Wiki: Latter-day Saints Rules

[Apex]

Latter-day Saints - Visitors Welcome!

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Only general discussion about the Temple, it's ceremonies and it's ordinances, are allowed.
To the extent possible, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1 and rule 2.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.

[Vanhin]

Something stating that others, not of our faith, are welcome to participate with us in discussion about the principles of our religion, as long as it is respectful and civil, would be nice.

Vanhin

[4godslove]

then go with something like the rest of the simple rule set referred to and we should be moving right along. don't you?

[Vanhin]

Well I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you talking about the #1 from the example rule set?

The only rule from that that makes sense to me is #2, "All posters wil treat each other respectfully.". The rest seem really weird.


I guess I'm advocating an even simpler set of rules.

Vanhin

[Finrock]

I'm actually partial to the "less rules is better" mentality. I would suggest an open house approach where all are welcome to contribute and say what they wish, having as our guiding principles in the congregation those of love, respect, and kindness and for the most part trusting our LDS moderators to judge which posts have crossed the line. Of course I do advocate that we hard code a prohibition on such things as discussion of temple rites and ordinances. Other than that, though, I would prefer we not get bogged down by a bunch of rules.

Let me give a brief example of what I would be less inclined to support: I would be less inclined to support bans on specific words or phrases. If someone can make a reasonable argument describing how and why I am a member of a cult, or how I'm non-Christian, or how I'm going to hell, then that is fine with me. Of course, the trick is to make such accusations reasonably and staying within the confines of the principles of love, respect, and kindness...;)

Regards,
Finrock

[marvmax]

I have a question about the rule saying that only LDS can be moderators. How can we tell? Anyone could request an LDS icon now. And some of our members have chosen to go with a Christian cross icon, although I forget who did it.

I think we ought to go with only those who are elected from this forum can moderate here. If someone who is non-LDS but wants to be a moderator and can get the votes then I say more power to them. I would hope that that would keep out people who clearly relish the anti-Mormon title like Brennin.

[Vanhin]

I'm actually partial to the "less rules is better" mentality. I would suggest an open house approach where all are welcome to contribute and say what they wish, having as our guiding principles in the congregation those of love, respect, and kindness and for the most part trusting our LDS moderators to judge which posts have crossed the line. Of course I do advocate that we hard code a prohibition on such things as discussion of temple rites and ordinances. Other than that, though, I would prefer we not get bogged down by a bunch of rules.

Let me give a brief example of what I would be less inclined to support: I would be less inclined to support bans on specific words or phrases. If someone can make a reasonable argument describing how and why I am a member of a cult, or how I'm non-Christian, or how I'm going to hell, then that is fine with me. Of course, the trick is to make such accusations reasonably and staying within the confines of the principles of love, respect, and kindness...;)

Regards,
Finrock
I totally agree with Finrock. This is how I feel as well.

So, I would say the part about non-LDS not allowed to debate, teach, or preach, should be omitted.

I think the rules should be something like this.


1. All posters will abide by principles of love, respect, kindness, and tolerance.

2. Non-LDS are permitted to participate in all discussions or debates.

3. Verbatim quoting of LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed, and will be removed. However, general discussion of the Temple and its ceremonies is allowed.

4. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.


I'm really not interested too much in an LDS-only forum. I have plenty opportunities for that. I'm interested in repectful, civil discourse with our fellow Christians not of the LDS faith. So, I'm not for limiting outsiders in the manner that other congregations have.

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I have a question about the rule saying that only LDS can be moderators. How can we tell? Anyone could request an LDS icon now. And some of our members have chosen to go with a Christian cross icon, although I forget who did it.

I think we ought to go with only those who are elected from this forum can moderate here. If someone who is non-LDS but wants to be a moderator and can get the votes then I say more power to them. I would hope that that would keep out people who clearly relish the anti-Mormon title like Brennin.

I could go for something like what you are suggesting. But I don't think it will be too difficult to know the LDS from the non-LDS. First they should be well known and regular participants of the forums. If they walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, they are probably ducks. Of course we can't know for certain, so it would be an on your honor thing.

Or we could call their bishop and ask... J/K. :D

Vanhin

[4godslove]

could you help me out at this point as to a very clear purpose for this section. i think it will help me(and maybe others as well) understand what the rules should be like.

[Ran77]

I prefer the first set of rules, but would change the order to place the most welcoming of them first and the more restrictive of them second. I would also like to see them rewritten in the most positive tone as is possible.

I am wholly supportive of LDS only moderation.

Although, I am going to disagree with several of you. I do not think that the rules should openly allow non-LDS to debate. Once we open that door there is no shutting it. How about we state that the forum rules are that generally non-LDS are to participate in questions and friendly discussion without debate, but if the LDS OP lists it as a debatable thread, then they are welcome to participate in that manner.

[Ran77]

Here is an example of my take on the rules:


1. Participation is through the principles of love, respect, kindness, and tolerance.

2. Non-LDS are welcomed to participate in fellowship and with honest sincere questions. Debating is allowed only in threads that LDS posters have declared the topic open to debate by everyone.

3. Debate between LDS are allowed as long as the other rules are followed.

4. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.

5. Quoting of the LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed.

[marvmax]

I agree with Ran 77 and 4godslove that we need to decide what we want this area to be like. I like the participation of the non-LDS as long as they're respectful of our beliefs. I don't want people coming in and condemning us right off the bat or pasting long diatribes that they have found on other web site. There have been a few poster like that in the theology section, and I would like the rules such that if they do that here we can (we as in whoever becomes a moderator) delete the post or thread. I personally don't want someone coming in and saying if I don't like them linking to the temple ceremonies then I can leave.

Oh yeah, just to get things started I actually pasted a copy of TAW rules and then changed Orthodox to LDS, so after reading the rules I posted I think I like the alternative better.

[Orontes]

1. Verbatim quoting of LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed, and will be removed. However, general discussion of the Temple and its ceremonies is allowed.

2. All posters will treat each other respectfully.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.

4. Non-LDS are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions. No debating, teaching or preaching will be tolerated.

5. Debate between LDS are allowed as long as the other rules are followed.

I like this version better. Unless we want any and all voting on LDS Moderators then some statement that only LDS Forum Members can vote is needed. This statement might reference a list of LDS Forum Members. One could use the list Apex set up as a general grandfather clause for LDS Forum membership (excluding noted allies).

Also, with the above: rule 4 and 5 contradict. I don't see the value of rule 5. Questions and answers are distinct from debate. Debate by defintition entails set opposing theses. In short, it is a contending art. For those keen on such, perhaps a rule could state debate is allowed only on invitation. This way if an anti-Mormon really wants to challenge their thesis against a believer, they can ask in the LDS Forum for a thread to do such.

[marvmax]

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.

... Unless we want any and all voting on LDS Moderators then some statement that only LDS Forum Members can vote is needed. This statement might reference a list of LDS Forum Members. One could use the list Apex set up as a general grandfather clause for LDS Forum membership (excluding noted allies).
How do other forums decide membership. I see reference to being a member of a forum but haven't been able to put my finger on how such a determination is decided.

While I would like only LDS moderators for this section, there really is a problem on how to tell who is LDS and who is not. While Vanhin was just kidding when he said we could call bishops, that really is the only way to tell, which is why a bishop will call another bishop to find out about someone claiming to be a bishop for whatever reason. We can't really do that here but you see the problem.

[Doc T]

1. Verbatim quoting of LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed, and will be removed. However, general discussion of the Temple and its ceremonies is allowed.
I think that something must be said about pictures and videos or links to such.

