What I've learned from apologetics

[_marg]

Harmony maybe the drama has continued on MAD without Moniker's involvement, it is a possibility. It sounds to me as if her mother wrote the note, in which case it could be quite serious and perhaps it's not a good idea to be discussing it here.

Do you think quotes from MAD threads are offlimits now, marg... or just quotes that I supply? If it's on the net, it's fair game.

Oi vay, right so let's see, if I happen to know where you live and post somewhere on the Net this information, all anonymously of course, it's fair game.

Or if someone's kids decide to go onto a message board using their parent's account and post something embarrassing or offensive, it's fair game.

No harmony, if M didn't post that, and that's what she claims, it is not fair game just because it was put on the Net. Apparently it was taken down but still up in other people's messages by quoting her.

Why are you so keen to perpetuate the quote over here, when she announced and you are aware of it, that she didn't write it, she doesn't like it, and she obviously didn't want it up? It's obvious you assume it was her, and assume the worst.

[_Jersey Girl]

When read in sequence, those exchanges make no sense at all. I don't think the first few exchanges appear on the thread any longer. If they do, I can't find them. Best to leave this alone, methinks.

[_marg]

When read in sequence, those exchanges make no sense at all. I don't think the first few exchanges appear on the thread any longer. If they do, I can't find them. Best to leave this alone, methinks.

Do you agree or disagree with Harmony..that as long as something is written and found in the public domain, it's fair game?

[Anonymous]

Inactives aren't a threat. They don't care enough to make it official. Apostates on the other hand have figuretively given the church, and the apologists by extrapolation, the finger.

It's all about pride. If it wasn't about pride, there would be a whole different approach by the apologists. The anger, the ridicule, the rest... it's all fueled by pride. It's the same as it was in the bad old days, when the church was just getting started. A person couldn't just reject the prophet and walk away unscathed. No, they had to be vilified, called a whore, their earlier pristine reputation sullied. It's the same now. The words are different, but the same pride drives the anger. Rejection is hard to take, especially when something is as ingrained and as totally encompassing as the church is.

I agree 100%. This is true for dealing with Chapel Mormons as well. They take it personally when we express concerns or doubts about the church and begin defending their testimony as if we attacked them.

I'm surprised the bretheren haven't ordered the FAIR site and MAD board to be shut down. If I wanted shake someone's testimony or finish off someone struggling with church doctrines or history, I would send them over there. They show no empathy toward a Mormon who has had their faith shaken. If they were really there to help Chapel Mormons stay in the church, they wouldn't condemn, slander, and ridicule them for having felt deceived when they are working through the issues and searching for answers. Until apologists can approach these issues with integrity, they will never help people stay in the church.

This thread started by Deborah is a perfect example of what you stated Harmony.
"for those who felt deceived by the church and left"
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=41966

The responses by apologists make me crazy and I had to stop reading it. Beastie gave the most eloquent and intelligent posts in response to the insanity and bigotry over there.

For example, apologists believe when critics say they didn't know of Joseph Smith's wives that they are either lying, lazy/unfaithful in their study, or stupid. Why would a critic make that up? Why is the shock and feeling of deception when learning church history such a common theme and catalyst to leaving the church among critics? Until they can accept and address that with honesty, all their efforts are not only a waste of time, but harmful to the church.

If TBMs on FAIR/MAD took the approach of someone like Jason Bourne, Liz, Harmony, John Dehlin, NOM, etc. (where they can admit the church has troubling history and does carefully edit it's materials to mislead or steer it's members away from controversial material) I believe the doubter would be more inclined to find a way to stay in the church. John Dehlin attempted this, but not as a true believer. Richard Bushman has also done this with RSR, and admitted the church covers up polygamy in an interview. He has taken a more honest approach to the church's role in the deception critics felt.

Personally, I am very embarrassed that I didn't know Joseph Smith had practiced mortal polygamy. I wish I had picked up Mormon Enigma earlier in my life. But how would I have known to search for that when I was always led to believe that polygamy was only practiced in Utah for the widows?
Why would I lie about that?

I recently had some friends from my Ward ask for help with a struggling sister who was shaken by something she learned about polygamy. They wanted to know which websites would be the most helpful to keep her in the church. I knew if I sent her to FAIR/MAD, it would turn her away from the church, as it did to me and other disillusioned members. I could only give her the New Order Mormon link and John Dehlin's "stay LDS" site.

[_Jersey Girl]

When read in sequence, those exchanges make no sense at all. I don't think the first few exchanges appear on the thread any longer. If they do, I can't find them. Best to leave this alone, methinks.

