"beastie"
Part of what nemesis said that altered my attitude about it a bit is that they receive a lot of emails from believers who are angry with moderators for allowing critics to say the things they say. These emailers accuse the mods of being in league with apostates.
The reality that any LDS-themed board is going to have to deal with is a certain amount of lack of awareness regarding problematic issues within the membership at large. Most members really aren't aware of these things, despite the seeming MAD insinuation otherwise (when so many of them claim they've known about this stuff since their teens...). So, to them, when critics make certain historically based assertions - like Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl - this seems like a base lie that ought to be simply censored. They shouldn't be "allowed" to say such a thing.
Do they have a high number of Chapel Mormon traffic there?
They should expect the e-mails. There are plenty of LDS themed boards out there where the people who glorify Joseph Smith won't have to come across any of the troubling issues.
The dilemma is obvious. Defenders of the faith have to engage in sometimes subtle, and sometimes weak, explanations of facts that, on their face, are pretty damning to LDS truth claims. The believers in the peanut gallery just want a "smack-down", they just want the critics to stop "lying". So it's a difficult row to hoe. The LDS peanut gallery - the very population that provides believers willing to post to defend the faith - are the ones who already think the mods are too easy on critics. I think it's obvious moderators aren't too easy on critics at all, but are harder on critics than on believers. But it doesn't feel that way to someone who just wants the critic to be shown to be a base liar and forced to shut up.
I thought it was important that Nemesis noted how hard it is to get believers to post on a board like MAD. Even as it is - apparently it's still hard to do. My opinion is that it's hard to get believers to post because they know they likely will not be able to provide the type of rebuttals they'd like to see apologists provide, either. (which is again, not an explanation of why it was all right for Joseph Smith to marry a fourteen year old, but rather that he never did such a thing and anyone claiming otherwise is a base liar)
This is part of the nightmare for LDS defenders of the faith. What LDS who have just confronted these problems really want to hear is: "it's all a pack of lies from filthy anti-mormons, and these facts PROVE it". But what they really hear is a concession that the the skeletal facts of the assertions are, in fact, correct, but the facts aren't being "interpreted" correctly. That is a frustrating state of affairs.
You nailed it. Well put!
Besides, as I've repeatedly said, it's not a bad thing to be forced to stay on one's toes. It's not a bad thing to be forced, more or less, to abandon snarkiness in favor of simple facts. It ends up as a better presentation.
I agree with this Beastie.
I try to imagine what it would be like to stumble on MAD as Chapel Mormon or someone who has just had their faith shaken by church history. By allowing apologists to viciously attack non believers and reprimand them over silly things, they are only validating the critics.
It has hurt MAD by creating a board full of intellectually honest, submissive, and civil critics, but allowing the most bigoted and inane views from believers to flood the board. (for example the recent disgusting threads justifying divorce for spouses of apostates)
What’s difficult for me to watch as a lurker even more than the unfair moderating is all the apologizing from the critics when none was necessary.
For example, a critic was called out by an apologist for just mentioning that in the temple sealing signs and tokens are revealed and that’s why non members are excluded. No details, just that general statement that we would hear in church. There was nothing at all inappropriate in what he said but he apologized. The groveling is hard to watch.
When I first found FAIR, it was the critics who were kind, compassionate, reasonable, and honest about church history and what is experienced in the Chapels. They were the most civil and understanding about the questions lurkers are searching out. I became immediately turned off by the apologists non sensical arguments and personal attacks. Shockingly (to myself at that early time) I felt more at home as an active Mormon with the apostates.
Conversely, if apostates behave with the same kind of personal attacks or use more direct foul language on a free speech board, I believe it will turn off lurkers who come here for questions and critics will lose credibility. And I wouldn’t blame TBMs for not coming to a discussion board if that is allowed.
As a person fresh out of Chapel Mormonism, if I had been searching for answers and stumbled on threads that mocked temple names/ordinances, foul language we would have never used as active LDS, attacking people’s personal appearance or intelligence, celebrating their freedom to get drunk or sexual freedom, lewd comments, etc. it would have made me fear that apostates were the miserable teeth gnashing pawns of Satan I had been taught in church all my life. It would have confirmed that once you leave the church, you lose your morals. The low class language and behavior some use reflects on all critics when it’s allowed.