Doc

~

[Finrock]

I think that something must be said about pictures and videos or links to such.

Doc

~

Or simply make the rule say what it is that can be done.

Example:
* Only general discussions of temple ceremonies are allowed. Anything else is prohibited.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

While I would like only LDS moderators for this section, there really is a problem on how to tell who is LDS and who is not. While Vanhin was just kidding when he said we could call bishops, that really is the only way to tell, which is why a bishop will call another bishop to find out about someone claiming to be a bishop for whatever reason. We can't really do that here but you see the problem.

Although we can not know with absolute certainty in every situation if someone is LDS, we can ensure that only those who are well known within the community and who self-identify as LDS can apply for moderator status. I mean, if someone is trying to "inflitrate" our congregation under false pretense, then it will soon be revealed that they are not legit. In short, I do not see this as being a big problem.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

Honestly, I could be happy with just two general rules:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

Rule one pretty much covers any instance of prejudice, bigotry, irrationality, or disrespectful conduct. Rule 2 ensures that the principles are defined by LDS standards.

I think perhaps rules for membership, rules for moderators, and such fall under a "bylaw" type of category, and aren't necessarily general rules, but they are more so policies that govern the congregation and therefore they can be addressed separately.

Regards,
Finrock

[Ran77]

Honestly, I could be happy with just two general rules:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

Rule one pretty much covers any instance of prejudice, bigotry, irrationality, or disrespectful conduct. Rule 2 ensures that the principles are defined by LDS standards.

I think perhaps rules for membership, rules for moderators, and such fall under a "bylaw" type of category, and aren't necessarily general rules, but they are more so policies that govern the congregation and therefore they can be addressed separately.

Regards,
Finrock

With the efforts that have been made by the non-LDS against the wiki rules elsewhere, I think we need to have more structure than this or we open ourselves to efforts by them to do the same here.

These two rules are great if we expect people will be respectful of them, but those who want to see what they can get away with or how far they can push the boundaries here, will not be stopped by them.

[Doc T]

Or simply make the rule say what it is that can be done.

Example:
* Only general discussions of temple ceremonies are allowed. Anything else is prohibited.

Regards,
Finrock
Naw, that would be too simple. :P

Doc

~

[Doc T]

Honestly, I could be happy with just two general rules:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

Rule one pretty much covers any instance of prejudice, bigotry, irrationality, or disrespectful conduct. Rule 2 ensures that the principles are defined by LDS standards.

I think perhaps rules for membership, rules for moderators, and such fall under a "bylaw" type of category, and aren't necessarily general rules, but they are more so policies that govern the congregation and therefore they can be addressed separately.

Regards,
Finrock
Kind of reminds me of my wife's rules.

Rule 1, the wife is always right.

Rule 2, if the wife is ever wrong, refer to rule one.

Doc

~

[4godslove]

:thumbsup: Kind of reminds me of my wife's rules.

Rule 1, the wife is always right.

Rule 2, if the wife is ever wrong, refer to rule one.

Doc

~

[Apex]

I am in favor of allowing all to discuss and debate. The second version currently in the wiki.

[4godslove]

is this section for debate. i wish someone could enlighten me as to the difference of sections or what this is about.

[Orontes]

is this section for debate. i wish someone could enlighten me as to the difference of sections or what this is about.

Congregation Forums are primarily for fellowship. I think if you look over other Congregations you will see they allow questions, but limit or disallow debate. Given the hostility that Mormons face, I don't understand why one would want a Congregation Forum open to debate. What is the point? The LDS Theology Forum is and will remain a debate arena.

[Apex]

This section is for what ever we want it to be. The other LDS section is striclty debate, however this one can be debate/discussion/fellowship/randomness ect... Its what ever we decide.

[Rep Daddy]

. Non-LDS are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions.

Yep, this forum is solely for LDS proselytizing. The WIKI makes this plain.

Can an LDS explain how they can objectively prove a question is honest and sincere? If not the rule is an invitation to abuse.

[Rep Daddy]

and those friendly to LDS??

Again define friendly objectively.

[Vanhin]

I made a couple of changes to the "Alternative approach". Someone let me know if I am out of line.

I removed "and debate" from #2 because it is not necessary to specify it by itself. "All discussions" covers everything.


2. Non-LDS are permitted to participate in all discussions.


I also changed #4 to reflect what seems to be a growing consensus that only LDS should be considered for moderators.


4. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.


Vanhin

[4godslove]

Congregation Forums are primarily for fellowship. I think if you look over other Congregations you will see they allow questions, but limit or disallow debate. Given the hostility that Mormons face, I don't understand why one would want a Congregation Forum open to debate. What is the point? The LDS Theology Forum is and will remain a debate arena.
i can understand how we can open it up to debate between us about things that interest which might include areas which may come across as controversial or things that we want to become clearer on, etc.

however, as some have mentioned, there is already an area for those who want to debate our theology, and i could see how it might be fine to open it up to non-lds to debate in threads in this section that debate subjects not really gospel related say (heaven forbid) politics.

[4godslove]

I made a couple of changes to the "Alternative approach". Someone let me know if I am out of line.

I removed "and debate" from #2 because it is not necessary to specify it by itself. "All discussions" covers everything.



I also changed #4 to reflect what seems to be a growing consensus that only LDS should be considered for moderators.



Vanhin
would limiting moderators to active lds be a good idea?

[Vanhin]

Honestly, I could be happy with just two general rules:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

Rule one pretty much covers any instance of prejudice, bigotry, irrationality, or disrespectful conduct. Rule 2 ensures that the principles are defined by LDS standards.

I think perhaps rules for membership, rules for moderators, and such fall under a "bylaw" type of category, and aren't necessarily general rules, but they are more so policies that govern the congregation and therefore they can be addressed separately.

Regards,
Finrock

Not just because we are brothers (though that might be part of the reason why we think alike :) ), but I like this approach as well.

Vanhin

[Rep Daddy]

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

So much for Appeals

[Freedom&Light]

Here is an example of my take on the rules:


1. Participation is through the principles of love, respect, kindness, and tolerance.

2. Non-LDS are welcomed to participate in fellowship and with honest sincere questions. Debating is allowed only in threads that LDS posters have declared the topic open to debate by everyone.

3. Debate between LDS are allowed as long as the other rules are followed.

4. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.

5. Quoting of the LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed.


I'm just putting in my one cent, so feel free to disregard. I really like Ran's rules here. They are fair and clear, and easy to moderate.

Making rules too open will make your new home difficult to moderate. This was created as a place to allow for fellowship, not debate. That's why the Theology team is still modding the other parts.

Whatever y'all decide is fine. :) I'm just throwing in my opinion. :tutu:

[Vanhin]

Debate is not necessarily contentious, as someone lightly put it. Contention, would definetly be a violation of the rules. Debate is what we are doing now, and as far as I am concerned, our non-LDS Christian brothers and sisters should be allowed to come talk to us and disagree if they want, as long as they do it with love, respect, and kindness towards us. We also would require them to respect things that are sacred to us.

Vanhin

[Orontes]

Ran77 http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38711385#post38711385)
Here is an example of my take on the rules:

1. Participation is through the principles of love, respect, kindness, and tolerance.

2. Non-LDS are welcomed to participate in fellowship and with honest sincere questions. Debating is allowed only in threads that LDS posters have declared the topic open to debate by everyone.

3. Debate between LDS are allowed as long as the other rules are followed.

4. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered for moderators of the LDS Congregation.