Do you agree or disagree with Harmony..that as long as something is written and found in the public domain, it's fair game?

Yeah, don't put me on the spot or anything. What we really need here is a King Solomon but I'll give it a shot at cutting the baby in half.

No, I don't think that anything written and found in the public domain is fair game. I do think that whatever one puts on the board is fair game. Example: If I choose to use my first name in a post, anyone else is free to refer to me by that identity. If you, however, know my first name and refer to me by that without my ever having revealed it myself, you'd be in deep ca-ca with me, it's poor form and I'd be all over admin getting it deleted.

We have had situations on this board where someone has come in a posted a posters name. The name was deleted by admin because the individual whose name was posted, didn't want their name disclosed online. Admin knew it, then deleted.

I feel that was proper to do.

With regards to the series of posts that were shared on this thread. The posts that mention mental health states, no longer appear on the thread of origin. If they do, I don't see them. I never saw them to start with. The posts were obviously deleted by admin on that board and likely due to the wishes of the poster whose personal information was contained in those posts.

The posts aren't fair game.
They no longer exist.
They were deleted by admin for some reason (I assume at poster request)

If we want to take up the issue of whether or not KA was banned from this board which was a question that krose had, all we need to do is save the last three posts from those exchanges where:

1. One poster mentions a note
2. Another poster (bluebell?) advises to take it up with MDB admin
3. Bond replies that the poster is banned from MDB.

We could save no posts at all, since it's obvious that KA posted on this thread and isn't banned.

If we choose to leave the transferred posts intact, it violates the new rules that Shades set up to the effect that we are no longer permitted to discuss past situations with that particular poster in detail. The information builds on discussions that originated on this board involving information shared privately. Those posts were removed from this board.

I say remove all but the last three posts (Barrel O'Mangoes, bluebell, Bond) and be done with it.

We don't know about the mental health state that was mentioned. If it's authentic, then it's serious as hell and we shouldn't be stirring the pot if it has the potential to contribute to doing harm to someone.

Consider the baby sliced in two.

[_marg]

I'm in agreement with you J.G. To make it short, I think any posts on this brd, which include the post M says she didn't write, which that board removed but which might have stayed in the thread via someone quoting her, should be removed. As you put it, it's stirring the pot on this board, in my opinion it's disrespectful, and she's not here to say anything.

You wrote:

We don't know about the mental health state that was mentioned. If it's authentic, then it's serious as hell and we shouldn't be stirring the pot if it has the potential to contribute to doing harm to someone.

Exactly.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is the other thing I thought of. Putting the shoe on the other foot.

When posters are banned on MAD there is a propensity on the part of admin to allow discussion of them to continue without their being able to reply, defend themselves, refute or what have you. Many of those posters choose to come here to finish their part of the conversation which is their last resort.

In this case, the poster is unable to respond here and also unable to respond over on MAD to whatever has been said or posted here.

I think the only best thing to do is remove all of the references completely or just leave the last three posts which answer krose's question.

Not that anyone around here gives a hoot what I think.

[_gramps]

Definitely. It should be off.

Right away.

It looks just like the MADness board. Nip it in the bud, admins.

[_harmony]

This is the other thing I thought of. Putting the shoe on the other foot.

When posters are banned on MAD there is a propensity on the part of admin to allow discussion of them to continue without their being able to reply, defend themselves, refute or what have you. Many of those posters choose to come here to finish their part of the conversation which is their last resort.

In this case, the poster is unable to respond here and also unable to respond over on MAD to whatever has been said or posted here.

Why would the poster not be able to respond on MAD? And why, if the poster on MAD is indeed the mother of the banned poster here, would she not be able to post here? The mother is not banned.

I think the only best thing to do is remove all of the references completely or just leave the last three posts which answer krose's question.

They still stand on the MAD thread. They provide context here. If whoever posted them didn't want them read, then perhaps... perhaps.. they shouldn't have posted them. And since they obviously know how to delete posts (see the first post, which is a deletion), then obviously the poster wants them to be read. I see no reason to take them down, since the posts still stand.

Not that anyone around here gives a hoot what I think.

Balderdash, my friend. Although I am coming around to the idea that it is the mother, not the daughter, who posted.

[_Jersey Girl]

harm,

MAD discourages posts/threads of a personal nature. That's why they can't be discussed further on that board.

The mother cannot come here to discuss her issues publicly, because they involve events that originated on this board and are now verboten for us to discuss.

I don't see the earlier posts with the mental health references on that board. If you see them, give me a link to them so I can see it.

It looks to me as if someone (likely the poster in question) requested that they be removed.

I think we should honor that and cease discussion of it here and that they should be removed from this thread.