Discussion of Unorthodox Theology and its subforums

[synger]

Summary of the discussion thread (for discussion, see posts below)

Suggestion:

I suggest, in light of this discussion (below), that we eliminate the current LDS, JW, Unitarian/non-Trinitarian, and Trinitarian subforums under Unorthodox Theology and move all their threads into the main Unorthodox Theology forum.

I further suggest that we update the current description of Unorthodox Theology "A forum to discuss theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism)" to specifically mention these doctrinal groups, "A forum to discuss theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Latter Say Saints (Mormons), Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian/Non-Trinitarians)"

In addition, I think that the moderators of this forum and their admins should work together to outline a framework for moderation and communication going forward after this change.

Possible reasons for the large number of reports in LDS Theology:

There seems to be some confusion about whether the Unorthodox Theology subforums are debate forums or have the special privileges of "congregational" forums. In addition, some LDS seem to get very defensive about any discussion against LDS doctrines, and consider all such discussion to be flames, bashing, and personal attacks, and thus they report them. A number of these reports end up being considered NV. On the other hand, there also seems to be a lot of snide commentary on both sides, where a post begins as a discussion of doctrine, and ends with a more personal attack, sometimes very subtle, that is allowed to slide.

Positives to having just one big Unorthodox Theology forum:

Some users who were active when there was one UTD forum think the reporting problem was not so bad then. It did push the discussion threads down, but there are many active forums where the current threads go 1-3 pages. If there was only one big Unorthodox forum for debate might help to more clearly define the forums. We'd have the Unorthodox Theology discussion forum, and the Unorthodox Theology fellowship forum. It might more clearly delineate "here is debate" and "here is fellowship."

Concerns about having just one big Unorthodox Theology forum:

However, if there is one Unorthodox Theology forum for discussion/debate, it needs to be very clearly stated in the description of the forum that this includes discussion of JW, LDS, non-Trinitarain thought. We want to avoid people going into the fellowship forums (which are clearly labeled with "LDS", "JW" and "Non-Trinitarian") for debate and discussion. Someone looking for a place to discuss and debate a subject related to LDS theology might be much more likely to start a debate thread in the fellowship forum that has "LDS" in its title than in a main forum for "Unorthodox Theology"

Other issues:

Bias in moderation: There is a perception by the LDS that the moderators will allow non-LDS posts where similar posts by LDS will be actioned (deleted) quickly. There were examples given of posts and threads that were almost exactly the same wording as that given by non-LDS, where the LDS one was actioned and the non-LDS one was not. The non-LDS came back with similar claims, that there have been thread cleanups where only non-LDS posts were removed, or non-LDS posts were removed/actioned that mirrored LDS posts that were not actioned.

Confusion between discussion/debate/disagreement and "attack" or "flaming": Some LDS claim to have been attacked when doctrine is discussed, hwever it has been explained that discussing/debating does not equal attacking and that it is clear that, even if it was an attack, that it was doctrine that was attacked, not themselves; some of them said that attacking doctrine is the same as attacking them. They seem to believe that when a person disrespects their doctrines, that is the same as disrespecting them personally. There are many posts where people claim to be pointing out the truth (on both sides) but which end up being reported as flaming.

Suggestions for more consistent moderation and better communication:

Clearer guidance from mods in threads: It might be helpful if when posting mod hats the moderators went into more detail about what is occuring in the thread that is not acceptable. For example, saying that a line of debate is acceptable, but the personal discussion is not. Maybe more frequent mod hats nudging us back on track would be helpful.

Clearer definitions: Some things that we might want to consider is what level of "off topic" discussion will be tolerated. There have been a number of thread that have broken down into personal arguments.

[synger]

There have been some concerns raised with the current structure of the Unorthodox Theology forum and its subforums. We'd like to hear from members who use these forum, and the moderators who work them.

The general problem is that some of the subforums are generating a disproportionately large number of reports. This is especially true of the subforums for debating specific doctrines. It is not a concern in the Fellowship subforum.

I am opening this thread so that members and moderators who use these forums can raise and discuss their concerns in an open dialogue.