5. Quoting of the LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed.



I like the above. I would change 4. to Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints (as determined by the membership roster)* are allowed to vote on moderators.

*A roster of Congregation members would then be needed.

[marvmax]

I like Ran's rules also, with the same caveat that Orontes puts in on rule 4. There are a few people who participate in the Theology Forum that are not LDS that I would vote for as a moderator should they be glutton enough to want that kind of hassle in their lives.

[Finrock]

With the efforts that have been made by the non-LDS against the wiki rules elsewhere, I think we need to have more structure than this or we open ourselves to efforts by them to do the same here.

These two rules are great if we expect people will be respectful of them, but those who want to see what they can get away with or how far they can push the boundaries here, will not be stopped by them.

If the truth be told, no person will be stopped by any set of rules. The goal in my opinion is not to stop all abuses, but to have a way to put an end to it when it occurs. Also, the rules I propose favor the governing host far more than any set of specific rules can. The more specific a set of rules are, the less leeway they have for enforcement. That means people essentially have more in the way of content to actually try to push boundaries and stretch the rules. A set of general principles are so broad that they are more difficult to manipulate, yet they provide ample protection against abuses, especially in an environment where those who enforce the rules agree with your understanding of certain principles.

Not only that, a set of simple rules are far easier to manage and they actually promote an open, inviting environment where personal accountability is respected and expected. I don't know, I guess I just rather not be someone's moral nanny :P. Just set some general guidelines and trust that people will make the right choices. If they don't, then we can take care of it. It is our congregation after all and excluding the few exceptions, what we want pretty much goes around here.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

Congregation Forums are primarily for fellowship. I think if you look over other Congregations you will see they allow questions, but limit or disallow debate. Given the hostility that Mormons face, I don't understand why one would want a Congregation Forum open to debate. What is the point? The LDS Theology Forum is and will remain a debate arena.

The way I see it, it is precisely because of the hostility that Mormons often face why we would want to have a congregation forum open to debate. The LDS Theology Forum has been and continues to be governed by rules which do not necessarily favor us. The "mentality", if you will allow me to use that term, of the Theology Forum is that this is the place where "real" Christians can come and tell the Mormons how twisted and messed up their religion is. In our Congregation we can create the mentality that this is a place where rational and respectful people can come to discuss and debate our religion. The mere fact that it is our Congregation sends the message that this isn't the place for the irrational, the bigots, and the prejudice. Given these things, I look forward to an environment that is actually conducive to rational and civil debate and discourse about our religion. I believe that given the right environment, people will be more likely to come away from a debate with a better understanding and respect for our religion and in our Congregation, we can create and control that type of environment.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

would limiting moderators to active lds be a good idea?

Yes. Being as the Congregation is our home, I want those who agree, generally speaking, with the principles I agree with to be the ones enforcing the rules. In our congregation, I strongly prefer that the rules are enforced by a brother or sister.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

Congregation Forums are primarily for fellowship.

I also wanted to comment on this as well. My understanding was that the Congregations are safe havens for whatever (of course within the confines of the general site rules) the Congregation wishes to have.

Although I think a place to fellowship is great, I honestly think if we limit the Congregation only to that, we would be missing out on a great opportunity to create an environment where we can actually take part in good and productive debate and discussion.

Regards,
Finrock

[Freedom&Light]

I think I'm tripping myself on semantics.

Debate in a congregational forum usually means people coming in and saying that your position is unChristian! You are wrong! You are going to...well. You get the idea.

Discussion is encouraged, and often that means that people won't agree with each other. It's discussion when it's polite disagreement.

It's debate when it's attacking someone's position.

So, I agree that a respectful place for discussion is needed. It's containing it to polite disagreement that's important.

Oh man! There's my other cent. Sorry guys! I don't want to intrude too much. :swoon:

[Finrock]

I think I'm tripping myself on semantics.

Debate in a congregational forum usually means people coming in and saying that your position is unChristian! You are wrong! You are going to...well. You get the idea.

Discussion is encouraged, and often that means that people won't agree with each other. It's discussion when it's polite disagreement.

It's debate when it's attacking someone's position.

So, I agree that a respectful place for discussion is needed. It's containing it to polite disagreement that's important.

Oh man! There's my other cent. Sorry guys! I don't want to intrude too much. :swoon:

You bring up a good point, really. My Logic professor once told me that in his experience, almost all disagreements are due to semantics; where the two parties are contending apparently on the same term, but they each are using a different meaning of the term. So, perhaps it would be a benefit for me to define my use of the word debate, or to change my language to reflect better what I mean.

It seems the term "debate" is being understood in a negative sense, although I think of nothing but positive, happy thoughts, when I use that term. :) So, when I say debate, I mean: "to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments" (Webster (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary)).

A better term to use perhaps is that I favor open discussion. What I mean by open discussion is that I favor an atmosphere where LDS and Non-LDS alike are encouraged and welcome to reasonably and respectfully question, discuss, and disagree if they like, with or about our religion.

Regards,
Finrock

[Vanhin]

Yeah I'm thinking about "debate" that is more along the lines of what is is described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate) with our own twist to it:


Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. (Debate, Wikipedia)


I'm not talking about contention, which is not good, but the art of persuasion. And I believe our visitors should have equal opportunity to participate on our forum as long as they do it with love, respect, and kindness. This I believe is in harmony with our scripture:


41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—


43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;


44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.



That is what I am talking about.

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And what Finrock said...

Vanhin

[Orontes]

If the truth be told, no person will be stopped by any set of rules. The goal in my opinion is not to stop all abuses, but to have a way to put an end to it when it occurs. Also, the rules I propose favor the governing host far more than any set of specific rules can. The more specific a set of rules are, the less leeway they have for enforcement. That means people essentially have more in the way of content to actually try to push boundaries and stretch the rules. A set of general principles are so broad that they are more difficult to manipulate, yet they provide ample protection against abuses, especially in an environment where those who enforce the rules agree with your understanding of certain principles.

Not only that, a set of simple rules are far easier to manage and they actually promote an open, inviting environment where personal accountability is respected and expected. I don't know, I guess I just rather not be someone's moral nanny :P. Just set some general guidelines and trust that people will make the right choices. If they don't, then we can take care of it. It is our congregation after all and excluding the few exceptions, what we want pretty much goes around here.

Regards,
Finrock

The way I see it, it is precisely because of the hostility that Mormons often face why we would want to have a congregation forum open to debate. The LDS Theology Forum has been and continues to be governed by rules which do not necessarily favor us. The "mentality", if you will allow me to use that term, of the Theology Forum is that this is the place where "real" Christians can come and tell the Mormons how twisted and messed up their religion is. In our Congregation we can create the mentality that this is a place where rational and respectful people can come to discuss and debate our religion. The mere fact that it is our Congregation sends the message that this isn't the place for the irrational, the bigots, and the prejudice. Given these things, I look forward to an environment that is actually conducive to rational and civil debate and discourse about our religion. I believe that given the right environment, people will be more likely to come away from a debate with a better understanding and respect for our religion and in our Congregation, we can create and control that type of environment.

Regards,
Finrock

I also wanted to comment on this as well. My understanding was that the Congregations are safe havens for whatever (of course within the confines of the general site rules) the Congregation wishes to have.

Although I think a place to fellowship is great, I honestly think if we limit the Congregation only to that, we would be missing out on a great opportunity to create an environment where we can actually take part in good and productive debate and discussion.

