Klein Hemler's thread about "Genuine Dissent" - my thoughts

[Jamie123]

I was looking at a recent thread by Klein Helmer (http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/54151-there-room-genuine-dissent-board.html now closed) who enquired whether dissention was really tolerated on this site. The prevailing response was that it was tolerated - so long as "site rules" were observed.

But looking through the rules, I can see where Klein Helmer is coming from:

Consider the first 2 rules:

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

The problem is that anyone who states they disagree that Mormonism is "The True Church" is ipso facto calling Joseph Smith a madman or a liar. (Cf. the Lewis Trichotomy.) Is this not derogatory? Taking this to its logical conclusion, a Roman Catholic (for example) who posts on this board is, by dint of stating his own faith, breaking Rule 1.

2. Please be conscious of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)

The phrase "…who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET…" is problematic. As I said before, a poster who claims to profess a belief contradictory to Joseph Smith’s prophethood implicitly violates Rule 1. He (or she) therefore excludes himself (or herself) from the provisions of Rule 2, and Rule 2 is therefore redundant.

The only way you can really make sense of Rule 1 (and by extension Rule 2) is by assuming that "anything derogatory" actually means "anything explicitly derogatory" and that the statement of premises which necessarily lead to derogatory inferences is allowable. But the rules as they currently stand don't clarify this, and I can understand why people like Klein Helmer (and myself!) get confused.

P.S. It did occur to me that this post may itself be against the site rules, but I don't believe that it is. Firstly as this site is not affiliated to the LDS church, I would reasonably infer that its rules have no ecclesiastical significance, and further that criticism of said rules would not be considered "...derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders." Secondly though the rules prohibit open complaints about individual moderators, I see nothing prohibiting discussion of the rules themselves. Thirdly I am not (perish the thought!) trying to stir up trouble; I am genuinely interested.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Jamie123
I spelled Klein Helmer's name wrongly. Apologies. As a self-punishment I will sign myself Jaime321

[estradling75]

Its been my experience that when people ask about 'Genuine Dissent' being allowed they do so because they have a fundamental mis-understanding of what 'Freedom of Speech' means.

Freedom of Speech means that if you are willing to go to the effort of getting your voice out their the government should not (except in very rare public safety cases) to anything to stop or censor your effort.

Too many people think that Freedom of Speech should mean that someone else should pay for them to get their thoughts out there and that they should have a built in audience that has to listen to them. This is a huge fallacy and misunderstanding.

The internet is full of people who have done the first. They taken the effort in acquiring servers and bandwidth to get their voice out their (LDS.NET is but one of many) those that have something people find interesting get followers and audiences.

The internet is also full of people who try to do the second. If they find a site that matches their goals then chances are they can add their voice to that site. However too many think they can find a site that has a different goals and try to hi-jack it to be more to their liking. These people then get all miffed because the site rebukes the attempts at hi-jacking and pretty much treat them as a SPAMMER. This is well within the rights and privileges of the site in question.

Now when the question came up the answer was given as long as it stays within the rules. This is correct. However I think a more clear answer would be as long as it fits within the purposes and goals of the site. This can be found here About Us » LDS Social Network This explains why we are funded, this explains what the owners hope to accomplish here. The rules are there to help encourage this purpose. If they don't they will be added/altered/removed as deemed necessary. The mods are there to support this purpose. If they don't they will be added/altered/removed as deemed necessary. If this site fails that purpose (in the judgment of the people paying for it) then it will be shutdown and the funds used in a manor deemed more productive.

Therefore LDS.NET will not stop in trying to fulfill it purpose. If posts/posters are deemed to run counter to what our purposes here then they will be shutdown and if necessary encouraged to find another 'voice' more compatible to what they want (or start their own)

When you read the purposes of the site two things should be clear... 1 we are unreservedly PRO LDS church. And 2 that we are all about getting the LDS message out there to the world.

So when you ask about "Genuine Dissent" do you mean attacking our faith and trying to convert us or shake us from our faith? Then no.. such "Genuine Dissent" runs counter to the express purpose of this site and you will quickly find yourself invited to find another site more to your liking. However if by "Genuine Dissent" you mean we know you are of a different faith (or no faith at all).. and you are interested in exploring what differences are real and which aren't as much as you thought they might be... Then that is acceptable... But it can be hard to do well because both sides can be very touchy when it comes to their faith. Still this effort is acceptable and is what is meant by being within the site rules.

We do know this is not what everyone would like or is even interested in. That is okay. We are not trying to be everything to everyone. There are other places to go if you want a rip roaring debate of various religions and we would encourage people to go their if that is what they are looking for.

[Guest]

Some people go to discussion forums as a means of entertainment, and mainly to stir things up. I would say that if one wants to do that, this is not the website for them. Some want to "save the souls" of LDS people or show us the error of our ways. I would say that if one wants to do that, this is not the website for them. Some are genuinely curious about our beliefs and why we hold them, and want to have honest conversation to learn more and compare and contrast beliefs in a respectful way. I would say that if one wants to do that, this is the website for them.

[RipplecutBuddha]

My take is this; Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected in all public forums. What is misunderstood, especially online, is that websites are not purely public forums. Each one of them, this one included, is created, managed, and paid for by people.

Because website owners legally own their domains, they are legally entitled to establish and uphold any and all rules governing behavior on their website. Yes the forums are free, and open to the public, however the rules must be followed.