It is my hope that this dialogue will help identify any issues in these forums and suggest possible solutions for them. I will try to facilitate the discussion when I can, and will update the summary wiki with the ideas and concerns that you raise.

Some ideas to get the discussion rolling:

Why do we have such a large number of reports from these doctrinal debate subforums?
What are the benefits and weaknesses of having the JW, LDS, Unitarian, and Trinitarian doctrinal debate subforums, rather than having all such debates in the Unorthodox Theology main forum?
Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?

[A New Dawn]

There have been some concerns raised with the current structure of the Unorthodox Theology forum and its subforums. We'd like to hear from members who use these forum, and the moderators who work them.

The general problem is that some of the subforums are generating a disproportionately large number of reports. This is especially true of the subforums for debating specific doctrines. It is not a concern in the Fellowship subforum.

I am opening this thread so that members and moderators who use these forums can raise and discuss their concerns in an open dialogue.

It is my hope that this dialogue will help identify any issues in these forums and suggest possible solutions for them. I will try to facilitate the discussion when I can, and will update the summary wiki with the ideas and concerns that you raise.

Some ideas to get the discussion rolling:

Why do we have such a large number of reports from these doctrinal debate subforums?
What are the benefits and weaknesses of having the JW, LDS, Unitarian, and Trinitarian doctrinal debate subforums, rather than having all such debates in the Unorthodox Theology main forum?
Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?

We have an inordinately large number of reports from the LDS forum, I know, because of a few persons's stated purpose for being there. They have said many times they do not wish to discuss things on this board because it is not bias towards them and are doing all they can to shut down discussions.

Last week was a good example. Several were not posting for a while around their conference time and the board was actually fairly productive. Discussions were actually discussions, and when they came back the threads degraded and the reports increased 100-fold.

When I get 4 to 8 reports on my post a day, and most of them are no violation (and the one or two that are are just responses to downright nasty posts), it borders on harassment, to be honest.

Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?

I haven't looked at the main UTD forum lately, but I don't think that the LDS forum is beneficial as it stands if no control of certain people is made. (I know staff talked about possible solutions for some of the problems, but so far nothing has been implemented and so the problem gets worse.) I don't think the problem was as bad when all of UTD was one forum instead of divided. I know that that pushed the regular threads down, those that weren't related to a specific church, but I think the overall number of active threads relating to the LDS have decreased and if the forum was put back together, little would fall back on the second page. (I don't understand why that was a problem to begin with, though, since many forums have 2 or 3 pages of current threads.)

[woden]

There has to be a happy medium found which is not an easy thing to achieve. The main reason for this is those who are part of the Unorthodox Theology Forum as a rule are not thought firstly to be regarded as Christian. There will always be an uneasy relationship between Orthodox and Unorthodox faiths. Everyone believes they are right and everyone else, although sincere, are misled. All that being true toleration has to be high on any agenda. Some forums have limits on who can post there as I have found to my cost. Others like the Jehovah's Witness forum are open to all. Therein any can post. People who are, were or will never be Jehovah's Witnesses. And with that comes the attitude of those with hidden agenda's or their negative experiences.

After the upheaval from the last move to here I feel things are starting to settle down. But maybe threads should be deleted that are old or have not had any responses for say 6 months. It would free up space to allow mods and others to moniter and handle situations better as and when they arise. Some threads go back years. Is there really a need for this? People will always ask questions about the beliefs of others. So by keeping the "shelf-life" of threads at a reasonable length we lose the threat of them becoming stale.

Hope this helps you in some small way.

Woden.

[stumpjumper]

Let me just answer some of the questions with a question of my own:

What other religious group or denomination other than LDS and JW have a separate debate forum at CF for discussing their theological views or beliefs?

The congregational forums are different than a specific debate forum to discuss the theological views of a group...

[synger]

You make a very good point, Woden. The fact is that the JW, LDS, and Unitarian forums are debate forums, and are open to all members. They are like the Mariology or Soteriology forums under General Theology -- forums where someone can go to discuss and debate a specific category of doctrine, history, and practice. In this case, you go to the JW subforum to discuss JW-specific history/doctrine/practice, the LDS subforum to discuss LDS history/doctrine/practice, etc.