Regards,
Finrock


I think the above is reasonable. I think if we go with the above then all that is needed are the basic rules Finrock laid out, plus one: I would stress the Moderators need to be LDS and voting on the same should be restricted to LDS. Judgment from a moral mind is nothing to be feared.



So the rules proposal would be:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.

[Orontes]

Oh man! There's my other cent. Sorry guys! I don't want to intrude too much. :swoon:

Feel free. :)

[Vanhin]

I think the above is reasonable. I think if we go with the above then all that is needed are the basic rules Finrock laid out, plus one: I would stress the Moderators need to be LDS and voting on the same should be restricted to LDS. Judgment from a moral mind is nothing to be feared.



So the rules proposal would be:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.


I second this.

Vanhin

[jeffC]

Oh man! There's my other cent. Sorry guys! I don't want to intrude too much. :swoon:
Feel free. :)
Yes, please.

This is our first go at the process, so it would be foolish to ignore experience.

[jeffC]

I posted the following in the Congregational, but they seem better suited for this thread.

I think our moderators should be LDS only and for the most part they can use their judgement to determine if something has crossed the line.

In the spirit of openness, I am not opposed to the rule being that one of three mods can be (and should be) non-LDS. However, I think it remains important to limit voting to the LDS congregation members. In LDS debate forum I think it should be mandated that there be at least one non-LDS mod, and at least one LDS mod.

I also agree the simpler and fewer the rules govorning content the better.

I propose that we open the doors and welcome others into this forum to ask, discuss, fellowship, and yes, even debate aspects of our religion as equals with us. I see absolutely no harm in allowing that, as long as the postings are done with love, respect, and kindness on both sides.

I too am in favor of an open forum in the sense of debate. However, it might be a good idea to implement the rule common in other congregations that when a question is posed by non-LDS, only LDS are permitted to respond to that question. A question would be in contrast to a position/argument/discussion. Then, if the OP evolved into a discussion (which would be allowed under the openness policy), this exception would no longer apply. This is a much more open version of the typical rule, however it does provide some of the protections that inspired the rule elsewhere.



As for the congregational forum, I think that it is a good place to answer questions from those unfamiliar with LDS thought; We could use the sticky section (or a subforum) to slowly compile a FAQ on those topics that repeatedly come up and always have the same answer; I would love to see discussion between LDS on articles in Mormon scholarly journals (or others; or scholarly ones ;) ); those seeking ideas or advice for sunday school lessons, etc.; or whatever. I would recommend against too many subforums, at least until the LDS population here grows some more. One of the reasons that there aren't more inter-LDS discussions is that the LDS presence here has been limited till now to those most interested in apologetic debate (that's my impression, anyway). Perhaps the congregation (and the more open website) will change that, perhaps not.

[marvmax]

I propose that we open the doors and welcome others into this forum to ask, discuss, fellowship, and yes, even debate aspects of our religion as equals with us. I see absolutely no harm in allowing that, as long as the postings are done with love, respect, and kindness on both sides.
I think this rule should be added. This is one thing I've always really hated in the Theology Section where someone will ask a question and a local anti-Mormon will jump all over them with a bunch of hooey. We shouldn't let it happen here.

[Finrock]

I also thought that it might be helpful to mention that any rules that we might initially come up with can be changed later if it is determined that they are lacking or insufficient. Also, we have the ability to create sub-forums, and each sub-forum can have different rules depending on what the purpose of that sub-forum is. So, we have a lot of flexibility here.

For instance, I would not be opposed to having some sections within the Congregation that are more strict than others, as long as we provide an area where rational and respectful open discussions about our religion can take place between all parties. Anyways, just some other ideas that I had.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

I think the above is reasonable. I think if we go with the above then all that is needed are the basic rules Finrock laid out, plus one: I would stress the Moderators need to be LDS and voting on the same should be restricted to LDS. Judgment from a moral mind is nothing to be feared.



So the rules proposal would be:

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.


Greetings Orontes!

I agree and I strongly support the idea of LDS only moderators and only LDS being able to vote on moderators for our Congregational area.

Everyone Else:

I also want to clarify that I have no particular commitment to the exact wording of the rules I proposed. What I mean is that I'm open to having the wording tweaked for clarification, etc. if this is something that we decide we want to do.

Regards,
Finrock

[Rep Daddy]

Do you have to be a LDS with a Temple recommend to be a moderator?

How are mods and members absolute judges of rule 1. Ya gonna have a poll for every case. How many have to participate to count?

Who defines the subjective terms in these rules? How does this not become a subjective star chamber?

[Orontes]

Greetings Orontes!

I agree and I strongly support the idea of LDS only moderators and only LDS being able to vote on moderators for our Congregational area.

Everyone Else:

I also want to clarify that I have no particular commitment to the exact wording of the rules I proposed. What I mean is that I'm open to having the wording tweaked for clarification, etc. if this is something that we decide we want to do.

Regards,
Finrock

Howdy,

It's funny I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps a Rule four:


1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saint members of the Congregation Forum are allowed to vote on moderators.

4. Any and all rules are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.

I think we may need a sticky that notes membership. This list would indicate voting privileges and be subject to update as more join over time.

[jeffC]

In the spirit of openness, I am not opposed to the rule being that one of three mods can be (and should be) non-LDS. However, I think it remains important to limit voting to the LDS congregation members. In LDS debate forum I think it should be mandated that there be at least one non-LDS mod, and at least one LDS mod.

Is there any more thought on this? Where we are permitting debate between two sides in an open format, in contrast to some other congregation forums, it seems wise to take steps to ensure that both sides in the debate might be fairly represented.

[Vanhin]

Do you have to be a LDS with a Temple recommend to be a moderator?

How are mods and members absolute judges of rule 1. Ya gonna have a poll for every case. How many have to participate to count?

Who defines the subjective terms in these rules? How does this not become a subjective star chamber?
You'll just have to wait and find out.

Vanhin

[4godslove]

would it be too much to ask that, at least, we put in a statement that a lack of reverence toward things of a sacred nature will not be allowed?

this goes equally for us toward others for things that they may hold sacred so it seems to be most fair.

it also makes all aware that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated and any who make such a faux pas unawares will understand when or if such a post is inadvertently removed.

[Rep Daddy]

I consider the Trinity sacred.

[Finrock]

would it be too much to ask that, at least, we put in a statement that a lack of reverence toward things of a sacred nature will not be allowed?

this goes equally for us toward others for things that they may hold sacred so it seems to be most fair.

it also makes all aware that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated and any who make such a faux pas unawares will understand when or if such a post is inadvertently removed.

Although I would prefer more general rules, I am not opposed to explicitely stating that only general discussion about temple ordinances and ceremonies is allowed, although I think that Rule 1 of the rules I suggested covers and protects things that are sacred to us. Consider the following:

1. Rule One dictates that the guiding principles of the LDS Congregation are love, respect, and kindness.
2. It is a fact that posting verbatim accounts of LDS temple ceremonies is highly offensive to LDS members.
3. It is a fact that deliberately posting highly offensive post shows a fundamental disrespect for a person or group.
4. Therefore, posting verbatim accounts of LDS temple ceremonies is a violation of Rule One of the LDS Congregation.
Conclusion: Verbatim posting of LDS temple ceremonies are subject to deletion because they violate Rule One of the LDS congregation.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

Is there any more thought on this? Where we are permitting debate between two sides in an open format, in contrast to some other congregation forums, it seems wise to take steps to ensure that both sides in the debate might be fairly represented.

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS. Perhaps you can persuade me. For what reasons do you feel that this is important?

