Treatment of Anti-Mormons on this Forum

[Guest]

I'm with PC.  Meh.

 

I posted several decent replies.  All were ignored.  Not sure what to think about that.

[estradling75]

I'm with PC.  Meh.

 

I posted several decent replies.  All were ignored.  Not sure what to think about that.

 

Agree there were several decent replies... In fact I would say most of the replies were decent...  Most of the replies were ignored.  For someone claimed to be interested in learning they didn't seem all that interested in the answers

[Guest]

This does not feel like friendly group.

It feels more like a social clique with a few core members

and I quickly learned that you must not disagree with that core.

 

Annie,

 

I don't believe that is a fair assessment.

 

We disagree with each other all the time.  It doesn't mean we're not welcome here.  The debate is what makes this forum more interesting.  It would be pretty boring if we all got together to hear an echo chamber.  You'd be welcome here BECAUSE you disagree.  But if that is not your cup of tea, I don't know what you're looking for when you post your opinions on a public forum.

 

That does not give people the right to needlessly insult you.  That is against forum rules.  But people will be disagreeing with you just as you have disagreed with them.  As long as everyone can agree to rules of decorum and appropriate dialogue, then we're ok.  If not, report someone.

 

My feeling now is that I'll never be accepted on this forum.

 

I've accepted you.  Pam accepted you.  Several other's who disagree with your position still accept you as a participant in this forum--JAG is a perfect example.  But if your definition of "accepted" means that we'll agree with everything you say, then how can you expect that on a public forum?

 

The purpose of the debate is to:

 

1) Work out what we really believe in our own minds, solidifying it with words and logic.

2) Verify that our ideas can stand up to the scrutiny of others to our OWN satisfaction--even if others are still left disagreeing.

 

I do like Pam's advice about being kinder to new-comers.

I hope people read it and consider the message.

 

So do I.

[The Folk Prophet]

1) Work out what we really believe in our own minds, solidifying it with words and logic.

2) Verify that our ideas can stand up to the scrutiny of others to our OWN satisfaction--even if others are still left disagreeing.

Really? No nod to the potential we might realize we're wrong?

I know it's rare...But since all of us are wrong about something...and all of us must eventually understand truth as it really is...seems like this could/should be one of the objectives of debate. :)

[Guest]

I'm with PC.  Meh.

 

I posted several decent replies.  All were ignored.  Not sure what to think about that.

 

Yes, that is why I listed that as one of my "lessons learned".  

 

The thing that separates a sincere seeker vs. an Anti-Mormon is not the questions, nor even the politeness of the manner in which the questions are asked.  It is that he is not willing to ask hard questions about himself or his own faith, and/or is not willing to acknowledge the logic and evidence from others' well thought out responses which properly address his questions.

 

To call on others to defend their faith without being able/willing to defend one's own is hypocrisy.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[AnnieCarvalho]

Annie,

 

I don't believe that is a fair assessment.

Perhaps it's not.

I"m tender right now, feeling a bit bruised and battered.

 

That does not give people the right to needlessly insult you.  That is against forum rules.  But people will be disagreeing with you just as you have disagreed with them.  As long as everyone can agree to rules of decorum and appropriate dialogue, then we're ok.  If not, report someone.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It's when I disagree with them and they go on attack rather than just have a discussion. I realize it's difficult to "read" people in a forum. But gosh, some of the responses seem so rude. Maybe some of mine did too. I'll try to be more careful with my words.

 

I've accepted you.  Pam accepted you.  Several other's who disagree with your position still accept you as a participant in this forum--JAG is a perfect example.  But if your definition of "accepted" means that we'll agree with everything you say, then how can you expect that on a public forum?  I don't expect that everyone will agree with me. Not at all. I just expected the answers from LDS people to be kind, rather than insulting and snotty.

 

Thank you for reaching out.

I appreciate it.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Guest]

Really? No nod to the potential we might realize we're wrong?