The Theology forums do not as a rule put limitations on who can post. There are not memberships for the forums, nor protections for members.

The Unorthodox > Fellowship forum, however, has some of those protections, and not so many of the problems of the debate forums. That is why this dialogue is centered more on the "debate" forums rather than the "fellowship" forums.

[synger]

No other forums have specific denominational names, that is true. But by its very nature Mariology and Hagiography, for example, is a sort of de facto Roman Catholic/Orthodox debate forum. And Soteriology is a de facto Reformed debate forum. They deal with doctrines that are very heavily identified with a particular denomination.

I'm not sure how that might work in the Unorthodox Theology forum. Are there specific doctrinal "categories" that would work, rather than denominational ideas? That's kinda how the "Unitarian/Non-trinitarian" forum is set up -- to discuss a specific set of doctrines (non-trinitarianism) rather than a denomination per se.

Is that the sort of thing you are suggesting?

[synger]

We have an inordinately large number of reports from the LDS forum, I know, because of a few persons's stated purpose for being there. They have said many times they do not wish to discuss things on this board because it is not bias towards them and are doing all they can to shut down discussions.

Last week was a good example. Several were not posting for a while around their conference time and the board was actually fairly productive. Discussions were actually discussions, and when they came back the threads degraded and the reports increased 100-fold.

When I get 4 to 8 reports on my post a day, and most of them are no violation (and the one or two that are are just responses to downright nasty posts), it borders on harassment, to be honest.


Are you saying that some people do not wish to discuss things on the board, but they report others who are posting? When they came back and the "threads degraded" what had changed? Were members posting in a way that violated the rules?

I'm trying to help identify what exactly some of the problems are, so we can try to suggest some solutions. Any ideas?

[Wrigley]

There have been some concerns raised with the current structure of the Unorthodox Theology forum and its subforums. We'd like to hear from members who use these forum, and the moderators who work them.

The general problem is that some of the subforums are generating a disproportionately large number of reports. This is especially true of the subforums for debating specific doctrines. It is not a concern in the Fellowship subforum.

I am opening this thread so that members and moderators who use these forums can raise and discuss their concerns in an open dialogue.

It is my hope that this dialogue will help identify any issues in these forums and suggest possible solutions for them. I will try to facilitate the discussion when I can, and will update the summary wiki with the ideas and concerns that you raise.

Some ideas to get the discussion rolling:
Why do we have such a large number of reports from these doctrinal debate subforums?
What are the benefits and weaknesses of having the JW, LDS, Unitarian, and Trinitarian doctrinal debate subforums, rather than having all such debates in the Unorthodox Theology main forum?
Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?

Something that comes up from time to time from some of the Mormon posters is the idea that the Mormon sub forum is their congregational forum so debate should not be allowed.

The context was that Mormons don't go to other congregational specific forums and debate that denominations doctrines. The point trying to be made was negative points of Mormonism should not be discussed in their forum. Now this point was denied by the poster who made it, but the implication was clear as at least one other Mormon poster made a like point.

What should be made clear that apart from fellowship forums that are set up in the Theology forum, all sub forums are for discussion and debate and any attempt to limit that debate by mass reporting of posts or by claiming the specific forum is for non critical discussion is against the rules.

Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?I think a rule needs to be put into place where if an individual poster reports the poster and the reporting poster has at least 5 posts where the posts are ruled NV, then the reporting poster shall be given a forum suspension for one week because this reporting behavior is considered harassment.

I suspect that I have been reported numerous times by one poster where my posts have been rules NV. This should limit the number of posts that are reported that are frivolous.

[A New Dawn]

Are you saying that some people do not wish to discuss things on the board, but they report others who are posting? When they came back and the "threads degraded" what had changed? Were members posting in a way that violated the rules?

I'm trying to help identify what exactly some of the problems are, so we can try to suggest some solutions. Any ideas?