Regards,
Finrock

[4godslove]

I consider the Trinity sacred.
are you saying that because of the sacred nature you attach to the trinity, that you would object to mention of the trinity or more that you expect discussions about the trinity to be done in a respectful manner.

[4godslove]

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS. Perhaps you can persuade me. For what reasons do you feel that this is important?

Regards,
Finrock
agreed

[Rep Daddy]

are you saying that because of the sacred nature you attach to the trinity, that you would object to mention of the trinity or more that you expect discussions about the trinity to be done in a respectful manner.


I hold it sacred and if others do not my making them pretend they do is no advantage. Why not allow people discuss without forcing a charade.

Reminds me of the missionaries at the door who pretend that they are interested in my views as they look for opportunities to change my views.

Let's get real.

Why hide LDS embarrassments under a label? Why keep Heavenly Mother in the basement out of view?

Why not address the issue of plagiarizing Masonic Ritual?

[Rep Daddy]

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS.

Are non Temple recommend LDS elligible? Do LDS have to agree with official LDS doctrine in entirety?

[4godslove]

Although I would prefer more general rules, I am not opposed to explicitely stating that only general discussion about temple ordinances and ceremonies is allowed, although I think that Rule 1 of the rules I suggested covers and protects things that are sacred to us. Consider the following:

1. Rule One dictates that the guiding principles of the LDS Congregation are love, respect, and kindness.
2. It is a fact that posting verbatim accounts of LDS temple ceremonies is highly offensive to LDS members.
3. It is a fact that deliberately posting highly offensive post shows a fundamental disrespect for a person or group.
4. Therefore, posting verbatim accounts of LDS temple ceremonies is a violation of Rule One of the LDS Congregation.
Conclusion: Verbatim posting of LDS temple ceremonies are subject to deletion because they violate Rule One of the LDS congregation.

Regards,
Finrock
i understand that. i'm just not sure that the current verbiage sufficiently sets the stage in remingding us all that we are discussing things that are sacred to those that are here discussing and the level of reverence that should be expected.

personally i like not mentioning the temple specifically as i think it does as much damage as good as it directs more attention to them.

[jeffC]

I consider the Trinity sacred.
And you now have a forum where all discussions must be based from a trinitarian perspective.

[Rep Daddy]

And you now have a forum where all discussions must be based from a trinitarian perspective.

Did you read the entire post?

[jeffC]

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS. Perhaps you can persuade me. For what reasons do you feel that this is important?

Regards,
Finrock
Only one reason, really. When a debate occurs, it is desireable to have an objective observer acting as moderator. Idealy, within the framework provided by the rules of the forum prefference would not be shown to one or the other of the participants. I would hope that any moderator acting in that capacity would not tend to take sides in an exchange; I hope this particularly for LDS mods. However, being human and in a forum where we can set the rules to our advantage, it would be a natural tendency to side where our bias lies. Having a mod structure that reflects the dual sides of most of the discussions would, IMO, be better suited to fairness. All this assumes that we have an open discussion forum.

Also, having a non-LDS mod would help deflect any (unjustified) accusations that LDS mods are suppressing opposition.

If the mods became polarized in their decision rules, I would oppose this arrangement. However, if the mods will work together, I think a better balance between the interests of all parties in a debate would be achieved.

[marvmax]

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS. Perhaps you can persuade me. For what reasons do you feel that this is important?

Regards,
Finrock
I think it would keep us from riding rough shod over others, or look like we are doing so. People like our friend drstevej will question anything we do so being able to say look even this mod agrees with us.

This may be a totally moot point anyway because there may be no non-LDS who would even consider being a mod. I think we ought to leave it open if it doesn't work out we can change in the future.

[jeffC]

Did you read the entire post?
This one (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38754112&postcount=58)?

[Rep Daddy]

This one (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38754112&postcount=58)?

Nope this one (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38754888&postcount=63).

[Lel]

If you're going to have LDS mods someone has to be nominated.

Go to the forum and vote for Zippy or not then. He's the first one that caught my attention w/r/t volunteering.

[4godslove]

I hold it sacred and if others do not my making them pretend they do is no advantage. Why not allow people discuss without forcing a charade.

where have we said anything about forcing anyone to pretend they hold the same things sacred we do?

we are taught that we should love and respect other people and understand that their beliefs are important to them and that we should respect that.


Reminds me of the missionaries at the door who pretend that they are interested in my views as they look for opportunities to change my views.


specifically which missionaries?

how do you know they have no interest in your views?

why are you here? aren't you looking for opportunities to try and change our views?


Let's get real.


do you think we're here to not be real?


Why hide LDS embarrassments under a label? Why keep Heavenly Mother in the basement out of view?


embarrassments?

would you encourage your mother, wife or sister(s) to take off all their clothes when their out in public? i mean why keep her body out of view?



Why not address the issue of plagiarizing Masonic Ritual?


you should know that horse has been beat to death. if you want to revisit that, i recommend that you go back through the threads.

[marvmax]

I hold it sacred and if others do not my making them pretend they do is no advantage. Why not allow people discuss without forcing a charade.

Reminds me of the missionaries at the door who pretend that they are interested in my views as they look for opportunities to change my views.

Let's get real.

Why hide LDS embarrassments under a label? Why keep Heavenly Mother in the basement out of view?

Why not address the issue of plagiarizing Masonic Ritual?
drstevej;
I don't understand why you even bring up this topic. I do understand that most people in the world do not understand the sacred nature of the LDS Temples. You know that discussing the Temples definitively here will not be allowed. Many LDS may even want to be able to discuss the Temple Ceremonies because of all the garbage that is put out about them. We do not because we take the Temple and everything about it seriously, and we do it as the ancient Jews took their Temple seriously.

[Rep Daddy]

would you encourage your mother, wife or sister(s) to take off their clothes when their out? i mean why keep her body out of view?

Heavenly Mother is naked? No wonder she stays out of sight. I would have thought she at least had garments on.

I am here to learn and I thank you for the enlightenment.

As for me... mom is deceased, wife dresses nicely in public and I affirm her wisdom in doing soand I have no sisters.

[Rep Daddy]

drstevej;
I don't understand why you even bring up this topic. I do understand that most people in the world do not understand the sacred nature of the LDS Temples. You know that discussing the Temples definitively here will not be allowed. Many LDS may even want to be able to discuss the Temple Ceremonies because of all the garbage that is put out about them. We do not because we take the Temple and everything about it seriously, and we do it as the ancient Jews took their Temple seriously.

I bring it up because if the LDS Temple ceremonies are purloined from the Masons it bears upon the credibility of the Latter Day Saints. And further the pre-edit version has some very interesting theological pronouncements that should not be covered under a "sacred Shroud."

[4godslove]

Heavenly Mother is naked? No wonder she stays out of sight. I would have thought she at least had garments on.

I am here to learn and I thank you for the enlightenment.

As for me... mom is deceased, wife dresses nicely in public and I affirm her wisdom in doing soand I have no sisters.
sorry about your mom.

my mom is turning 80 and feel lucky she's still around.

the point regarding the concept that we have a Heavenly Mother or Mothers is a bit fringish, and the specualtion is that a large part of the reason we don't find Her mentioned is because of the degree of reverence that Heavenly Father has for her so that Her name is not exposed to vulgar usage or taken in vain thus the clothing analogy. since our thinking would tend to be something along these lines, certainly we would never think of Her as being in the basement.

as that is one area that has not been formally opened up to us, there's really nothing to discuss more than i think this and you think that.

if you wish to think differently on the matter, that's fine.

hope that may have provided some enlightenment.

