Although I’ve read both before, I reread the board guidelines of each respective board.
There is nothing on MAD’s board guidelines that openly admits the bias for believers and against critics, including the aforementioned “culling” policy. Here’s what I found that states treatment is not “fair”:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... boardrules
Do enjoy the boards and allow others to enjoy them. A healthy board requires a mix of personalities, temperaments and points of view. Because we have high standards for discussion and debate, we are privileged to have several high profile scholars and apologists who post here. We ask that you respect their dignity and the investment that they have put into their research so that we can continue to enjoy their participation. We make no claim that everyone will be treated equally. Posters are only as valuable as their contributions to the board are valuable. We have zero tolerance for any comments that invade the privacy or attack the personal dignity of public figures who disclose their identity.
(refraining from commenting on the
so-called “high standards for discussion and debate) This openly admits that the high profile posters are treated deferentially. But even this does not state that it is only high profile
believers who are treated deferentially.
The Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board is a discussion forum for apologetics (defense of the faith) related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) or Mormonism in general and related topics of interest to the LDS and Mormon communities.
Open and frank discussions will occur but participants are expected to exercise common courtesy and 'netiquette' when posting. There is a fellowship forum for discussing topics without debating them.
This, on the other hand, clearly recognizes that the main forum is a DEBATE forum, which entails the existence of critics presenting their side of the argument. The board needs critics to maintain interest.
Contrast this to postmormon:
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.p ... org/return For former Mormons and non-Mormons visiting this website, PostMormon.org is a place where those who have left or are considering leaving the Mormon Church can meet and talk in an environment that is safe and supportive.
This clearly states that the board is designed to provide support for those who have left or are considering leaving the church. It mentions nothing about debating apologia, or allowing defense of the faith.
It does allow LDS under certain conditions:
For Mormons visiting this website, know that you are welcome as long as you respect that this is our home and you are a guest in it. As a guest you are expected to conduct yourself as any guest normally would when visiting someone’s home, even if you don’t agree with some of the things you find during your visit. We find that most Mormons visiting here do respect that this is our home. If you are one of them that doesn’t then don’t be surprised if you are quickly shown the door. Click here for more information.
Additional information for the
guests.
Third--The internet is a peculiar sort of house, and society is still working out the rules of decorum when it comes to how we interact here. Whose house is PostMormon.org? Whose house is LDS.Org? It's obvious if we're speaking of homes of bricks and mortar whose house it is, and we know how to behave there. I wouldn't dream of slipping into your Sacrament Meeting, and challenging every testimony is born, even if I was trying to be understanding. Imagine me asking questions phrased like, "Seriously, you guys...how can you believe that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with a rock in a hat?" I might be sincere in my motive, but that's not how you behave in someone else's house. I could reasonably expect that if you were in my home for dinner, that our conversation pertaining to my beliefs would be respectful and inquisitive. I presume you know how to act in my house, as I know how to act in yours. It's when we meet here that things get weird.
You, and Ray, are still defenders of the faith, whether or not your names are on the rolls, or you are active in the church. So you are clearly one of the “Mormons” whom this advice is directed towards.
So compare MAD and postmormon. MAD is clearly a debate board to allow for defense of the faith. Critics are needed to provide that debate. Only high profile posters – which could be Dan Vogel as well as Dan Peterson – are given deferential treatment, according to their guidelines.
The reality is that moderating is extremely biased, and sneering and mockery is allowed to take place as long as it is LDS doing the sneering and mocking. The “culling” takes place – not to keep the number of critics from outnumbering believers, but to keep the believing posting populace in a heavy enough majority that sheer numbers will comfort believers. If enough people cheer them on, bad arguments don’t matter.
Postmormon is clearly a support board for people who have left or are considering leaving the LDS church. Believers are tolerated only under certain conditions. You violated those conditions.
Based on your style here, I would venture to guess you violated this in particular:
Second--Sometimes in our zeal to appear understanding, we make more noise than we should. My experience with seeking understanding is that the vast majority of my time is best spent with my ears wide open and my mouth shut. There is no understanding of another's world view, if I am trying to shape that world view with my constant talking. The more I talk, the more I guide the conversation. The more I guide the conversation, the more it mirrors MY world-view rather than theirs. Understanding comes with empathy, and empathy is achieved when you can reflect back to the other person what they're saying, and demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Empathy is not the same as sympathy. Sympathy implies "agreement". And I am not suggesting you need to agree in order to understand. Empathy means only that you have worked hard enough to see the issue through the other person's eyes.
You have a tendency not to “hear” the other. Look at your insistence that exmormons don’t have a right to feel angry. You stated your opinion in the form of a question. You received many sincere responses explaining why, indeed, exmormons are entitled to anger. Yet it doesn’t look like you absorbed one thing any of us said.