To be honest, a lot of the problems stem back to the wiki where specific promises were made to the LDS because they didn't have a congregational (certain topic would have been made off-limits). When they were given the congrgational, the promises were rescinded and it was stated that topics would not be limited. That made a lot of the LDS angry and it has been pretty bad ever since. A couple have stated that they would rather have the discussions closed down than allow anything to be discussed, and, IMO, that what is happening.

They have, to quote their words, all gone to an LDS forum that will force discussions to be "civil" to them and they come back and state that they will not discuss things here but invite people over there for discussions and the posts that they post here are the equivalent of drive-by shootings. Loaded one-liners that are meant to belittle the person they quote and degrade the discussions. There is no other purpose for them because they do not pertain to the topic at least 75% of the time.

There are some that are here to discuss things and we actually get places working the problems out, but when ones from the above group get involved, the threads are usually closed within a day or two.

[Ran77]

As I understand it the LDS and others mentioned have their own subforum because they are determined to be not Christian and thre was a desire to keep them seperate from the Christian community.

I think the sub-forum should be done away with. But I don't think that will solve the problem. Or should I say problems.

The first is that the LDS sub-forum (since the other two see much less activity if I'm not mistaken) is really the place to come and attack the LDS for what they believe. It is ok to come there and tell the LDS that they are brain-washed, that their prophet is false, and that they are incapable of reading the Bible correctly. When that sort of behavior is acceptable, there is going to be problems. There is going to be a high amount of reporting.

The second problem is a bias in moderation. I know that posts that would be deleted within the hour (because they have) that I make are left alone if they are made my non-LDS. I know that threads that ask questions about the motives of Non-LDS will be shut down and deleted for baiting (because they have) while the same are left alone when the positions are reversed. If the LDS are reporting posts of non-LDS, that would be deleted if had been posted by them, then the problem is that moderators are much too eager to take action against the LDS. Maybe you should consider giving the LDS the same leeway in what constitutes a violation as you do the non-LDS. That will see the number of reports go down.

But it still leaves you with the first reason, which will not go away as long as it acceptable to attack others rather than discuss the topic.

[Wrigley]

Ran makes a point about attacking rather than discussing. Here's the thing. In many cases, any discussion that is critical of the doctrines of Mormonism are deemed attacks and those who complain say these should be limited or not allowed. If that were to be allowed, there is no point of discussing Mormonism at all. The forum would be used then to promote Mormonism.

If that same logic were to be carried out to the Soteriology forum, could there be any debate of Calvinism or Arminianism? I've seen some discussions that are as tough or tougher than anything in the Mormon sub forum. How are things handled there? According to the rules of the board, these kinds of issues should be handled the same way.
There should be no special treatment across the board because certain groups of posters feel attacked by legitimate criticism of Mormonism.

[Ran77]

Ran makes a point about attacking rather than discussing. Here's the thing. In many cases, any discussion that is critical of the doctrines of Mormonism are deemed attacks and those who complain say these should be limited or not allowed. If that were to be allowed, there is no point of discussing Mormonism at all. The forum would be used then to promote Mormonism.

If that same logic were to be carried out to the Soteriology forum, could there be any debate of Calvinism or Arminianism? I've seen some discussions that are as tough or tougher than anything in the Mormon sub forum. How are things handled there? According to the rules of the board, these kinds of issues should be handled the same way.
There should be no special treatment across the board because certain groups of posters feel attacked by legitimate criticism of Mormonism.

That is one of my points. They are already being handled differently. The LDS have posts removed that would go untouched if they were made by non-LDS. If this website wants people to be agressive and attack one another then they need to be fair about it and let us relatiate, if we so choose. As I said in my post, one of the reasons for the problems is an unlevel playing field.

[Wrigley]

How do you prove biased moderation? I've had the thought the Mormon posters are given more leeway. I've sat in the stands of many basketball games where both teams and coaches and sets of fans are very unhappy with how a game is reffed. Seems to me, if both sides are equally suspicious of bias, then the mods are probably doing there jobs fairly. Casting a focus on the problems on the mods does not help. Don't you agree?

I maintain that though you, and when did you get to speak for all the Mormons here, do want to limit the discussion here. I suspect that your level of tolerance of criticism is very high and will never be met.