[Rep Daddy]

sorry about your mom.

my mom is turning 80 and feel lucky she's still around.

the point regarding the concept that we have a Heavenly Mother or Mothers is a bit fringish, and the specualtion is that a large part of the reason we don't find Her mentioned is because of the degree of reverence that Heavenly Father has for her so that Her name is not exposed to vulgar usage or taken in vain thus the clothing analogy. since our thinking would tend to be something along these lines, certainly we would never think of Her as being in the basement.

as that is one area that has not been formally opened up to us, there's really nothing to discuss more than i think this and you think that.

if you wish to think differently on the matter, that's fine.

hope that may have provided some enlightenment.

Why is a fringe doctrine "sacred?" Can you show me where in LDS Scripture Heavenly Father has respect for her"? Can you be sure there is only ONE Heavenly Mother and that the Father does not practice the Eternal Principle?

These things need discussion not suppression and consignment to a hymn of worship (i.e. Oh, My Father).

[4godslove]

Why is a fringe doctrine "sacred?" Can you show me where in LDS Scripture Heavenly Father has respect for her"? Can you be sure there is only ONE Heavenly Mother and that the Father does not practice the Eternal Principle?

These things need discussion not suppression and consignment to a hymn of worship (i.e. Oh, My Father).
told you, fringish. your questions are fine. There may be some other things written on it, i'm not sure. I just know what i've told you. The attitude toward this idea i would say has generally accepted i would say. if it really bugs you, you can do the research as well as i can. i would be interested in seeing what you can come up with. mormon doctrine might be a good place to start. you could start a thread over in theology.

[Finrock]

I humbly request that the topically irrelevant debate on Heavenly Mother and whether the temple and it's ceremonies are sacred be moved away from this Wiki to a more appropriate forum.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

If you're going to have LDS mods someone has to be nominated.

Go to the forum and vote for Zippy or not then. He's the first one that caught my attention w/r/t volunteering.

Lel,

Right now we are trying to determine how we wish to do this. I suggest that until we have a final set of rules in place that we hold off on nominating or voting for any moderators for the LDS Congregation. How does everyone else feel?

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

Only one reason, really. When a debate occurs, it is desireable to have an objective observer acting as moderator. Idealy, within the framework provided by the rules of the forum prefference would not be shown to one or the other of the participants. I would hope that any moderator acting in that capacity would not tend to take sides in an exchange; I hope this particularly for LDS mods. However, being human and in a forum where we can set the rules to our advantage, it would be a natural tendency to side where our bias lies. Having a mod structure that reflects the dual sides of most of the discussions would, IMO, be better suited to fairness. All this assumes that we have an open discussion forum.

Also, having a non-LDS mod would help deflect any (unjustified) accusations that LDS mods are suppressing opposition.

If the mods became polarized in their decision rules, I would oppose this arrangement. However, if the mods will work together, I think a better balance between the interests of all parties in a debate would be achieved.

jeffC,

I understand your point of view and generally speaking what you propose is a just and fair way of approaching the situation.

One way that I have imagined the LDS Congregation here is like our Ward or Branch. On Sundays, the doors are open to pretty much anyone who wishes to come in and participate with us in our meetings. We welcome and encourage questions and discussion about our beliefs. In our Wards we try to treat everyone who enters with respect and kindness. We try to treat them as we would treat any other member of our Church. However, we do not have a representative of another Church in a position of authority within our Wards, and we have no reason to. We aren't considered to be treating our guests unfairly because there isn't a person who represents a viewpoint outside of our Church. We understand that people will have opposing viewpoints and at church we want to be empathetic to peoples concerns, but we aren't obligated by any moral or ethical standard to have an advocate for the opposing position in our Wards and Branches. I aslo think that it is understood in general that when a person goes to another denominations church, they are not going to find an advocate for a position outside of the denomination. The bias will be for the LDS church and I believe in our Congregation, it should be.

There also may be people who think that the LDS Mods are favoring the LDS viewpoint over any other, because they probably will be. But, this is to be expected in our Congregation. Anyways, I don't know if what I explained makes any sense as I'm writing this with a terrible headache and finding it difficult to concentrate. So, I better end here for now. Let me know if I need to clarify anything.

Regards,
Finrock

[Vanhin]

I replaced the "Alternative approach" rules with the following:

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators. Any huge objections to that, we can just roll it back. At some point, once we have finalized the two rule sets, we probaly need to vote on it, right? Or come to some concensus any way.

Vanhin

[Orontes]

Lel,

Right now we are trying to determine how we wish to do this. I suggest that until we have a final set of rules in place that we hold off on nominating or voting for any moderators for the LDS Congregation. How does everyone else feel?

Regards,
Finrock

I agree: form and content first, moderators second.

[Orontes]

Howdy,

It's funny I was thinking along the same lines. Perhaps a Rule four:


1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saint members of the Congregation Forum are allowed to vote on moderators.

4. Any and all rules are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.

I think we may need a sticky that notes membership. This list would indicate voting privileges and be subject to update as more join over time.

I replaced the "Alternative approach" rules with the following:

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators. Any huge objections to that, we can just roll it back. At some point, once we have finalized the two rule sets, we probaly need to vote on it, right? Or come to some concensus any way.

Vanhin

What are your thoughts on the four point model?

[Doc T]

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saint members of the Congregation Forum are allowed to vote on moderators.

4. Any and all rules are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.

I think we may need a sticky that notes membership. This list would indicate voting privileges and be subject to update as more join over time.
I agree with the above.

Doc

~

[Vanhin]

1. The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.

2. The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

3. Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saint members of the Congregation Forum are allowed to vote on moderators.

4. Any and all rules are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.

I think we may need a sticky that notes membership. This list would indicate voting privileges and be subject to update as more join over time.


I like it.

Vanhin

[Tonks]

The below can stand only up until the point where is bumps up against the staff chain of command and other site-wide rule etc. Site-wide appeal rules apply to the LDS Congregational forum as well. Your forum retains a considerable degree of autonomy but it is not an island.

This is probably just more of an FYI but if a moderator decision is appealed Admins are not bound by the below:

The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

[Tonks]

As of this moment I am opposed to any moderators within the LDS Congregation who are not LDS. Perhaps you can persuade me. For what reasons do you feel that this is important?

Regards,
Finrock

Hello,

Your forum supervisor(s) and Admin will not be LDS...there is nothing that you can do about that as it is site-wide policy (that forums must follow the chain of command to include supermods and admins). They'll be able to vote in your report threads if they are so inclined.

You don't need to vote (Red M) for any non-LDS mods at the basic moderator level, of course.

Just an FYI.

[Finrock]

Hello,

Your forum supervisor(s) and Admin will not be LDS...there is nothing that you can do about that as it is site-wide policy (that forums must follow the chain of command to include supermods and admins). They'll be able to vote in your report threads if they are so inclined.

You don't need to vote (Red M) for any non-LDS mods at the basic moderator level, of course.

Just an FYI.

The below can stand only up until the point where is bumps up against the staff chain of command and other site-wide rule etc. Site-wide appeal rules apply to the LDS Congregational forum as well. Your forum retains a considerable degree of autonomy but it is not an island.

This is probably just more of an FYI but if a moderator decision is appealed Admins are not bound by the below:

The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

Tonks,

Roger and Roger. :thumbsup: Thanks for the information.

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

What are your thoughts on the four point model?

I like the four point model. We may want to modify Rule 2 just to clarify that we understand that if a decision gets appealed high enough in the chain, it gets over ruled by the site rules. For example:

2. To the extent possible, The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1.

or something like that.

