DiscussMormonism.com

I asked Charity this question on the Bob McCue, FAIR, and the Law thread. Rather than derail that thread any further, I thought I would start a new topic here.

Charity's response was that she felt that MDB is, indeed, and Anti-Mormon board. I replied that based on the mission statement, it is not. This was her response to me:

charity wrote:

liz3564 wrote:
How does this constitute an Anti-Mormon board, Charity?

It doesn't matter what the mission statement it. The majority of posts are anti-Mormon. I see very little seeking for truth. Just debates. A debate isn't a search for truth. It is an I win you lose exercise.

liz3564 wrote:Also, I notice that you didn't include me, Harmony, or Jason into the little categories you created. That's because we are neither "mild end of the spectrum ex-Mormons" or "flaming apostates". All three of us are calling holding, active Church members. Are there Church policies we disagree with? Yes. Do we enjoy discussing these issues as well as learning new things? Yes.

I am not an anti-Mormon, Charity. I would not be actively involved in the administration of a board that is anti-Mormon.

You do try to be a voice of moderation, and I don't mean that in a board mod sense. You are Jason are certainly edgy Mormons. Harmony has fallen off the edge. For all those who are about to jump out at me that I am judging Harmony, let me say, I don't know about the real person behind her screenname. But the Harmony persona she herself puts up here, certainly has. After all, except for a few cases where board members know each other in real life (and I only know one person here in real life) we only know each other through what information we, ourselves, provide.

My response is this:

How can the mission statement not matter? The mission statement of any board IS the essence of the board. It is why that board was created. I also emphatically disagree with your statement that the majority of posts on the board are anti-Mormon. Do many of the posts bring up critical issues? Yes. Are there a few goofballs who are truly anti who tend to make mindless posts that work their way to the bottom of the thread pages? Yes.

Your description of a debate board fits MAD (a supposedly pro-Mormon board) perfectly. I find that rather ironic.

If you, Coggins, Crockett, Nehor, Gaz, BCSpace, etc. really do view this place as an Anti-Mormon board, then why do you post here? To defend the faith? You realize that you are NOT following the counsel of our Church leaders, don't you? Their counsel is to stay as far away from anti-Mormon material as possible.

I'm not asking this question to drive anyone away. I enjoy my discourse with each of you. Most of the time, we manage to "agree to disagree" on issues. I have also learned things from each of you. The only two I have really had serious sparring matches with are Bob Crockett and Coggins. And even then, we've managed to come to some type of truce in the end.

I have posed this question before, and have never received a straight-forward answer. So, I'm hoping, Charity, that if anyone can give me a straight-forward answer, it's you. Maybe the other apologists will follow your lead. ;)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there needs to be at least a minimum amount of moderation on this board.

In my opinion, it is TOO free. The personal insults drive people away, and that is why we don't see more apologists on this board.

But, yes, my opinion of this board is that it is a toned down version of RfM. I'm not sure when the last time a pro-LDS thread was started. Which I don't blame the apologists at all. Whenever they are brave enough to open a pro-LDS thread, the name calling comes out in spades!

That isn't to say that the apologists don't name call, but not to the level and extent that the critics do.

liz3564 wrote:I asked Charity this question on the Bob McCue, FAIR, and the Law thread. Rather than derail that thread any further, I thought I would start a new topic here...

...Your description of a debate board fits MAD (a supposedly pro-Mormon board) perfectly. I find that rather ironic.

As do I. There is a "Mormon way" in discussions. I find it very arrogant and condescending. I don't see anything wrong with discussing any doctrine, or even the traits of the leaders. It is the way we determine the "character of the witness." So when Charity or anybody else takes such offense when somebody tells of their beliefs about Joseph, or any of the doctrine that might be illogical and/or inconsistent -- labeling it "anti-Mormon" -- it is an indication that there might be a problem.

You know, the whole "thou doth protest too much" concept.

liz3564 wrote:Charity's response was that she felt that MDB is, indeed, and Anti-Mormon board. I replied that based on the mission statement, it is not.

Whatever your perception, Liz, there is a very wide perception among Mormons that this board is anti-Mormon. I understand that Shades said from the start that the posters will determine the direction of the board, so this perception is not one of design, but evolution. Shades himself says he's "anti-Mormonism", and I like that sort of honesty. (You may remember that I was the one who questioned Shades on his position ages ago.) I actually have no problem with Shades, because I know exactly where he stands. I also believe he's firmly committed to free speech, and has been fair in administration (with a lot of help from a certain LDS mod :).

I would say the "anti-Mormonism" content is quite high. The only way to balance that is to get more Mormon posters, and I think Scottie is right that the open nature of the board will largely stop many Mormons coming here. Think of how many "tried it out", then left. Solution? I have no idea, if the free speech ideal is to remain intact.

