yjacket

Well, I thank my stars I live in the USA with the good 'ol 2nd Amendment and not in Venezuala trying to overthrow a dictator.
Yeah guys that's great, they have troops with guns, APVs, water guns, tear gas and you have banderas soaked in vinegar, tin "shields" and molotov cocktails.  Yeah, like that's gonna really get you somewhere!!
The ugly truth is that Free Speech and rights is backed up by one thing and one thing only---violent force. If you've got it (the ability to execute violent force), it's hard to take away other rights and if you don't have it . . . good luck!!
If anything like a Maduro or a very, very serious threat to freedom came to town, I don't think we'd pussyfoot around like the Venezuela's . . .it'd be on like Donkey Kong-American Style. And it wouldn't look like this-give those people some weapons man . . . .  Thankfully, I still think that is a remote possibility but it is always there and and some points worse than other times.
 
 

I quit reading the articles.  It's not for the writing skill or the topic.  I quit reading it because of the mindset of the authors.
I wish these articles would be written by Vort.

I guess part of the issue, too, is the question of what precisely these articles are supposed to do.  A lot of them, frankly, have a chirpy--even click-baity, at times--tone; without saying much of anything substantive.  I've had experience with SEO; and I know that sometimes the point is that the content is there at all rather than the actual quality of the content.  If MGF is primarily trying to drive traffic, then that approach makes sense; and they'll probably be tracking their success through site metrics and metadata rather than comments.  If they're trying to provide bubble-gum content that will attract people (especially youth) to an online community that MGF is trying to build--that makes sense too (though frankly, given the sources cited in Bro. Snell's article, I did worry that his article would tend to attract a class of carper that strikes me as incompatible with MGF's aims).  
But if MGF is looking to build MormonHub's reputation as a host for thought-provoking content, solid scholarship, and meaningful spiritual inquiry--I've seen some remarkably promising starts (I love that you're publicizing the excellent work of the LDS Perspectives podcast; and I was pleasantly surprised at Gabriella Loosle's engagement of Brian Hales' scholarship in her review of Carol Lynn Pearson's latest book); but the overall caliber of the content is far from uniform.

Amen . . .one of those things that they don't teach in school that in some ways I wish I knew more about.  "How to play office politics ethically, while at the same time crushing your enemies who don't!!!" :-)
Major, major bubble bursting when you realize that even though you were brought up to be honest, have integrity, etc. when a lot of people around you don't.

The Church leadership was not a no-show.  The BSA knew they wouldn't be available when they had the meeting.  It was a slap in the face to the Church for them to have it anyway.

Over the years I have struggled myself with how I respond to things.  I've been unkind many times in my responses.  Some were justified.  But many times they weren't.  I am really really working on trying to be a little kinder in all my contacts with others.  It's hard sometimes.  
This quote was sent to me this morning and it's exactly what I've been trying to work on for the last year or so.
 
This of course would apply to sisters as well.    
I appreciate the comments made and I'll forward the link to this thread to those who would have an interest in it.  I can see how our opinions on the type of articles could be of some benefit to them.  
Again my point is, let's not be so harsh on those who are writing the articles.   Whether it was meant for the organization as a whole or not, it's the writer who would take it personal.  
 

I applaud it and cheer the decision but am saddened that it has come to this.
Gladiator:
Maximus Pres. Monson: Baden Powell Marcus Aurelius had a dream that was Rome  Boy Scouts, Proximo  BSA CEO. That is not it. That is not it!
Proximo BSA CEO: Marcus Aurelius Baden Powell is dead, Pres. MonsonMaximus. We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Pres. MonsonMaximus!
 

I also get what you are saying and to a very large extent I agree. I don't think we should be overly critical; the only articles that every really raise my hackles are articles who's headline or text would appear to go against the Church.  I understand that these folks aren't writing for the Ensign, and that's why while IMO annoying I haven't commented on the most recent one. I will comment on articles like "I Hate my Patriarchal Blessing" (that is easily a title one would see on a anti-Mormon website), etc. Those types of articles IMO go beyond inanity, etc.  
IMO the MGF really needs to rethink their strategy and the types of articles they are asking for. Either MGF promotes the LDS church and gospel principles or it doesn't.  Rather than shooting the messenger (i.e. forum posters), maybe an organization that posits itself to promote the Church, should take the criticism and evaluate itself rather than say STTO shut-up, sit down and enjoy what we put up as articles.