Regards,
Finrock

[Tonks]

^ That would work. And for the most part in appeals it is more of a process question than a rules question. User violated LDS FSR 1. Appeals. Looks like user did violate LDS FSR 1. Appeal denied. Etc etc. I doesn't always go like that but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

Otherwise I think that both sets of rules look good and whichever are picked I think will work.

[marvmax]

Hello,

Your forum supervisor(s) and Admin will not be LDS...there is nothing that you can do about that as it is site-wide policy (that forums must follow the chain of command to include supermods and admins). They'll be able to vote in your report threads if they are so inclined.

You don't need to vote (Red M) for any non-LDS mods at the basic moderator level, of course.

Just an FYI.
Yes tonks thanks for the advice and help.

I don't like rule 2 and never have. To me it sounds way too arbitrary. I also think we need to specifically spell out that there is to be not verbatim quoting of the Temple Ceremony. I can see a future event where it is posted, then deleted by an LDS moderator, then when the appeal comes in the admins say that there is no rule against it.

One other point of view. I think making a rule where we say that only LDS can be moderators smacks way too much of the way that the American Colonies were set up. Many came here because the wanted to worship freely and once they got here they started treating other religions the same way they were back home. This is something that the early modern prophets never did because they allowed other Churches to be built in towns like Navoo, and in Utah. I mean one thing that I always disliked about the old CF was that only Christians, as defined by CF, could be moderators. So the first thing we do is make a similar rule? Doesn't seem like the right way to act. I know there are non-LDS who would be fine moderators in the congregational forums.

[jeffC]

I don't like rule 2 and never have. To me it sounds way too arbitrary.
I've disliked it as well. To me it sounds un-necessarily authoritarian.

How about: Although input is welcome from all, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what is contrary to rule 1. Appeals may be made through normal channels.



I also think we need to specifically spell out that there is to be not verbatim quoting of the Temple Ceremony. I can see a future event where it is posted, then deleted by an LDS moderator, then when the appeal comes in the admins say that there is no rule against it.
I agree. It can be a simple rule; no need for legalese, but it should be there.

[Vanhin]

I've disliked it as well. To me it sounds un-necessarily authoritarian.

How about: Although input is welcome from all, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what is contrary to rule 1. Appeals may be made through normal channels.


I think that would work instead.



I also think we need to specifically spell out that there is to be not verbatim quoting of the Temple Ceremony. I can see a future event where it is posted, then deleted by an LDS moderator, then when the appeal comes in the admins say that there is no rule against it.


I agree. It can be a simple rule; no need for legalese, but it should be there.

Perhaps we should have an "Rulings" section right below the general ruleset, so that future moderation would be guided by precedent.

Any specific things that moderators and members decide on would go into that section, and that would include stuff like our temple ceremonies. This would be a living document and subject to "tweaking" where the general rule set would be static.

If having the Rules live like that is not possible, then we should reference a "Rulings" sticky in the rules and use it for this purpose.

I'm going to modify the wiki with what I am talking about, check it out.

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

So the current "Alternative approach" looks like this:


Latter-day Saints Congregation - Visitors Welcome!

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Although input is welcome from all, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1. Appeals may be made through normal channels.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.Rulings

Verbatim quoting of LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed, and will be removed.


Thoughts/comments on this please.


Vanhin

[Orontes]

So the current "Alternative approach" looks like this:

Latter-day Saints Congregation - Visitors Welcome!
The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Although input is welcome from all, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1. Appeals may be made through normal channels.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.Rulings
Verbatim quoting of LDS Temple Ceremonies, or linking to such, is not allowed, and will be removed. Thoughts/comments on this please.


Vanhin

I don't understand the need or purpose of the first clause after the semi-colon on rule 2. An LDS Congregation Forum is expected to be run by and slant toward LDS sentiments, just as an LDS Church does or an LDS activity. I don't think noting appeals exist is necessary either. I think save for some language as Finrock suggested in deference to greater site powers rule 2 is fine.

[Vanhin]

I don't understand the need or purpose of the first clause after the semi-colon on rule 2. An LDS Congregation Forum is expected to be run by and slant toward LDS sentiments, just as an LDS Church does or an LDS activity. I don't think noting appeals exist is necessary either. I think save for some language as Finrock suggested in deference to greater site powers rule 2 is fine.

Thank you. I do see what you are saying. One of the reasons why the stronger language was added originally, was to balance out the fact that we are allowing for more liberty for our guests than normal in the alternative rule set. So, you are saying that it should say something like this:

"2. The LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1"

Is that correct? I guess I do like it better like that, myself.

What do you think about the "Rulings" portion? So, rather than burden the static rules with a list of specific things, we would maintain an annex of rulings that were made based on the static rules. This would give new moderators something to work with so that they don't have to re-invent the wheel each time, and at the same time allow us to adjust rulings without meddling with basic principles we agree on as rules.

I think it's safe to say that the part about "temples" is something we all agree on, so it's a good "first" ruling. Perhaps the wording of that can be tweaked.

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I don't understand the need or purpose of the first clause after the semi-colon on rule 2. An LDS Congregation Forum is expected to be run by and slant toward LDS sentiments, just as an LDS Church does or an LDS activity. I don't think noting appeals exist is necessary either. I think save for some language as Finrock suggested in deference to greater site powers rule 2 is fine.
Or, are you saying we should back to something like this?

"2. To the extent possible, The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1."

Vanhin

[Orontes]

Thank you. I do see what you are saying. One of the reasons why the stronger language was added originally, was to balance out the fact that we are allowing for more liberty for our guests than normal in the alternative rule set. So, you are saying that it should say something like this:

"2. The LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1"

Is that correct? I guess I do like it better like that, myself.

What do you think about the "Rulings" portion? So, rather than burden the static rules with a list of specific things, we would maintain an annex of rulings that were made based on the static rules. This would give new moderators something to work with so that they don't have to re-invent the wheel each time, and at the same time allow us to adjust rulings without meddling with basic principles we agree on as rules.

I think it's safe to say that the part about "temples" is something we all agree on, so it's a good "first" ruling. Perhaps the wording of that can be tweaked.

Vanhin

Based on Tonks comments I think we have to go with at least some variant for rule 2: "To the extent possible, The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1."

As to a rulings list. I understand the sentiment. However, to the degree a list develops to that same degree the judgment of any Mods is curtailed. Prohibiting citation of temple rites or any voyeurism of the same is something we all agree on, but because it is so obvious I don't know if it is needed as a ruling. That is my initial take.

[Vanhin]

Based on Tonks comments I think we have to go with at least some variant for rule 2: "To the extent possible, The LDS congregation moderators and members are the absolute and decisive judges of what is contrary to rule 1."


Ok I see. So, something like the following:

"2. To the extent possible, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1. "


As to a rulings list. I understand the sentiment. However, to the degree a list develops to that same degree the judgment of any Mods is curtailed. Prohibiting citation of temple rites or any voyeurism of the same is something we all agree on, but because it is so obvious I don't know if it is needed as a ruling. That is my initial take.

Yes, that addition was a suggested answer to the whole "arbitrary" bit. Which may strengthen the decisions of our moderators on appeal. We may have to turn to something like this at some point, depending on how enforceable our rules end up being. So, let's at least keep that idea on the back burner.