[A New Dawn]

Ran makes a point about attacking rather than discussing. Here's the thing. In many cases, any discussion that is critical of the doctrines of Mormonism are deemed attacks and those who complain say these should be limited or not allowed. If that were to be allowed, there is no point of discussing Mormonism at all. The forum would be used then to promote Mormonism.

If that same logic were to be carried out to the Soteriology forum, could there be any debate of Calvinism or Arminianism? I've seen some discussions that are as tough or tougher than anything in the Mormon sub forum. How are things handled there? According to the rules of the board, these kinds of issues should be handled the same way.
There should be no special treatment across the board because certain groups of posters feel attacked by legitimate criticism of Mormonism.

I have stressed several times, after the LDS claim to have been attacked when doctrine is discussed, that discussing/debating does not equal attacking and that it is clear that, even if it was an attack, that it was doctrine that was attacked, not themselves; some of them said that attacking doctrine is the same as attacking them. However they seem to have no inhibition against attacking us personally, calling us minions of darkness, pawns of Satan, calling our discussions/posts "religious pornography". The level of pure nastiness coming from the LDS, just because they feel they shouldn't have to debate their theology, is overwhelming. The simple solution is for them to not be allowed to post if their purpose is to harass and malign. As I stated earlier, there are some who do want to discuss things and things progress fairly smoothly with them.

[Wrigley]

I have stressed several times, after the LDS claim to have been attacked when doctrine is discussed, that discussing/debating does not equal attacking and that it is clear that, even if it was an attack, that it was doctrine that was attacked, not themselves; some of them said that attacking doctrine is the same as attacking them. However they seem to have no inhibition against attacking us personally, calling us minions of darkness, pawns of Satan, calling our discussions/posts "religious pornography". The level of pure nastiness coming from the LDS, just because they feel they shouldn't have to debate their theology, is overwhelming. The simple solution is for them to not be allowed to post if their purpose is to harass and malign. As I stated earlier, there are some who do want to discuss things and things progress fairly smoothly with them.You are quite correct in your assessment. There appears to be an inability to see a difference between Mormons and Mormonism.

Your comments about the other remarks were the ones I was thinking about. And for the sake of moving forward, why not let every thing be equal about name calling?

[fatboys]

I have stressed several times, after the LDS claim to have been attacked when doctrine is discussed, that discussing/debating does not equal attacking and that it is clear that, even if it was an attack, that it was doctrine that was attacked, not themselves; some of them said that attacking doctrine is the same as attacking them. However they seem to have no inhibition against attacking us personally, calling us minions of darkness, pawns of Satan, calling our discussions/posts "religious pornography". The level of pure nastiness coming from the LDS, just because they feel they shouldn't have to debate their theology, is overwhelming. The simple solution is for them to not be allowed to post if their purpose is to harass and malign. As I stated earlier, there are some who do want to discuss things and things progress fairly smoothly with them.

Rarely have I reported anyone. I just normally blow it off, and answer as if they had been respectful. Unfortunately that does not always happen with LDS posters. When a person disrespects their doctrines, that is the same as disrespecting them personally. And it goes on both sides. But usally the LDS side does so in retaliation. Most of the time, a non LDS can start their post very well, but end in little jabs. I know non LDS see this. LDS as well see this, and it is just a rub that need not be. There are times, when I wish LDS posters would just forget the disrespect and continue on as if it did not happen. Responding in kind is not the right thing to so. But presenting the disrespect in the first place is wrong as well.

[A New Dawn]

Rarely have I reported anyone. I just normally blow it off, and answer as if they had been respectful. Unfortunately that does not always happen with LDS posters. When a person disrespects their doctrines, that is the same as disrespecting them personally. And it goes on both sides. But usally the LDS side does so in retaliation. Most of the time, a non LDS can start their post very well, but end in little jabs. I know non LDS see this. LDS as well see this, and it is just a rub that need not be. There are times, when I wish LDS posters would just forget the disrespect and continue on as if it did not happen. Responding in kind is not the right thing to so. But presenting the disrespect in the first place is wrong as well.

