Off Topic Comments from Book of Mormon Authorship Thread

[_Ray A]

Firstly, stop obnoxiously cluttering up the Jockers thread with off topic exchanges.

Oh, I forgot, it's a sacred thread.

Here's your clarification.

I asked Shades if marg could moderate the thread to perform a split. He approved that. I made the request because marg is assigned to moderate the Celestial Forum.

This does not exclude any other moderator from moderating the pinned Jockers thread. If you bother to look through the thread you will see instances where harmony and Liz have also commented as moderators and infact, this thread I'm posting on is a result of an early split by Liz.

Yes, but in my opinion marg is moderating it in a biased way, which brings me to:

Now, what is the issue about "protection" you have?

marg wrote this:

I do understand brent. I probably would feel the same way as you in your shoes. But there are 2 things that I am taking into consideration. The first is the effort and knowledge to this thread Dale offers, and second is that to some extent he needs protection in that he certainly has no support from a multi-billion dollar church and its many members and he is vulnerable to their attacks on message boards. So if I think he's being questioned with superfluous questions, perhaps ad homs, which only serve to wear him down I will remove those questions or ad homs if possible without detracting from the thread, to the off-topic thread, which I did in this case with a link. If I'm wrong and Dale wishes to respond or I made an error it can be corrected. Dale did respond.

What on earth does a "multi-billion dollar church" have to do with any of this? This sort of bias shouldn't even enter a moderator's considerations!

Furthermore, what on earth does Brent Metcalfe have to do with this multi-billion dollar church?

Shades:

Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome.

However, from the MAD board:

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.

Excuse me for seeing a resemblance to marg's comments.

Who is not "vulnerable to attacks" on message boards? Is marg talking about attacks, or just bold criticism she doesn't like?

[_harmony]

If you want to insult me you can.

Are you here to discuss Spalding, Rigdon and Smith? If so, count me in. Of course, I won't sit idly by if insulted either. What I may do, if you want to discuss the topic at hand, is to ask you if you have yet taken the time to read "Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism" by William H. Whitsitt. Now that we have this word print study to confirm Whitsitt's position, maybe someone like you will begin to look more closely at his work.

Byron

Harmony,

Just a friendly invitation.

Byron

You start out asking him if he's insulting you? Then go off on a Whitsitt tangent? And this is a friendly invitation?

You and I have a vastly different idea of what "friendly" is.

I'm not sure what Brent's take on this is, and how it differs from your own, but this sounds like there's a history behind your comments, and there might have been a war that we here know nothing about.

[_harmony]

Firstly, stop obnoxiously cluttering up the Jockers thread with off topic exchanges.

Oh, I forgot, it's a sacred thread.

It's a Celestial thread in the Terrestial forum, so it gets the traffic it deserves. It's not sacred and it's not secret, but Celestial standards will be enforced.

Yes, but in my opinion marg is moderating it in a biased way, which brings me to:

And when you offer to moderate, Shades will take into account your biases too. I've sure as heck got them, as anyone with eyes could see me jumping up and down with glee that Brent had showed up on that thread.

What on earth does a "multi-billion dollar church" have to do with any of this? This sort of bias shouldn't even enter a moderator's considerations!

Furthermore, what on earth does Brent Metcalfe have to do with this multi-billion dollar church?

I suspect that marg doesn't know Brent's affiliation. Maybe we could cut her some slack, since she wasn't around for Z's meltdown?

not "vulnerable to attacks" on message boards? Is marg talking about attacks, or just bold criticism she doesn't like?

Celestial standards on that thread, as was clearly stated at the beginning. It's a gem; let's keep it that way.

And yes, I know who started this pissing match. I'm just not sure why others have joined in like they have.

[_Ray A]

It's a Celestial thread in the Terrestial forum, so it gets the traffic it deserves. It's not sacred and it's not secret, but Celestial standards will be enforced.

That's fair enough, but the problem is that in some cases, as I noted earlier, they're not be enforced consistently. What I initially pulled marg up on was her inconsistency in calling out Brent, at the drop of a hat, but not Byron.

And when you offer to moderate, Shades will take into account your biases too. I've sure as heck got them, as anyone with eyes could see me jumping up and down with glee that Brent had showed up on that thread.