I know it's rare...But since all of us are wrong about something...and all of us must eventually understand truth as it really is...seems like this could/should be one of the objectives of debate. :)

 

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  And I believe that would be wonderful if it ever happened.  But my experience is that no one really changes their minds on a public forum.  Only those who are still searching or deciding can be pulled one way or another.  But that is not a debate.  That is advice seeking.

 

Most people who engage in a debate on a public forum have already made up their minds to a point that they won't be moved.  However, I'll have to admit that JAG actually convinced me to concede one major point (one in four) on a particular debate I had with him.  But I was saved by the bell.  So I never had to concede the point publicly.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

To call on others to defend their faith without being able/willing to defend one's own is hypocrisy.

 

The problem is, a seeker is not trying to defend their own faith.

They're questioning it and looking for someone to help them find their way.

They're looking for a light out of the tunnel of darkness.

[estradling75]

The problem is, a seeker is not trying to defend their own faith.

They're questioning it and looking for someone to help them find their way.

They're looking for a light out of the tunnel of darkness.

 

The presumption is that the poster in question is a seeker.  When the poster claims they will not read anything but what they already accept as true we can rule them out as a seeker...

[Guest]

I just expected the answers from LDS people to be kind, rather than insulting and snotty.

 

Wouldn't that be wonderful?  Unfortunately, in a debate with very hot button topics (politics and religion) it is easy to rile up the emotions.  And unless you're used to it, it becomes all too easy to let our emotions get the better of us.

 

Thank you for reaching out.

I appreciate it.

 

No problem.  That's what I do.

[Guest]

Just the mean spiritedness of some of the responses turned him away, according to his goodbye.

 

This does not feel like friendly group.

It feels more like a social clique with a few core members

and I quickly learned that you must not disagree with that core.

 

My feeling now is that I'll never be accepted on this forum.

 

Weeell... I can see both sides of this because I've been in this forum so long I'm growing algae...

 

Let me take your recent altercation with yjacket as an example...

 

I know yjacket because he, just like me, have algae here.  I know his posting style.  He's a no-nonsense, shoot with both barrels, kinda guy.  I've had my share of yjacket altercations.  But, my personal philosophy is - I take you in any way you come - you be you, and I'll figure out the best way I can communicate with you.  Basically, I try to give them the freedom to communicate in their own style instead of being offended at every turn for their manner of posting.  But yes, I do take offense sometimes and I also have some buttons that gets pushed (nonsensical anti-Catholic posts gets me going).  And there have been times when I call yjacket out on stuff.  But, for the most part, I understand what yjacket is trying to express.

 

The Folk Prophet is another one that has algae here and he is also a no-nonsense kinda guy.  We've also had our own share of heated disagreements.  But, I've been here long enough to know that TFP has this Rambo style of posting and he's stubborn (like me, that's why we butt heads a lot), but he's a good guy  just trying to defend his position.  So yeah, you can tell TFP he's wrong until you're blue in the face, but unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, it's not gonna move him.  It's not that he's belligerent, he just has strong principles.

 

Vort is another one that has algae and also a no-nonsense guy.  Very intelligent, very logical.  I used to quake in my boots when I find myself in the other side of the fence of Vort... he's mellowed out some, though.  I kinda miss the old Vort who can slice you faster and deeper than yjacket.    But everytime, he always has a valid point even if it's dished out in barbed wire.

 

Leah is another one with algae, also no-nonsense, say it like it is kinda gal.

 

Traveler... algae... the professor in the bunch.  He posts like he's lecturing a college course and our responses either pass or fail.  LOL!

 

I love these guys... I've come to regard them as my friends even when we're arguing.  I don't know if their online personalities translate to their real life personalities.  But, if it does, I'd love to hang out with these guys and just debate all night long...

 

So yeah, once you get to know people on here, you kinda learn to hear what they are saying instead of how they say it.  You can choose to get offended by their manner of posting - which may sound mean-spirited but they never are, at least not from these people - or you can just ignore that and figure out exactly what it is they're trying to say.

 

And that's just a few of the many regular posters here, each with their own online personalities.

 

 

I do like Pam's advice about being kinder to new-comers.