Christ calls us to stand for the truth. Speaking out against things that are not seen as the truth, at things that completely contradict scripture, is what a Christian is called to do. It is not disrespectful to counter what we perceive to be an error. Can it be done disrespectfully? Yes, but the act of pointing out error, in and of itself, is not disrespectful.

Beliefs are not the person. Nor is the person their beliefs. Beliefs stand apart from a person and they can be learned and unlearned. To say that if one disagrees with another's beliefs they are disrespecting them, and that if someone disrespects another's beliefs they are disrespecting that person is hogwash. Some beliefs need to be disagreed with. Some beliefs need to be shown the light of day.

[Wrigley]

http://christianforums.com/t7168765-why-should-lds-answer-antagonistic-non-lds-critics.html

This thread is an example of the attempt to silence discussion in the Mormon forum. The thread starts off with a slam against those who oppose Mormonism. As you can see, discussion of contradictions between the book of mormon and the Bible is considered antagonistic by the thread starter. Threads like that are a problem there. Denials will come, but the purpose of that thread is to continue on with the tensions in the forum.

[skylark1]

There have been some concerns raised with the current structure of the Unorthodox Theology forum and its subforums. We'd like to hear from members who use these forum, and the moderators who work them.

The general problem is that some of the subforums are generating a disproportionately large number of reports. This is especially true of the subforums for debating specific doctrines. It is not a concern in the Fellowship subforum.

I am opening this thread so that members and moderators who use these forums can raise and discuss their concerns in an open dialogue.

It is my hope that this dialogue will help identify any issues in these forums and suggest possible solutions for them. I will try to facilitate the discussion when I can, and will update the summary wiki with the ideas and concerns that you raise.

Some ideas to get the discussion rolling:

Why do we have such a large number of reports from these doctrinal debate subforums?
What are the benefits and weaknesses of having the JW, LDS, Unitarian, and Trinitarian doctrinal debate subforums, rather than having all such debates in the Unorthodox Theology main forum?
Are there specific protocols that staff need to focus more on, or that need to be further clarified, to help bring civil discussion back to Unorthodox Theology?

Under the current set up, it isn't always clear that these forums are theology discussion and debate forums. Problems can arise when some people seem to consider the forum to be some sort of congregational forum, or thier forum where others should behave as guests. I am all for discussing the issues respectfully, however, I think that eliminating the subforums might help to at least more clearly define the foums. If this is done, I think that it needs to be labeled in a prominant place what this forum considers to be unorthodox theology; it need to clearly state that the subject matter of the forum includes LDS, Jehovah's witness, and non-Trinitarian theology.

If the subforums are eliminated, I think that there will be some confusion about the fellowship forums. Someone looking for a place to discuss and debate a subject related to LDS theology would be much more likely to start a debate thread in the fellowship forum. Do we need separate fellowship forums? The number of posts in the fellowship forums the past few months is small. If the subforums in the unorthodox theology are eliminated, perhaps it would also be a good idea to combine the fellowship forums into one forum.

I have several suggestions concerning what staff could do to help bring back civil discussion. We are at a disadvantage because we cannot see what staff discuss; what is considered a rule violation and what is not and why. Since I do not expect to see open reports, it might be helpful if when posting mod hats the moderators went into more detail about what is occuring in the thread that is not acceptable. For example, saying that a line of debate is acceptable, but the personal discussion is not. Maybe more frequent mod hats nudging us back on track would be helpful.

These external measures might help, but if we want to make these forums a place where civil discussion and debate can take place, it is going to come down to the attitudes that all of us have that post there. If we look to those who hold views that differ from ours, or views that we do not believe are true, as always being in the wrong; if we think that it is ok to talk down to and mock others; if the reasons why we come to the forum are not to discuss the issues, but to criticize the posters; if we are not treating others with honesty, patience, and kindness, then any improvement will be minor. It isn't all from one side.

Or perhaps the external measures would help to produce an internal change. Some things that we might want to consider is what level of off topic discussion will be tolerated. There have been a number of thread that have broken down into personal arguments. Somehow, I would like to see less of this tolerated. However, this might mean more work for the moderators at first. More frequent mod hats might be helpful. Is there a preferred method of requesting that a moderator to do this that doesn't require reporting a post?

