Faith Based Threads in Celestial Forum

[_Dr. Shades]

I understant the points of view of the people who have objected.

Hear us out for just a moment, though: The purpose isn't so much to stifle debate as it is to avoid derailment.

The thing is, let's say someone does what Scottie describes in his example. The way things currently are, the thread will always immediately devolve to the question of whether or not God exists in the first place. Take a look at the threads there now; most of them quickly changed to a discussion about whether or not it's reasonable to believe in God or the Bible.

So, sure, challenge all you want, but just allow the thread originator to move the "starting point" forward a little bit. Instead of always reverting to the ultimate question of God's existence, allow him or her to begin with the hypothetical assumption that He/She/It does exist and go from there (sort of like what Scottie showed in his example).

Besides, I don't think this "Faith based" rule will be invoked all that often anyhow.

Can we all just give it a month or so and see how it works out?

[_Scottie]

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

Agreed.

It IS lazy. But even a well constructed argument shooting down a faith-based approach would cause the comment to come under attack, enabled by the new rule.

So your concern is that the OP will create vague parameters and then screm "FOUL" at every post he/she doesn't like?

I can see that as a valid concern.

[_Mercury]

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

Agreed.

It IS lazy. But even a well constructed argument shooting down a faith-based approach would cause the comment to come under attack, enabled by the new rule.

So your concern is that the OP will create vague parameters and then screm "FOUL" at every post he/she doesn't like?

I can see that as a valid concern.

What differentiates a valid argument from an invalid argument? Besides, what kind of faith are we talking about here? One person says that they believe in the divinity of Jesus, the other believes in the divinity of Mohammed. This rule creates more overhead for the mods and opens up the possibility for feelings getting hurt and participation newbies could become easily confused.

[_Scottie]

Do you really think it makes for good debate to come in to every thread and simply throw out "God doesn't exist, therefore, it doesn't matter anyways"?? That is lazy, in my opinion.

Agreed.

It IS lazy. But even a well constructed argument shooting down a faith-based approach would cause the comment to come under attack, enabled by the new rule.

So your concern is that the OP will create vague parameters and then screm "FOUL" at every post he/she doesn't like?

I can see that as a valid concern.

What differentiates a valid argument from an invalid argument? Besides, what kind of faith are we talking about here? One person says that they believe in the divinity of Jesus, the other believes in the divinity of Mohammed. This rule creates more overhead for the mods and opens up the possibility for feelings getting hurt and participation newbies could become easily confused.

The type of faith is up to the OP to decide. Since this is an LDS board, I would suspect that most of the time it would be Christian.

Like Shades said, lets try it for a month and see how it goes.

[_dartagnan]

I always liked the rule that a thread starter gets to dictate teh parameters of the thread. He/she gets to decide what's relevant to the topic and what's a derailment. I implemented this on my forum a couple of years ago.

It is a way of cutting down on drive by derailments by antagonists, and it gives the mods a break since the thread starter is in control. JAK loves doing this kind of thing. Over at MAD, Juliann does it all the time. They invade as many threads as they can with irrelevant diatribes for the sole purpose of stunting or derailing a good discussion.

I get a kick out of those who actually complain about this because they think no "discussion" can take place in these threads. What really pisses you off is that you're no longer permitted to invade and offer pithy diversionary comments.

So don't pretend you were ever really interested in "discussion" to begin with.

For example, how many "discussions" can anyone name that included crucial input from Shmo or mercury? Schmo is more likely to cheerlead or call someone stupid, and mercury is more likely to offer death threats. Is anyone here really under the delusion that they care a thing about "discussion"? The forum has at least a dozen similar posters, who likewise have no room to complain about any measures that might hinder "discussion." It is precisely they who are the cause of that.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I get a kick out of those who actually complain about this because they think no "discussion" can take place in these threads. What really pisses you off is that you're no longer permitted to invade and offer pithy diversionary comments.

So don't pretend you were ever really interested in "discussion" to begin with.

That's not true, Dart. I'm not an atheist. I started a thread stating my opposition to the new rule. Chris, Skippy, Jason Bourne, myself and others who oppose the new rule do not jump in the middle of threads and invade, "offering pithy, diversionary comments."

There are only a handful of posters who behave in such a fashion, and if they make posts breaking forum rules, then those posts should be dealt with on an individual basis. Otherwise, their posts should be left to stand. Chose to engage them, or ignore them. It's a choice. To me, that's better than preemptively censoring discussion.

KA

[_skippy the dead]

There are only a handful of posters who behave in such a fashion, and if they make posts breaking forum rules, then those posts should be dealt with on an individual basis. Otherwise, their posts should be left to stand. Chose to engage them, or ignore them. It's a choice. To me, that's better than preemptively censoring discussion.