Any and all comments, dissenting or otherwise, are more than welcome, as long as the terms of use are followed, which is required of everyone who visits, moderator or otherwise.

It's really not rocket science. Societies need rules to have order, and that includes onlince societies, such as what we have here. Follow the rules, and you can still believe as you choose. For a prime example, PrisonChaplin....

[skippy740]

Let's take a look at the rules a little bit and see how we can do this.

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

The problem is that anyone who states they disagree that Mormonism is "The True Church" is ipso facto calling Joseph Smith a madman or a liar. (Cf. the Lewis Trichotomy.) Is this not derogatory? Taking this to its logical conclusion, a Roman Catholic (for example) who posts on this board is, by dint of stating his own faith, breaking Rule 1.

There are ways of asking questions or stimulating a discussion that are appropriate and others that are not.

Stating something like:

- "Joseph Smith was a (insert negative comment here)!!!" won't get you very far for very long.

Asking a question like:

- "I found a site that talked about Joseph Smith and he did (insert troubling item here). Is this true? Can you help me?"

One is respectful while encouraging a conversation to help the poster. The other is just trying to stir up trouble. It's also the difference between 'questioning' and simply asking questions.

We're all about the questions... but not so much about the blanket statements and accusations.

[Jamie123]

Any and all comments, dissenting or otherwise, are more than welcome, as long as the terms of use are followed, which is required of everyone who visits, moderator or otherwise.

It's really not rocket science. Societies need rules to have order, and that includes onlince societies, such as what we have here. Follow the rules, and you can still believe as you choose. For a prime example, PrisonChaplin....

Thank you, but this does not really address the point I was making. My pont was that under a strict reading, any statement of faith running contrary to LDS doctrine must be an implicit violation of Rule 1. Since the site obviously does allow such statements of belief (and again PrisonChaplain is a case in pont), this is confusing.

Now when the question came up the answer was given as long as it stays within the rules. This is correct. However I think a more clear answer would be as long as it fits within the purposes and goals of the site. This can be found here About Us » LDS Social Network This explains why we are funded, this explains what the owners hope to accomplish here. The rules are there to help encourage this purpose. If they don't they will be added/altered/removed as deemed necessary. The mods are there to support this purpose. If they don't they will be added/altered/removed as deemed necessary. If this site fails that purpose (in the judgment of the people paying for it) then it will be shutdown and the funds used in a manor deemed more productive.

Now this is much more relevant; the "spirit of the law" is sovereign over the "letter of the law". The "rules" are merely an attempt to specify a mode of behaviour consistent with the "purposes and goals" of the organization, and are subject to change if they are found to conflict with the latter.

There are ways of asking questions or stimulating a discussion that are appropriate and others that are not.

Stating something like:

- "Joseph Smith was a (insert negative comment here)!!!" won't get you very far for very long.

Asking a question like:

- "I found a site that talked about Joseph Smith and he did (insert troubling item here). Is this true? Can you help me?"

One is respectful while encouraging a conversation to help the poster. The other is just trying to stir up trouble. It's also the difference between 'questioning' and simply asking questions.

We're all about the questions... but not so much about the blanket statements and accusations.

This is how I've always perceived the de facto rules of the forum. The problem is entirely in the wording of the written rules which I think (for reasons I've already explained) are confusing. Let me give you an example:

Question 1: "Joseph Smith was quite obviously a con-man. Why do you people believe in him?"

Question 2: "As a Roman Catholic I believe there was no Great Apostasy, that the Priesthood originally bestowed by Christ upon His Apostles still flourishes on Earth today and that there was no need for any Restoration. However I am interested in understanding why other Christian denominations think differently. Can anyone please explain?"

Question 1 explicitly violates Rule 1, and would probably be deleted by the first moderator who saw it. Question 2 implies the very same thing as Question 1, but experience suggests that (though it may alert the mods of possible "trouble to come") it would in itself be acceptable.

Therefore in the spirit of helpfulness, I suggest the following addendum to Rule 1:

1a. While statements of belief which run contrary to the official doctrine of the LDS Church are permitted, these should not be expressed in a manner such as to belittle or ridicule LDS teachings, or as an attempt to draw LDS members away from their faith.

P.S. I've just noticed this is my 1000th post!

Edited June 18, 2013 by Jamie123

[Guest]

What would be the motivation for someone to come to an lds-targeted site and disagree with lds doctrine?

The rules have been carefully written by our hosts, the More Good Foundation. If we don't like them, as has been stated before there are many sites across the web that will support whatever platform we choose to stand on.

[MarginOfError]

My observation is that dissent is generally tolerated around here. And I say that being one of the most frequent posters to offer dissenting opinions.

However, please note that if you choose to be a jerk about defending your positions, you're leash is much shorter if you offer dissenting opinions than if you opinions agree with the majority. That's really the only difference I've observed.

[pam]

Therefore in the spirit of helpfulness, I suggest the following addendum to Rule 1:

1a. While statements of belief which run contrary to the official doctrine of the LDS Church are permitted, these should not be expressed in a manner such as to belittle or ridicule LDS teachings, or as an attempt to draw LDS members away from their faith.

P.S. I've just noticed this is my 1000th post!

That makes no sense to me. Why put a statement into the rules which would basically be inviting people to make comments contrary to our beliefs?

[estradling75]

Question asked... Question answered... Advice noted...

Since this kind of thread degrade quickly it is being closed