But if your motivation was the same as mine - that is, to see both viewpoints strongly debated without unnecessary intereference, and even allowing for small blunders, then I don't call that bias. I call it good moderation. Let's face it, both Brent and Dan (Vogel) can give this thread a run for its money; it's not as if they're drive-by posting. And we all know, who were there, what happened to Brent on FAIR, the board run by members of the "multi-billion dollar church", and how unfairly he was treated on one occasion, which caused him to leave FAIR for a long time. marg would do well to study some MB history, but yes, I can cut her some slack there.

In any case, it now seems to have been resolved.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh, I forgot, it's a sacred thread.

It's a thread where people have made an effort to remain cooperative and on topic for a month and a half. It's a thread that has generated much information.

The off topic and/or back and forth exchanges make more work for moderators.

[_Ray A]

The off topic and/or back and forth exchanges make more work for moderators.

I understand that, and if you check this thread you'll see that, apart from today, I had exactly one off-topic post, which was to ask Byron a question I should really have sent by PM (an afterthought). Go back over the thread and judge who the most frequent violators are. I am not one of them. But the only way to address this issue was to address it as it was going on in the thread otherwise it would have gone unnoticed, or under-rated, and I couldn't let that pass as Brent had said "ciao".

Maybe lots of people here can be accused of "making work for the moderators", but I don't believe I'm one of them.

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

Please clarify what you mean by...

I certainly will not sit idly by and have my faith insulted by the Brighamites.

Kind regards,

</brent>

In the tradition I came from -- meetings between regular members and the
Prophet, or the Presiding Bishop, or the Presiding Patriarch, etc., are sacred
encounters. We do not discuss them lightly, and when we have objections
or disappointments raised, so strong as to cause a resignation of membership,
we certainly do not discuss the details.

I do not know your faith commitment -- but I'm sure you can understand that
a person like myself does not bear his testimony as an "emotional zinger." Nor
is one's relating major disappointments in the Smith family's claims to honesty, any
sort of "playing games."

For all I know, the poster who addressed me on such matters is not even LDS.
I never asked his faith commitment; but his response was a totally familiar one,
that I've suffered from hostile Brighamites for decades. As one of them once
said: "You Reorgs can ignore your so-called burnings in the bosom -- because
we know that they are nothing more than apostate heartburn."

I have seen enough of that sort of nonsense over the years to recognize the
arrogance or animosity that stands behind casual mentions of "emotional zingers"
and the "playing of games." There is this longstanding conclusion on the part of
many Mormons, that RLDS are not to be taken seriously -- that they are faking
their spiritual experiences; or are too deluded to differentiate truth from lies.

And, I must admit that there's a tiny grain of discernment enclosed in such notions.
We were ignorant enough to believe the Smith family for generations, about
there being no polygamy at Nauvoo, or the right of succession in the presidency
belonging to the Smith family, and half a dozen other erroneous tenets.

But all of that considered, I see no reason to sit idly by, and smile, while being hit
with another double dose of that old Brighamite arrogance and derision. I've had
all of it I can stomach. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it. Whatever the
case may be, I will not add to that process in the main thread.

Address it here, if that suits you.

If my answer is not intelligible to you, please reword your question.

Dale

[_Jersey Girl]

The off topic and/or back and forth exchanges make more work for moderators.

I understand that, and if you check this thread you'll see that, apart from today, I had exactly one off-topic post, which was to ask Byron a question I should really have sent by PM (an afterthought). Go back over the thread and judge who the most frequent violators are. I am not one of them. But the only way to address this issue was to address it as it was going on in the thread otherwise it would have gone unnoticed, or under-rated, and I couldn't let that pass as Brent had said "ciao".

Maybe lots of people here can be accused of "making work for the moderators", but I don't believe I'm one of them.

I understand, Ray.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Ray,

As has been stated, any moderator may moderate any thread. Jersey Girl simply asked if I minded if marg split off-topic posts from the Book of Mormon Authorship thread. I of course didn't mind, since any moderator can split any thread.

About the "needs protection" comment, no participant needs or gets any protection here. Threads, on the other hand, may receive protection from off-topic posts, potential derailments, etc. at the request of the thread originator.

[_AlmaBound]

This place is not the center of the Mormon academic or intellectual universe. For the overwhelming majority of scholars of Mormonism, whether believers or non-believers, it's not even a blip on the radar.

Which makes it sort of the backwater of the backwaters.