We don't allow "Why I left the church" threads.

[_Buffalo]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/567 ... ng-a-bell/

Recently a fascinating thread at MAD was locked, for the reason quoted in this thread title. Another fascinating, ongoing thread was equally in this vein, but hasn't been locked yet:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/567 ... hat-is-it/

Anyway, I think the fact that this sort of thing is against the rules is pretty interesting. Is this against the rules because these sorts of stories are damaging to faith on a more profound level than threads about the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc? On the last post of the thread, Darth Bill said:

">I do not think it is any different than denying ever having ever felt the Holy Spirit, and chalking it up to an emotional feeling.

Yep. And I know I'm not alone there. I know of a particular feeling and I attributed that to the Holy Ghost. Kind of scheduled my life around it to some extent...and then last night I felt it at an AC/DC concert and that kind of confirmed that it was an emotional thing....which is worse for me as I now haven't felt the Holy Ghost, I guess. "

I can see how this sort of statement would be really threatening to apologists and prompt thread closure. Believers dismiss (ie put on the shelf) evidence all the time because they believe the Holy Ghost has revealed the essential truth of the church to them on a personal level. But once former believers start discussing ways in which they've felt those same feelings in response to stimuli like AC/DC concerts, the biggest defense again unbelief is threatened.

The other topic that causes alarm from MAD moderators is discussion of Joseph Smith's sex life. I think you can really gauge which issues are most threatening to them by the degree to which they censor discussion of them.

[_just me]

They finally closed that thing, eh? I actually posted on it.

It feels good not to be trammeled...

[_Blixa]

That second thread is probably the worst thread I've ever read on MDD.

But I was, well appalled, to read this post in the first thread:

="a "historian"I'm a historian, so I don't understand how many things work, like the computer I'm typing on at this very moment or the TV my housemate just switched on in his bedroom. But I've repeatedly experienced that they do work. May I respectfully suggest that you might get further in comprehending the reality of the Atonement by engaging it than by theorising upon it?

That's right, historians are traditionally bumbling idiots who don't how that there technology stuff works n' all. Of course, a historian, probably more than many other people, should know "how things work" because they are in the business of investigating and explaining the material conditions which produce various events. And I don't know any modern historian who would speak so lightly of the relation of theory to the comprehension of either the conceptual or the experiential. Mere "experience" is not enough to understand any thing.

[_bcspace]

Anyway, I think the fact that this sort of thing is against the rules is pretty interesting. Is this against the rules because these sorts of stories are damaging to faith on a more profound level than threads about the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc?

No. They're more spam-like and have no substance.

[_Buffalo]

Anyway, I think the fact that this sort of thing is against the rules is pretty interesting. Is this against the rules because these sorts of stories are damaging to faith on a more profound level than threads about the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc?

No. They're more spam-like and have no substance.

Peterson spams his Deseret News puff pieces on a weekly basis. :)

[_cinepro]

Anyway, I think the fact that this sort of thing is against the rules is pretty interesting. Is this against the rules because these sorts of stories are damaging to faith on a more profound level than threads about the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc?

The guidelines explain it this way:

Topics We Don't Allow

- Personal topics such as "Why I Left the Church" threads. This is not a support group. If you are having a spiritual crisis and need help, contacting your local leaders would be the appropriate action and of course, taking your problem to our Father in Heaven. We do care very much for struggling members, but we don't want to see you made a target for judgment and insults. Don't make yourself the subject.


- Proselyting or "witnessing" from either side. Preaching doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided.

People seem to be given a lot of latitude in discussing why people leave the Church. It just can't be a confessional "why I left the Church" type thing.

[_Buffalo]

Anyway, I think the fact that this sort of thing is against the rules is pretty interesting. Is this against the rules because these sorts of stories are damaging to faith on a more profound level than threads about the priesthood ban, polygamy, etc?

The guidelines explain it this way:

Topics We Don't Allow

- Personal topics such as "Why I Left the Church" threads. This is not a support group. If you are having a spiritual crisis and need help, contacting your local leaders would be the appropriate action and of course, taking your problem to our Father in Heaven. We do care very much for struggling members, but we don't want to see you made a target for judgment and insults. Don't make yourself the subject.


- Proselyting or "witnessing" from either side. Preaching doesn't create a discussion. It is one sided.

People seem to be given a lot of latitude in discussing why people leave the Church. It just can't be a confessional "why I left the Church" type thing.

I have a hard time believing that they care whether apostates are made a target for judgement or insults.

[_hatersinmyward]

The LDS don't ex- communicate crazy people... boom pop!!!

Are you a Mod Buffalo?

[_Quasimodo]

The LDS don't ex- communicate crazy people... boom pop!!!

Are you a Mod Buffalo?

Medications hater!

[_moksha]

That's right, historians are traditionally bumbling idiots who don't how that there technology stuff works n' all. Of course, a historian, probably more than many other people, should know "how things work" because they are in the business of investigating and explaining the material conditions which produce various events. And I don't know any modern historian who would speak so lightly of the relation of theory to the comprehension of either the conceptual or the experiential. Mere "experience" is not enough to understand any thing.

I love reading Blixa's writing. Now for something tangential: Equally irksome from me is are those that disparage Historians for trying to put together the pieces of a history puzzle. Those disparagers want a mere telling of the separate pieces in order to dilute a better understanding of what happened and why it happened.