[woden]

I have stressed several times, after the LDS claim to have been attacked when doctrine is discussed, that discussing/debating does not equal attacking and that it is clear that, even if it was an attack, that it was doctrine that was attacked, not themselves; some of them said that attacking doctrine is the same as attacking them. However they seem to have no inhibition against attacking us personally, calling us minions of darkness, pawns of Satan, calling our discussions/posts "religious pornography". The level of pure nastiness coming from the LDS, just because they feel they shouldn't have to debate their theology, is overwhelming. The simple solution is for them to not be allowed to post if their purpose is to harass and malign. As I stated earlier, there are some who do want to discuss things and things progress fairly smoothly with them.
Sounds like some are developing a persecution complex in that everyone is out to get them, which may be true in some cases but not in others. Yet everyone gets tarred with the same brush. There is as always no easy answer to the issue. Love and tolerance for anothers faith should be the heart of any discussion.

Each of us has a faith so we might do well to ask ourselves: Under what circumstances would I choose to change my faith? If the answer is on the basis of it will never happen or some very compelling evidence to the contrary then the answer is probably, No. Then we have to look at just how others feel about the same thing. Sadly some forum members consistantly show an immature attitude to others beliefs, especially to the LDS members. They are like all Unorthodox Theology groups there to be got at. The problem is they hate being "got at."

[A New Dawn]

Sounds like some are developing a persecution complex in that everyone is out to get them, which may be true in some cases but not in others. Yet everyone gets tarred with the same brush. There is as always no easy answer to the issue. Love and tolerance for anothers faith should be the heart of any discussion.

Each of us has a faith so we might do well to ask ourselves: Under what circumstances would I choose to change my faith? If the answer is on the basis of it will never happen or some very compelling evidence to the contrary then the answer is probably, No. Then we have to look at just how others feel about the same thing. Sadly some forum members consistantly show an immature attitude to others beliefs, especially to the LDS members. They are like all Unorthodox Theology groups there to be got at. The problem is they hate being "got at."

I understand how the LDS feel regarding persecution here at CF because I used to be unorthodox (I was RLDS) and was painted with the same brush the LDS are painted with. UTD was a very hard forum to post in, but it is much better now than it was before, when I was confined there. When I converted to orthodox Christianity I had made it my intent to go on staff and clean up UTD and apply the rules fairly, and even get the rules changed so that it wasn't so biased. And for the most part, it worked. Some of the more objective LDS left messages in several places that it was better after I went on staff.

It is nowhere near as bad today as it was 3-4 years ago. Is there persecution? It depends on your definition of the word persecution, but by the one they are using, yes there is, but it is no different than any other group has to face in the debate forums dedicated to their particular issues (Soteriology for the Calvinists (we've been told that we are neither Christians nor saved), the Mariology/Pateriology forum for the Catholics, etc), but I am of the opinion that short of changing this to a pro-LDS board and allowing promotion of their religion, they will continue to complain of being persecuted.

[Ran77]

How do you prove biased moderation?

When I copy another person's post, word for word, and mine is deleted while the other is left untouched - the only explanation is bias.

When you have posts of yours deleted because you said "thank you for that information" as part of a thread clean up that only includes your posts - the only explanation is bias.

When you have threads deleted that have the same title and theme, but reversed from the non-LDS thread, and your thread is deleted within the hour, but the other thread remains - the only explanation is bias.

When you appeal a decision and the moderators who hear the appeal agree that the posts, or threads, bear no significant diferrence from those that were found not to be in violation - that goes a long way to proving bias.


However, I am realistic enough to know that the bias will remain. And I'm not saying that there aren't moderators here who are very open minded and fair, but it only takes a couple of imperfect mortals with a bias against us to make this happen. And when the bias is visible at the very top - the owner making statements about the non-Christian status of the LDS - it is to be expected that the forums as a whole will reflect that same bias in uneven treatment to the group that is looked down upon.

I don't expect this dialogue here to help. But it is nice that someone was willing to allow our views to be expressed.