I hope people read it and consider the message.

 

I also hope that new-comers are kinder to the algae-bearing members here.  They are wise...

[Guest]

The problem is, a seeker is not trying to defend their own faith.

They're questioning it and looking for someone to help them find their way.

They're looking for a light out of the tunnel of darkness.

 

Ok.  I can see that.  Let's look at it this way.

 

1) There are those who are in darkness, and recognize it.  They are looking for light.  That's who you are talking about.

 

2) There are those who are simply curious and want more academic knowledge or (rarely) want to engage in honest, logical, scholarly debate.  That's who I was talking about.  I tend to think of PC as one of these rarities.  He's probably never going to convert.  And I doubt any of the "core" as you call them would ever convert to Pentacostal.  But we enjoy the academic and intellectual stimulation.

 

3) There are those who don't really want any answers and only want to watch you squirm or convince you of how wrong you are.  That is an anti-Mormon.

 

Byron openly declared that he was unwilling to read anything that would dissuade him from his current views.  This is not a seeker of the truth.  This is one who is convinced he already has the truth and everyone else is lost.  With that attitude, how can we see him as a seeker by anyone's definition?

[The Folk Prophet]

Weeell... I can see both sides of this because I've been in this forum so long I'm growing algae...

 

Let me take your recent altercation with yjacket as an example...

 

I know yjacket because he, just like me, have algae here.  I know his posting style.  He's a no-nonsense, shoot with both barrels, kinda guy.  I've had my share of yjacket altercations.  But, my personal philosophy is - I take you in any way you come - you be you, and I'll figure out the best way I can communicate with you.  Basically, I try to give them the freedom to communicate in their own style instead of being offended at every turn for their manner of posting.  But yes, I do take offense sometimes and I also have some buttons that gets pushed (nonsensical anti-Catholic posts gets me going).  And there have been times when I call yjacket out on stuff.  But, for the most part, I understand what yjacket is trying to express.

 

The Folk Prophet is another one that has algae here and he is also a no-nonsense kinda guy.  We've also had our own share of heated disagreements.  But, I've been here long enough to know that TFP has this Rambo style of posting and he's stubborn (like me, that's why we butt heads a lot), but he's a good guy  just trying to defend his position.  So yeah, you can tell TFP he's wrong until you're blue in the face, but unless you can prove it without a shadow of a doubt, it's not gonna move him.  It's not that he's belligerent, he just has strong principles.

 

Vort is another one that has algae and also a no-nonsense guy.  Very intelligent, very logical.  I used to quake in my boots when I find myself in the other side of the fence of Vort... he's mellowed out some, though.  I kinda miss the old Vort who can slice you faster and deeper than yjacket.    But everytime, he always has a valid point even if it's dished out in barbed wire.

 

Leah is another one with algae, also no-nonsense, say it like it is kinda gal.

 

Traveler... algae... the professor in the bunch.  He posts like he's lecturing a college course and our responses either pass or fail.  LOL!

 

I love these guys... I've come to regard them as my friends even when we're arguing.  I don't know if their online personalities translate to their real life personalities.  But, if it does, I'd love to hang out with these guys and just debate all night long...

 

So yeah, once you get to know people on here, you kinda learn to hear what they are saying instead of how they say it.  You can choose to get offended by their manner of posting - which may sound mean-spirited but they never are, at least not from these people - or you can just ignore that and figure out exactly what it is they're trying to say.

 

And that's just a few of the many regular posters here, each with their own online personalities.

 

 

 

I also hope that new-comers are kinder to the algae-bearing members here.  They are wise...

 

Somehow I feel complimented and insulted all in one.

 

        :)

[AnnieCarvalho]

Ok.  I can see that.  Let's look at it this way.