Fair point. As I'm the one who wrote that specific comment I can take responsibility. I will be more careful in my responses. I was not considering the author's feelings in my initial response. That was a mistake and I apologize for it.
The objective, for what it's worth, in the "trend", I believe, was to get the More Good Foundation to take a closer look at their editing processes. I do not fault a young college kid for writing something that might be naively harmful. I do fault the "adults" who own and manage the site for not asking for a rewrite when problematic ideas are presented. But there are, as you say, kinder ways to say so. I was wrong in my approach and I actually appreciate being called on it.

@yjacket  I get what you are saying.  However, if you look at the menu of the articles that are coming automatically from the Mormon Hub article side you will notice that the majority of them have had views but no comments.  Which tells me that the article has had no interest or appeal among the people who frequent the forums on a regular basis.  Let that be a sign to the powers to be or editors who oversee the articles.  But we can still keep the little snide remarks out of our comments.  Again, if you don't like the article.....move on.  Just like so many have done on so many of the articles.
To me, the fact that the majority of the articles have had no comments would indicate to me that the appeal just isn't there for a forum audience.  I've been involved in these forums going on almost 20 years.  I find that forum people are a slightly different breed than your casual reader of articles.  I'm not meaning that in a bad way at all.  
Sometimes not saying anything at all is a far better indicator than rude comments.
 
 

My opinion is that the BSA has slowly but surely been losing the lSpirit of God in their plans, goals, etc. I have witnessed the slow painful divorce. When this last decision came out to allow transgenders it was like the final straw for me. I divorced myself from the national BSA organization. Im still the active Scout master in my ward but we have been in the slow process of changing our program to focus more on priesthood activities with less emphasis and less time doing scouts.
The problem with the BSA is that whereas there was a very slight spiritual and moral emphasus side to it in the past, there is no spiritual or moral side to their program anymore. Less and less parents are pushing their kids in scouting anymore. Its not like it used to be. I dont find it surprising at all that a majority of members are applauding this move and you will see more applause when the church fully pulls out. That applause is in direct reaction to the lackluster performance of the BSA, especially in light of their decisiobs to allow gay leaders and trangenders in. Why the church continues to affiliate with an organization with no morals is beyond me. 
This organization now isnt the BSA we grew up embracing.

@Just_A_Guy needs to get about five hundred likes to his comment. And whoever's making decisions about columns published under the MormonHub name should grow the heck up and start exercising some actual judgment about content.

I must have missed the column that got similar chuckles over the way so many non-LDS girls try to get guys by giving it all up on the very first date.  I'm sure it was a gut-buster, right guys?  Right?  Guys? . . .
Oh, there was no such column?  Interesting, how we have morphed into a society where the dating tactics of promiscuous girls are sacrosanct; whereas chaste girls who indulge in silly-but-harmless little games merit a public pillorying and flaying.  
Look, Brother Snell; mock the LDS girls who do this kind of thing all you want--some of it is indeed rather inane.  I get it.  I also get that, based on the tenor of several recent columns, you and some of the other authors here are probably jonesing for a more . . . erm . . . heterodox audience, and I've tried to give you guys the benefit of the doubt.  
But let me go on-record as saying that once you've crossed the line of virtue-shaming, I don't want to hear you or anyone else say another gosh-darned thing about "slut-shaming".

It's not a matter of statements, but of reading the lay of the land. The LDS Church was the first (or at least among the first) sponsoring body for BSA troops. They started sponsoring troops in 1913, only three years after BSA was created. That is to say, the LDS Church has been officially and deeply affiliated with Scouting in America for over a century. LDS units make up about a third (!) of BSA units, and LDS Scouts constitute about a sixth of all Boy Scouts (including Cubs). I expect that LDS funding of the Boy Scouts of America exceeds 17% of the total BSA funding, meaning that we are overrepresented in our financial contributions.
Suddenly, with today's announcement, almost half of LDS Scouts (if you include Cubs -- more like 2/3 if you include only Boy Scouts) will no longer be affiliated through LDS-sponsored YM programs. That is HUGE. Now some part of those young men will continue to be enrolled in the ward Scout troop as they earn merit badges and advance in rank. But how many? Half? A tenth? Whatever the number, it will be fewer than the number today.
So what does this mean going forward? If the Church, which has been with BSA almost since the very beginning, is now pulling out most of their Boy Scouts, that means they've determined they can get by without those Scouting services. And if the LDS Church no longer requires Scouting services for young men 14-18, it's easy enough to surmise that the LDS Church will shortly decide it doesn't really need those services for its 12-13-year-old boys. Or its 11-year-olds. And in the end, they might very likely just decide they don't really even need the Cub program for the senior Primary boys.
To many of us, it looks like the writing is on the wall.

