do as thou wilt is the whole of the law".
Truman Madsen readily admits he slants his biography of Joseph. I think it was in his follow up series of lectures focussing on the teachings as opposed to the life. I think he said it had to do with the audience he was focussing on and the point he was makeing.
Thick Skin is very important here, as well as anywhere else someone wants to stand for something. Stepping up always involves makeing yourself a target. Be prepared to take a hit, or don't step up.
Gaz
If I remember correctly, Joseph had an open pulpit policy, and all foreign ministers were invited whenever they wanted to preach to the Mormons, although Joseph couldent guarantee an audience. So what you say has merit in regards to an open forum, although these days language is an issue in the land of "do as thou wilt is the whole of the law".
Truman Madsen readily admits he slants his biography of Joseph. I think it was in his follow up series of lectures focussing on the teachings as opposed to the life. I think he said it had to do with the audience he was focussing on and the point he was makeing.
Thick Skin is very important here, as well as anywhere else someone wants to stand for something. Stepping up always involves makeing yourself a target. Be prepared to take a hit, or don't step up.
Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
-
_Ray A
-
_Ray A
Gazelam wrote:Truman Madsen readily admits he slants his biography of Joseph. I think it was in his follow up series of lectures focussing on the teachings as opposed to the life. I think he said it had to do with the audience he was focussing on and the point he was makeing.
I must have missed that, Gaz. But if that's the case, then it's at least an honest admission. I just finished watching "Journey of Faith", which was given to me by Dan Peterson, and Madsen features prominently in that DVD. It hasn't convinced me at all that the Book of Mormon is historical, as I feel there are other explanations. But it's still a very good DVD, really touches the emotions and spirituality, but the bottom line for me is that it just doesn't all add up. At one point one of the commentators noted that Nephi "was just unreal". Exactly how I see it, though I know she meant it differently to how I interpreted it. I was also recently re-reading Mark Thomas' Digging in Cumorah, and I think he lays out a fairly good perspective on the Book of Mormon, and one I can associate with more, and I believe this is the same view David Wright held. The "inspired but not history" view which brings so much chagrin from both Mormons and exmos. Ah well, I've been the meat in the sandwich for years now, holding a small minority view which may later become prominent.
-
_Gazelam
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5659
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am
I haven't seen the DVD you mentioned, do you have a link?
I have no doubt the Book of Mormon is literal. I think time will prove it out. The Temple and its teachings are well evidenced in South America.
I have no doubt the Book of Mormon is literal. I think time will prove it out. The Temple and its teachings are well evidenced in South America.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
-
_Ray A
Gazelam wrote:I haven't seen the DVD you mentioned, do you have a link?
I have no doubt the Book of Mormon is literal. I think time will prove it out. The Temple and its teachings are well evidenced in South America.
No, no link. You won't find it on the net, but perhaps if you go to FARMS you can get it from them. It features perhaps a dozen LDS scholars talking on their various areas of expertise. Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin feature in the first 30 minutes or so, but it goes for 1 hr 33 mins, and focuses only on Old World evidences, not the New World, where I think things become more complicated. John Sorenson is also featured in regard to the New World, but it doesn't go into that in any detail.