 

1) There are those who are in darkness, and recognize it.  They are looking for light.  That's who you are talking about. Yes

 

2) There are those who are simply curious and want more academic knowledge or (rarely) want to engage in honest, logical, scholarly debate.  That's who I was talking about.  I tend to think of PC as one of these rarities.  He's probably never going to convert.  And I doubt any of the "core" as you call them would ever convert to Pentacostal.  But we enjoy the academic and intellectual stimulation. Yes

 

3) There are those who don't really want any answers and only want to watch you squirm or convince you of how wrong you are.  That is an anti-Mormon.  Yes

 

Byron openly declared that he was unwilling to read anything that would dissuade him from his current views.  This is not a seeker of the truth.  This is one who is convinced he already has the truth and everyone else is lost. Well, maybe...

 

With that attitude, how can we see him as a seeker by anyone's definition?  If you have always been told that the BIBLE is the ONLY thing that God has to say, it's hard to look at any other book of scripture seriously. Sometimes, you have to ask and get answers to OTHER questions before you're willing to look at the BOM. Questions that were asked, like are you REALLY aware of the order the books in the NT were written? Some people aren't, and until you bring it to their attention, they don't get it. But if you have patience, even with the #3 type person, you can chip away at their armor. He wasn't rude. He wasn't so confrontational. People were annoyed because he was asking questions, gathering information, but I didn't really see him argue much. 

 

I'm just not willing to say I was sure of his motives... but that's me.

 

I went through several sets of Missionaries before I joined.

It didn't happen overnight.

[Bini]

I'm just blunt with everyone. Equal opportunity offender, apparently.

 

You give yourself too much credit.

 

There is a King of bluntness on this forum and he reigns well.

[Guest]

Somehow I feel complimented and insulted all in one.

 

        :)

 

Oh phooey... you know I love ya.  Don't you have the "You can speak for me" license?  I don't remember ever rescinding it. 

[The Folk Prophet]

You give yourself too much credit.

 

There is a King of bluntness on this forum and he reigns well.

 

Yeah. That Prison Chaplain is a real jerk isn't he.

 

 

 

[Guest]

You give yourself too much credit.

 

There is a King of bluntness on this forum and he reigns well.

 

Ohh!  And Bini!  She's one of my favorites.  Very culturally diverse... even religiously diverse... and has this way of putting quite an interesting perspective on all things that I first get my ears perked up when she says something unconventional and I want to disagree with it but I kinda stop myself and just think deeper first because she oftentimes brings up a perspective I haven't considered before.  That's the beauty of Bini on lds.net.

[Bini]

Sounds like I missed all the drama. But I suspect I know which posts everyone is referring to.

 

I wanted to touch on something though, the word anti, specifically. It does ring harshly when said aloud. Tends to get people riled up and ready on the offensive side almost immediately. But considering the dictionary definition of the word, I'm anti Mormon and religion in general, I don't subscribe to it and I won't advocate any of it. But am I attacking and rude? I hope not, I don't think I have been, I tend to keep my thoughts to myself unless directly cornered and asked. So just a thought for everyone...maybe not all antis are butts? Anti just means you are opposed of something, it doesn't automatically equate to a jerk.

[Connie]

As an outsider of the recent conversations but one who has participated in similar ones in the past, my perspective may be a bit different. Can people give these guys the benefit of the doubt and be more careful in their wording when responding to these types of people—absolutely. And even when, like the recent poster, they chose only to reply to the slightly more aggressive or not so carefully worded responders and ignore everything else, things can be turned around. I had the great privilege of participating in a thread where that was able to happen.

 

That being said, there is the other side of the equation. The person reading a post needs to also be very careful in how they read it. Are they themselves bringing in too much of their own emotion and reading it into what everyone else says? Are they assuming something about the poster based on a phrase or wording that rubbed them the wrong way? We have to be very careful in reading others posts that we are not bringing in such assumptions and sensitivities that we are “reading between the lines” things that are not there.

 

I feel like I’m wording this very awkwardly, but I hope y’all understand what I’m trying to say. It’s a very fine line between poster and reader, and it’s not always clear where the fault lies. We can all do better in how we play each part.

[Guest]

 If you have always been told that the BIBLE is the ONLY thing that God has to say, it's hard to look at any other book of scripture seriously. 