I still believe the LDS forum should be shut down. It provides no useful purpose - unless having a place to bash the LDS specifically is deemed to be useful. Truthfully, I would expect that Christians would want to provide an environment that the Savior Himself would feel comfortable in. And I can't even remotely imagine that this is it.


:tutu:

[A New Dawn]

When I copy another person's post, word for word, and mine is deleted while the other is left untouched - the only explanation is bias.

When you have posts of yours deleted because you said "thank you for that information" as part of a thread clean up that only includes your posts - the only explanation is bias.

When you have threads deleted that have the same title and theme, but reversed from the non-LDS thread, and your thread is deleted within the hour, but the other thread remains - the only explanation is bias.

When you appeal a decision and the moderators who hear the appeal agree that the posts, or threads, bear no significant diferrence from those that were found not to be in violation - that goes a long way to proving bias.


However, I am realistic enough to know that the bias will remain. And I'm not saying that there aren't moderators here who are very open minded and fair, but it only takes a couple of imperfect mortals with a bias against us to make this happen. And when the bias is visible at the very top - the owner making statements about the non-Christian status of the LDS - it is to be expected that the forums as a whole will reflect that same bias in uneven treatment to the group that is looked down upon.

I don't expect this dialogue here to help. But it is nice that someone was willing to allow our views to be expressed.

I still believe the LDS forum should be shut down. It provides no useful purpose - unless having a place to bash the LDS specifically is deemed to be useful. Truthfully, I would expect that Christians would want to provide an environment that the Savior Himself would feel comfortable in. And I can't even remotely imagine that this is it.


:tutu:

The problem is, the same thing happens to us. I have seen "thread clean-ups" that only included my posts when staff considered other posts violations. I have seen my posts called flaming when they do nothing but mirror other's posts.

The problem is the trends that have appeared, most noticably the ones where the posters come in and slam CF (in the midst of an uncontrolled fury) and then wonder why their posts get reported, and the ones who report others for "making it personal" all the while quoting posts and criticizing the person they are quoting. Nothing related to the topic at all. And my personal favorite, the drive-by posting.

But, you know, it's always someone else's fault. Why look at yourself when you can blame someone else?

:tutu:

[Wrigley]

When I copy another person's post, word for word, and mine is deleted while the other is left untouched - the only explanation is bias.

When you have posts of yours deleted because you said "thank you for that information" as part of a thread clean up that only includes your posts - the only explanation is bias.

When you have threads deleted that have the same title and theme, but reversed from the non-LDS thread, and your thread is deleted within the hour, but the other thread remains - the only explanation is bias.

When you appeal a decision and the moderators who hear the appeal agree that the posts, or threads, bear no significant diferrence from those that were found not to be in violation - that goes a long way to proving bias.


However, I am realistic enough to know that the bias will remain. And I'm not saying that there aren't moderators here who are very open minded and fair, but it only takes a couple of imperfect mortals with a bias against us to make this happen. And when the bias is visible at the very top - the owner making statements about the non-Christian status of the LDS - it is to be expected that the forums as a whole will reflect that same bias in uneven treatment to the group that is looked down upon.

I don't expect this dialogue here to help. But it is nice that someone was willing to allow our views to be expressed.

I still believe the LDS forum should be shut down. It provides no useful purpose - unless having a place to bash the LDS specifically is deemed to be useful. Truthfully, I would expect that Christians would want to provide an environment that the Savior Himself would feel comfortable in. And I can't even remotely imagine that this is it.


:tutu:That does nothing to prove bias. Only that you don't trust staff.

Bashing does not go on. Discussion does. I maintain that most mormons don't want Mormonism to be discussed at all. I've been to many forums, most Mormons from my experience see any discussion that does not promote Mormonism in a bright light is bashing. Until that is overcome, I don't believe you will be happy.

You see, the problem with sites like CF and CARM and others is that Mormons can't control it.

[synger]

Thank you for all your good discussion. I have updated the wiki page to incorporate my suggestions and outline the majority of the posts in this discussion thread. Please review it to make sure I've included all the major points raised here.