KA

Precisely.

[_dartagnan]

But Kim, if you're the majority then you are the silent majority. I haven't seen you in any of these dozens of threads debating theism.

So what are you compaining about since you're not in the discussions anyway? You say "just ignore" these threads, well why can't you just ignore these threads under debate now?

I am the one taking on most of the load here, defending theism against a slew of antagonistic atheists. I get PMs from other theists telling me to keep fighting, but I could really use some help here. I simply cannot keep up with all of the threads. The theme of this thread over the past few months has gradually sifted from Mormonism to theism. If it keeps going on this path we'll need to change the name of the forum. Mormonism seems to be a thing of the past that people aren't even interested in anymore.

And in defense of Liz, a few days ago she asked me if it was OK to use my old forum for this purpose. I said sure. But I think she is having a hard time trying to get people over there, so she is taking this measure as a last ditch effort. This is where everyone posts.

[_Yoda]

And in defense of Liz, a few days ago she asked me if it was OK to use my old forum for this purpose. I said sure. But I think she is having a hard time trying to get people over there, so she is taking this measure as a last ditch effort. This is where everyone posts.

Actually, Kevin, my asking to use your old forum was completely independent of initiating this policy. There was no connection. This policy was mutually discussed among the Mods. It was actually a suggestion made by Marg that we all thought was a good idea. I was just the lucky duck who volunteered to post it! LOL

The use of your forum is to initiate conversation with a handful of posters I have invited over there..period. I'm not looking for a lot of traffic.

My "home base", whether posters here like it or not, is still Shady Acres. LOL

[_Nightingale]

Scottie asked for suggestions (on another thread) about how to achieve the desired result in a different way if the mods were to shelve the "faith-based" flag idea.

How about a separate new forum whose purpose is to discuss "faith-based" stuff? (Unless the CK forum is already for that; sorry, I'm not that familiar with that section of the board).

So you'd have Old Testament Forum, Events Forum and Faith Forum. Those who don't want to discuss faith-based topics don't even have to go there. Those who do can discuss the issue at hand without having to read or respond to a lot of "no-god" replies. It can be assumed for the purposes of that entire forum that at least the original poster has an issue they wish to discuss within the parameters of their belief. It doesn't mean that everyone has to somehow acknowledge that God exists or that there is merit to the Book of Mormon, thereby violating their personal beliefs. It is just a way to keep the discussion on track within the parameter that the OP believes in the Book of Mormon (or whatever) and aside from that what is your opinion about this or that. The whole thread could be populated with non-LDS, but their replies would not consist of tangenting off on a discussion re the validity of the Book of Mormon or the stupidity of the Trinity doctrine, when that was not the original thread-starting topic.

The reason this makes sense to me, even given the presence of the CK division here, is that I see the foundation of the board as being the Terrestrial forum, with the Celestial and Telestial being off-shoots of that, divided on the basis of rules and moderator input. This could all carry on as now with no flags on any posts and everyone participating as they do, with rule-violaters being dealt with by mods.

Then you'd have the Faith Forum, where an LDS poster could write, for instance, "We have a great ward choir" without getting 87 shots along the lines of "Joseph Smith was a pedophile so who cares about your stupid-ass choir". This approach is not valid discussion but rather a quick route to making/keeping this an LDS/Christian-unfriendly site. Some people would hope for that. In this, they are at odds with the owners/mods' stated purposes. That could be where the greatest disconnect is.

In this Faith Forum, there could be even less moderation needed than in the CK in that non-LDS/Christian/other who don't want to accept the premise don't even go to the Faith Forum, hopefully. That would be the idea of it.

So rather than put a flag on certain threads in one of the existing sections of the board, the faith section is unto itself, located down where the Old Testament section and others are. Anyone not interested in the no-no-god nature of that section would choose not to participate there.

This is not to say that most people want or should have a "safe" zone. It is just to say that we want to get past the "no-god" type of response and stick to the OP's specific topic, as the mods are saying. Nothing says you can't participate there as a non-believer. It is kind of like how the "critics" engage on MA&D but that is, in itself, not a reason to hate the idea. It's a way of accommodating the diverse population this board wishes to attract. It doesn't mean you have to bite your tongue and say you believe when you don't. It's not that at all. It doesn't mean the believer doesn't want any debate, only that it be debate *past* the "no-god" stage.

Other possibilities include getting rid of the "faith-based" label, as others have said and referring to it as a "no-god" flag on certain posts as determined by the OP.

I don't see it as a "free speech" issue, which is where some of the disagreement is arising from, of course.