 

No, it's not.  I'm not asking anyone to believe it as soon as they crack open the first page.  I'm just asking people to read it just to inform them of what it actually is instead of getting third hand information.  I've read much of the Qu'ran.  Do I look at it as a Godly book?  Of course not.  But I have no problem reading it so I can know what's in it.  Byron wasn't even willing to do that much.  He was sure willing to listen to anti-Mormon stuff ABOUT the BoM -- just not read the book itself.  That doesn't sound fishy to you?

 

Questions that were asked, like are you REALLY aware of the order the books in the NT were written? Some people aren't, and until you bring it to their attention, they don't get it.

 

And he never responded to that.  It was a clear argument that he never responded to.  He just twisted it around until he couldn't any more.  Then he turned tail and ran.

 

But if you have patience, even with the #3 type person, you can chip away at their armor.

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.  There isn't much in the way of statistics on how common that is.  We could ask Gator.  He went through that process.  See what happened with him.

 

He wasn't rude. He wasn't so confrontational. People were annoyed because he was asking questions, gathering information, but I didn't really see him argue much. 

 

No, he wasn't confrontational.  Like I said, that is not what makes the difference between the serious seeker vs the anti-Mormon.  It is the lies and hypocrisy.  

 

He didn't argue much because he didn't have anything to argue about.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[estradling75]

Sounds like I missed all the drama. But I suspect I know which posts everyone is referring to.

 

I wanted to touch on something though, the word anti, specifically. It does ring harshly when said aloud. Tends to get people riled up and ready on the offensive side almost immediately. But considering the dictionary definition of the word, I'm anti Mormon and religion in general, I don't subscribe to it and I won't advocate any of it. But am I attacking and rude? I hope not, I don't think I have been, I tend to keep my thoughts to myself unless directly cornered and asked. So just a thought for everyone...maybe not all antis are butts? Anti just means you are opposed of something, it doesn't automatically equate to a jerk.

 

 

While you have correctly used it in the dictionary sense...  "Anti-Mormon" has additional context and subtext that are not found in what you get combining the two words dictionary definitions.

 

So while you might be anti-mormon and anti-religon... You are not "Anti-Mormon" or "Anti-Religon" (At least not in any sense that I have been able to tell)

Edited November 3, 2015 by estradling75

[Guest]

Somehow I feel complimented and insulted all in one.

 

        :)

I'm insulted she did not include me.

 

But I'm not old enough to grow algae (at least, not on this forum).  From what I gather, I'm around the average age of this forum.  Not old enough to be anyone's father (except for a few) but not young enough to be anyone's son.

[AnnieCarvalho]

No, it's not.  I'm not asking anyone to believe it as soon as they crack open the first page.  I'm just asking people to read it just to inform them of what it actually is instead of getting third hand information.  I've read much of the Qu'ran.  Do I look at it as a Godly book?  Of course not.  But I have no problem reading it so I can know what's in it.  Byron wasn't even willing to do that much.  He was sure willing to listen to anti-Mormon stuff ABOUT the BoM -- just not read the book itself.  That doesn't sound fishy to you?

 

 

 

And he never responded to that.  It was a clear argument that he never responded to.  He just twisted it around until he couldn't any more.  Then he turned tail and ran.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.  There is much in the way of statistics on how common that is.  We could ask Gator.  He went through that process.  See what happened with him.

 

 

 

No, he wasn't confrontational.  Like I said, that is not what makes the difference between the serious seeker vs the anti-Mormon.  It is the lies an hypocrisy.  

 

He didn't argue much because he didn't have anything to argue about.

 

For me, there is a difference between walking away and turning tail and running.

Seems like I've read somewhere that we LDS folks are counselled to walk away rather than argue.

I could be wrong, though.

[Guest]

I'm insulted she did not include me.

 

But I'm not old enough to grow algae (at least, not on this forum).  From what I gather, I'm around the average age of this forum.  Not old enough to be anyone's father (except for a few) but not young enough to be anyone's son.

 

Oh Carb... you're a young'un in these here parts.