Vanhin

[marvmax]

As to a rulings list. I understand the sentiment. However, to the degree a list develops to that same degree the judgment of any Mods is curtailed. Prohibiting citation of temple rites or any voyeurism of the same is something we all agree on, but because it is so obvious I don't know if it is needed as a ruling. That is my initial take.
While not discussing the Temple is obvious to all LDS, I think the discussion from the LDS Theology section makes it obvious that we need a rule stating not to do it upfront here. That will at least give us a starting point in the appeals process. Look at the appeals process that Brennin linked to to decide if it was OK to post about the temple. What a Kangaroo Court (http://foru.ms/t6056982-latter-day-saints-brennin-09-08-2007.html) that process is. I really think we need a definitive statement for it here.

[Vanhin]

We obviously have a couple of issues to bang out still on the "Alternative approach", for those who support it, but I wanted to get some idea of where everyone was at this point.

Obviously I support the alternative approach. Who else subscribes to that approach at this time?

Are there any who still support the initial approach?

Just quick show of hands would be in order I think.

Vanhin

[marvmax]

I actually like the first set of rules better. It looks like the second set might have more support, so I've been saying what I think we need to add to the second set to make the better. I'm not going to be an obstructionist on this however. I do think we need to give those who are participating time enough to chime in.

[Finrock]

OK, below I have the Alternative Approach with modifications to "fix" what I've seen as the major criticisms against it:

Latter-day Saints Congregation - Visitors Welcome!

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Only general discussion about the Temple, it's ceremonies and it's ordinances, are allowed.
To the extent possible, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1 and rule 2.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.I have in red the parts that I am suggesting as a way to accomodate the major objections to the Alternative Approach. This strengthens the ban on Temple desecration and the wording of rule 3 has been "toned down".

Regards,
Finrock

[Finrock]

We obviously have a couple of issues to bang out still on the "Alternative approach", for those who support it, but I wanted to get some idea of where everyone was at this point.

Obviously I support the alternative approach. Who else subscribes to that approach at this time?

Are there any who still support the initial approach?

Just quick show of hands would be in order I think.

Vanhin

I favor the Alternative Approach.

Regards,
Finrock

[Orontes]

OK, below I have the Alternative Approach with modifications to "fix" what I've seen as the major criticisms against it:

Latter-day Saints Congregation - Visitors Welcome!

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Only general discussion about the Temple, it's ceremonies and it's ordinances, are allowed.
To the extent possible, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1 and rule 2.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.I have in red the parts that I am suggesting as a way to accomodate the major objections to the Alternative Approach. This strengthens the ban on Temple desecration and the wording of rule 3 has been "toned down".

Regards,
Finrock

I like it.

The rules note the power/responsibility of LDS members within the Congregation. Do we need a rule or explanatory on who actually constitutes LDS Congregation membership? If so, then perhaps notation like: LDS congregation Forum members are comprised of those noted in membership sticky X. This sticky X would then need to be made and say grandfather in all current recognized LDS members. New LDS who show up could then request inclusion. If this is agreeable, then we would have to decide the process this is done: either moderators deciding and adding the person to the list, periodic votes for additions, or some other protocol (this would also need to be noted in the rules I suppose).

[Orontes]

We obviously have a couple of issues to bang out still on the "Alternative approach", for those who support it, but I wanted to get some idea of where everyone was at this point.

Obviously I support the alternative approach. Who else subscribes to that approach at this time?

Are there any who still support the initial approach?

Just quick show of hands would be in order I think.

Vanhin

I support the Alernative Approach.

[jeffC]

OK, below I have the Alternative Approach with modifications to "fix" what I've seen as the major criticisms against it:

Latter-day Saints Congregation - Visitors Welcome!

The guiding principles of the LDS congregation are love, respect, and kindness. Anything contrary to these principles are a violation of our rules.
Only general discussion about the Temple, it's ceremonies and it's ordinances, are allowed.
To the extent possible, the LDS congregation moderators and members have the final say on what violates rule 1 and rule 2.
Only Latter-day Saints will be considered as moderators of the LDS Congregation. Only Latter-day Saints are allowed to vote on moderators.
Any and all rules/rulings are subject to revision and that revision is determinable by members of the LDS Congregation.I have in red the parts that I am suggesting as a way to accomodate the major objections to the Alternative Approach. This strengthens the ban on Temple desecration and the wording of rule 3 has been "toned down".

Regards,
Finrock
I support this version.

Perhaps the administrative matters can be addressed in a appropriately labeled subsection, but not with the rules governing conduct.

[Freedom&Light]

I like it.

The rules note the power/responsibility of LDS members within the Congregation. Do we need a rule or explanatory on who actually constitutes LDS Congregation membership? If so, then perhaps notation like: LDS congregation Forum members are comprised of those noted in membership sticky X. This sticky X would then need to be made and say grandfather in all current recognized LDS members. New LDS who show up could then request inclusion. If this is agreeable, then we would have to decide the process this is done: either moderators deciding and adding the person to the list, periodic votes for additions, or some other protocol (this would also need to be noted in the rules I suppose).

This is actually quite easy to do. In WWMC, there is a sticky that either the OP or any other the mods can edit. People post that they are members of the forum, and the OP edits the list in the first post to reflect the most up-to-date list. This kind of list helps when voting for mods, because the election verification committee can make sure that each vote is cast by a member on the list, and will remove votes by nonmembers.

I would be happy to sticky the post, if the group wants this and someone starts the post. :)

[Finrock]

Perhaps the administrative matters can be addressed in a appropriately labeled subsection, but not with the rules governing conduct.

I agree. I think these rules are kind of like our "Constitution" and we can then make "bylaws" based on this Constitution which we can do by-and-by if necessary, but, these general principles ought to suffice.

Regards,
Finrock

[4godslove]

works for me.

[Ran77]

Hey, I just looked at the latest version of the rules. You guys have done an excellent job. This version has my full support. They look great.

:)

[Orontes]

This is actually quite easy to do. In WWMC, there is a sticky that either the OP or any other the mods can edit. People post that they are members of the forum, and the OP edits the list in the first post to reflect the most up-to-date list. This kind of list helps when voting for mods, because the election verification committee can make sure that each vote is cast by a member on the list, and will remove votes by nonmembers.

I would be happy to sticky the post, if the group wants this and someone starts the post. :)


Thanks for the reply. I'll make a thread in the LDS Congregation with a list. Could you make a sticky of it with the LDS Memers List noted?

It also looks like we are all agreed on the Congregation Rules. These should then also be stickied I guess?

The next step would be choosing moderators. How many Mods would be normal for a site our size, two, three?

Cheers.

[Freedom&Light]

3. To work reports, it requires consensus of 3 staff members. :)

Let me go sticky the rules, then, with a link to the wiki.

Is it ready to be snapshotted?

[Orontes]

3. To work reports, it requires consensus of 3 staff members. :)

I see. So, we need three minimum. A candidate must have 70% approval to assume the mantle, is that right, or is this also open to the particulars of the forum?



Is it ready to be snapshotted?

I think so. No one has taken issue with the rules as they stand presented.

[Freedom&Light]

70% is a site wide rule, so it still applies. :)

Great! Let me snapshot then. There are some reports already, so having the rules set is helpful in working them. :)

Yay! :tutu:

[Swart]

I just want to add that I would like to see at least one non-LDS moderator. It could be a requirement that the non-LDS moderator not have strong negative stance about the Church and must be a long term and well recognised participant in LDS discussions.

Groupthink is a thing to be avoided, IMO. This forum has come a long way in opening up the shop. I think it would be poor form to setup our own closed shop.

[Tonks]

I wish all of the site rules were this simple, frankly.