SALT LAKE CITY — The LDS Church, the oldest and largest charter organization of the Boy Scouts of America, will drop Scouting from its Young Men's program for boys ages 14 through 17.
Effective Jan. 1, the move will carve about 180,000 Mormon boys from the Varsity and Venturing Scout programs in the United States and Canada, replacing them with activities created for boys in those age groups by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The church will continue to sponsor Cub Scouts for boys 8 to 10 and Boy Scout programs for those 11 through 13 in those two countries, but statements released by the church about the announcement signaled that it may drop those programs in the future, too. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865679711/Mormons-drop-Scout-programs-for-older-teens.html
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/questions-answers-changes-young-men-program

Another brilliant article on mormonhub. 

It was in the court documents filed at the time her rapist was charged, based to Barney's own statement to the investigating police officer.  (I am a lawyer in Utah, and I went and looked it up a few months back.  It's technically public information; but to my knowledge no press outlet has chosen to report on that aspect of the case.)

McCain:  "President Duterte is a dictator."
McCain, you have become nothing more than an old guy who has cashed in your POW chip decades beyond its value.  Do the world a favor.  Retire and go home.  You don't even know what dictator means anymore.

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training.
So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out.  I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid.  You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".
 

Vort said it much better than me!! Completely agree with Vort.
I would add, that I would only be ticked at the leadership not for pulling an end around but for not letting me know so I could also impress upon my child the inappropriateness of doing this behavior.
But if the parent thinks this type of stuff is totally cool-not much you can do about that.

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training.
So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out.  I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid.  You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".
 

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training.
So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out.  I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid.  You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".
 

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training.
So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out.  I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid.  You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".
 

Don't tell your 5 year old unless you want the ward, the school and the world knowing what is going on. Young children have no real concept of private conversation vs. public conversation; i.e. they don't have the capability to recognize what they should say to others and what they shouldn't say to others-that requires many years of training.
So if you tell the 5 year old-the information will be guaranteed to get out.  I probably wouldn't make that big of a deal of it with the kid.  You are still planning on going to church? And doing most of the normal church things-except things you can't do. So don't bring it up . . .if on the off chance the kid gets wise and says something like "Why doesn't daddy take the sacrament?" It's a great teaching moment, you can just say "when we take the sacrament we covenant with God to always remember him and to keep His commandments, daddy did somethings that broke God's commandments and can't take the sacrament for a while until he has fully repented". Or something to that effect-if the kid wants more detail give 'em the old "I'll tell you when you are older".
 

Facebook is not a must have invention. The internet has uses for minors, such as school work.  
One of my teenage nieces refuses to be on Facebook. She says it is for old people.
When my daughter was 13 yrs old, MySpace was The Thing.  I work in IT, and had her internet activity whitelisted. I allowed MySpace as long as I was her friend and approved all of MySpace contacts.  She had a fit, telling me I didn't trust her.  I explained more than once that I do trust her, but I do not trust all of the other people on the internet. Now that she is an adult, she has told me she gets it, and understands now what I was doing  
I taught her IT stuff when she was young.  HTML at nine, that kind of thing.  At 13 she was making a fan site for the anime she enjoyed,  I allowed all of that, no problem. Just because a parent restricts internet activity, does not mean they are Luddites.
By the time she was about 15 I had taught her how to build a PC.  One day I find her surfing freely all over the internet, and so I knew, she had figured out how to turn the whitelist off.  My IT heart was proud.  Good job! Is what I was thinking. But what I said was, I can still monitor your internet activity, so watch it girl.