Is this board hostile towards LDS posters...?

[_stemelbow]

Perception. If the average LDS lurker thinks this board is hostile, then chances are, said lurker will not join or post. Count the number of pro voices and the number of con voices. There is your answer.

In truth, and I've explained this before, I came here because I found someone here quoted me from another board and spun it as though I had said that which I didn't intend--by employing the ol' out of context game. And the quoting me was intended to mock the general LDS poster on message boards. I mean, really, what? its pretty astounding to me that people are blind when it ocmes to the hostility shown towards LDS, and I readily admit it goes both ways. it just so happens there are so few, relatively speaking, LDS posters here it all just gets heavily balanced on the against LDS side.

[_stemelbow]

You asked a question. I answered it. Now you're arguing with me. JAK says I'm irrational. Schmo says I'm BS. DrW states his case in terms of rational people (himself, of course), nonsense, unfounded (LDS believers, of course). Rambo blames others.

Absolutely none of you took responsibility for what is obviously a hostile environment here.

Nothing new in that. Own it; you created it.

The way you can clearly sum it up demonstrates you are more wise than I.

[_Ceeboo]

IMHO, this board is no more hostile to LDS posters than any group of rational people who don't believe in nonsense would appear to any other group who do believe in nonsense, and are willing to defend their unfounded beliefs in public.

:)

Sincerely,
One who is clearly not rational, who holds precious unfounded beliefs, and does indeed believe in utter nonsense.
Ceeboo

[_sock puppet]

Perception. If the average LDS lurker thinks this board is hostile, then chances are, said lurker will not join or post. Count the number of pro voices and the number of con voices. There is your answer.

Well just because more people here disagree with the Mormon church does not mean it has to be a hostile place for them. But they are trained to stay away from people that disagree with them cause the are "antis" so they will think that this place is hostile even though it is not.

I agree with Rambo. TBMs are told to 'let it alone'--'it' being the Church history, particularly 19th Century aspects of that history. So should Church history be made ver boten as a topic here, to make TBMs feel more welcome and view this place as less hostile?

TBMs are told to avoid "antis". Should anything not supportive of LDS Inc be made ver boten as tones for posts, to make TBMs feel more welcome and view this place as less hostile?

Each NOM has different aspects of Mormonism he or she yet holds dear and as sacred, but probably comes primarily to discuss those issues that trouble him or her. Since one or another NOM might hold any given LDS teaching dear/sacred, should we dumb it down to the lowest common denominator so that none ever takes offense?

Should we post nothing, so that stem is not confused no matter how clearly written the post might be, so that stem is not confused?

Should we refrain from posting a reply so that stem doesn't have the discomfort of not understanding what was posted, again no matter how clearly written the reply?

Should we refrain from posting a reply that even stem might understand, so as to avoid him having to label it silly (which is the only discernible hallmark of his having understood a post)?

Etc, etc, etc.

There are online places like that, one is MD&DB (which was once appropriately acronymed as MAD). Maybe LDS need a chapel on every other street corner in Utah Valley, but do they really need to have each website where Mormon issues are discussed tailored to their own hyper-sensitivities, thereby muffling out discussion online of others, with other viewpoints about Mormon issues?

[_stemelbow]

Is that imbalance because of hostility or because of a lack of available answers to substantive questions?

Why not both? Why create a false dichotomy here?

Did Peterson leave because he got called names or because he got stumped on two seperate threads that required substantive answers from him?

He said his piece on this. I don't think there is any reason to question why he left but for hostility.

Did Schryver leave because people were hostile towards him or because people got fed up of his misogynism (is that an actual word)?

That's the same thing, essentially, jon.

Would you describe Nehor and Pahoran as pacifist posters?

That's kinda my point. People here complain about certain LDS posters all the time because they're mean. But unfortunately what Nehor posted was pretty tame compared to some posts here.

I think the critical arguments presented on this board are frightening to a lot of pro voices, largely because there is no easy rebuttal to most. But that surely isn't hostility, is it?

If participators did nothing but presented arguments and pointed out the weaknesses in the LDS position you'd have a point, Jon. Obviously, that is so far from the truth its silly though. Most efforts to simply present an argument tend to favor a very hostile tone, and most posts here don't present much of an argument againstthe religion at all.

[_Themis]

I think the critical arguments presented on this board are frightening to a lot of pro voices, largely because there is no easy rebuttal to most. But that surely isn't hostility, is it?

I think this is why believing LDS avoids this place, and why people like Dan left. My impression of Dan is that he relishes attacks directed at him, and still posts other places where he gets attacked, but there, the number of idiots who don't really know the issues make for good targets. The problem is that the church is not true, and their is plenty of evidence to show this, and LDS defenders in the end cannot really provide much evidence to refute it. I can see why many may view this as hostile. That said, I do think some posters can be hostile to poster with apposing views, or in many cases view them that way simply because they disagree with their views.

[_Themis]

He said his piece on this. I don't think there is any reason to question why he left but for hostility.

While I think to many were hostile to Dan, I don't think he really left for that reason. He is used to it, and even seems to relish it. His arguments also does get beat up a lot by some posters.

[_Rambo]

As per Rambo's point, its far more hostile, in my mind but apparently not in others, to say to a poster "you have nothing to offer me, whatsoever so stop responding to me" instead of just ignoring someone than to say "you're wrong". You see MsJack somehow perceived hostility in the you're wrong I offered her, but somehow her you're worthless to me type of response was spun as nice and wholesome in her mind. I suppose you can use MsJack's responses to me as an example, if you like.

Um yeah MsJack did say you have nothing to offer her but that wasn't the MsJack quote I was refering to. Here I'll go find it.

This is the part I was refering to.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who initiated hostilities on the other thread by telling me that my response was "fail" and sneering at my knowledge of things LDS. I politely informed you that I thought you were being rude, and you dismissed my feelings there as well. Now you've compounded your disrespect by calling me "stupid." And yet you still see yourself as the picked on instead of the picker.

This seems to be a general trend for you.

Another question would be if it is the truth is it hostile?

[_Some Schmo]

You asked a question. I answered it. Now you're arguing with me. JAK says I'm irrational. Schmo says I'm BS. DrW states his case in terms of rational people (himself, of course), nonsense, unfounded (LDS believers, of course). Rambo blames others.

Absolutely none of you took responsibility for what is obviously a hostile environment here.

Nothing new in that. Own it; you created it.

*rolls eyes* Here ya go, stem. harmony's post is a fine example of whining.

I'd love, just once, to see you take responsibility for yourself, harmony. I'm not hostile toward people because they're LDS; I'm hostile toward BSers. Own it.

[_stemelbow]

Um yeah MsJack did say you have nothing to offer her but that wasn't the MsJack quote I was refering to. Here I'll go find it.

This is the part I was refering to.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who initiated hostilities on the other thread by telling me that my response was "fail" and sneering at my knowledge of things LDS. I politely informed you that I thought you were being rude, and you dismissed my feelings there as well. Now you've compounded your disrespect by calling me "stupid." And yet you still see yourself as the picked on instead of the picker.

This seems to be a general trend for you.

Another question would be if it is the truth is it hostile?

I did not call her stupid. I did not sneer at anything. I said she likes to think of herself as knoweledgable of LDS, and I said she failed on that one thing. That's not sneering. That's saying she's wrong. She felt disrespect in me saying she was wrong. And somehow I'm seeing things as hostile that are not hostile?

Indeed saying truthful things can be hostile too. Its the manner in which it is said that is hostile--not always the content.