With Elder Ballard's encouragement to "get online" and engage, I'm not so sure Mormons are bound by past advice to avoid contra-Mormon boards. Even if they only create blogs, sooner or later they will have to engage at some level.

liz3564 wrote:
How can the mission statement not matter? The mission statement of any board IS the essence of the board. It is why that board was created. I also emphatically disagree with your statement that the majority of posts on the board are anti-Mormon. Do many of the posts bring up critical issues? Yes. Are there a few goofballs who are truly anti who tend to make mindless posts that work their way to the bottom of the thread pages? Yes.

The mission statement doesn't make any difference if people don't read it and go by it. And it isn't the critical issues, but the way they are handled. Name calling, insulting, and mocking are not civil discourse. And personal insults back at the posters are even worse. In a recen thread, Runtu as much as said I have no conscience because he and I disagree about Joseph Smith. That is disgusting.

Another anti-Mormon demonstration is the thread which criticizes President Hinckley on the occasion of his death. How can this not be seen as anti-Mormon?

liz3564 wrote:Your description of a debate board fits MAD (a supposedly pro-Mormon board) perfectly. I find that rather ironic.

There are a lot more intellectual discussions over on MA&D. I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

liz3564 wrote:If you, Coggins, Crockett, Nehor, Gaz, BCSpace, etc. really do view this place as an Anti-Mormon board, then why do you post here? To defend the faith? You realize that you are NOT following the counsel of our Church leaders, don't you? Their counsel is to stay as far away from anti-Mormon material as possible.

As an apologist, I need to learn what the arguments are. And I am too passionate a defender to just read and not respond.

liz3564 wrote:I'm not asking this question to drive anyone away. I enjoy my discourse with each of you. Most of the time, we manage to "agree to disagree" on issues. I have also learned things from each of you. The only two I have really had serious sparring matches with are Bob Crockett and Coggins. And even then, we've managed to come to some type of truce in the end.

You are not the typical poster here.

liz3564 wrote:I have posed this question before, and have never received a straight-forward answer. So, I'm hoping, Charity, that if anyone can give me a straight-forward answer, it's you. Maybe the other apologists will follow your lead. ;)

Did that answer to your satisfaction?

Edited to add: I didn't even mention your telestial and outer darkness forums. I clicked on telestial once when I meant terrestrial and had to leave to go throw up before I could come back to the computer. Not anti-Mormon?

charity wrote:I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

I didn't know using MAD was snyde??? I use that acronym all the time as an abbreviation, just as I use MDB for this board and RfM for exmormon and FLAK for Further Light and Knowledge.

Now, if you say it as Scratch does and add in "the aptly named MAD board", then you might have point.

Scottie wrote:

charity wrote:I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

I didn't know using MAD was snyde??? I use that acronym all the time as an abbreviation, just as I use MDB for this board and RfM for exmormon and FLAK for Further Light and Knowledge.

Now, if you say it as Scratch does and add in "the aptly named MAD board", then you might have point.

Is is used in Scratch's meaning. It really is the MA&D board. So the only reason to say MAD is to ridicule. Snide. You yourself admit that an "and" needs to be in the acronym.

charity wrote:

Scottie wrote:

charity wrote:I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

I didn't know using MAD was snyde??? I use that acronym all the time as an abbreviation, just as I use MDB for this board and RfM for exmormon and FLAK for Further Light and Knowledge.

Now, if you say it as Scratch does and add in "the aptly named MAD board", then you might have point.

Is is used in Scratch's meaning. It really is the MA&D board. So the only reason to say MAD is to ridicule. Snide. You yourself admit that an "and" needs to be in the acronym.

Then it would be MAAD... not a great improvement. I prefer referring to it as Juliann's board.

charity wrote:

Scottie wrote:

charity wrote:I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

I didn't know using MAD was snyde??? I use that acronym all the time as an abbreviation, just as I use MDB for this board and RfM for exmormon and FLAK for Further Light and Knowledge.

Now, if you say it as Scratch does and add in "the aptly named MAD board", then you might have point.

Is is used in Scratch's meaning. It really is the MA&D board. So the only reason to say MAD is to ridicule. Snide. You yourself admit that an "and" needs to be in the acronym.

I did?

I see nothing wrong with calling it MAD.

Scottie wrote:

charity wrote:

Scottie wrote:

charity wrote:I think it is interesting that you use a little snide acronym for the Mormon Apologetic And Discussion Board.

I didn't know using MAD was snyde??? I use that acronym all the time as an abbreviation, just as I use MDB for this board and RfM for exmormon and FLAK for Further Light and Knowledge.

Now, if you say it as Scratch does and add in "the aptly named MAD board", then you might have point.

Is is used in Scratch's meaning. It really is the MA&D board. So the only reason to say MAD is to ridicule. Snide. You yourself admit that an "and" needs to be in the acronym.

I did?

I see nothing wrong with calling it MAD.

I don't see anything wrong with it either. In fact, I think it is quite 'apt' to refer to that messageboard as being 'MAD', since they are so angry and insane about so many things.