- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I wasn’t really satisfied with their justification text in the registration process, so I didn’t approve them as a user until sending an email. His first topic was the “cult” issue, a sensitive, hot-button conversation in our community. We need to keep an eye on him and coach a little. FYI:
Original justification:“I think I have a unique perspectative and experiences to add to the
forumn. I respect other peoples opinions and can discuss things in a clear,
fair, and reasonable way.”
1. Can you describe a little more about what your unique perspective might
be?
2. Are you someone seeking to participate in the community discussion
about finding positive new uses for Mormonism in your individual spiritual
journey?
His followup response:“I’ve been a member of the LDS church my whole life but I have been mostly inactive since returning from my mission. I’ve struggled with doubts about the Church for years but I don’t have any intention to ever leave the Church for good or to try to convince other people to leave. I mostly wanted to discuss some of the doctrines and history of the Church and spiritual experiences and what they mean.
Thanks,
DevilsAdvocate”
Sounds like a good candidate for NOM. I tend to think his name says more than he may have realized. …If he was “questioner-seeker” on the other hand… Look at me and my judging.
I have felt uneasy right from the start. That’s why I was as direct as I was in my last comment on the cult thread – to see exactly how he would react. If he comes back with a justification and no sense of understanding or contrition, I say he is a practical troll even if not a conscious one. We’ll see, but I agree he needs to be watched carefully. I thought the cult thread was worthy of parking the post. I was surprised some of you responded. I agree he seems a bit like a troll. Dirtdarte – Not liking this initial comment from this newbie either. It’s on the cult accusations thread. Is this thread just a troll magnet? The word “cult” is such a loaded gun. Having said that, I don’t really disagree with some of the criticisms Dirtdarte levels at the church (mostly at unquestioning members of the church), just that the existence of people with those traits would qualify the church as a cult. It’s a pretty big leap of logic to me.
I disapproved his topic and sent him a PM to let him know. I also locked down the thread. We gave it a good shot. It just kept drifting back to a negative dogpile on the Church. Thanks, Brian. I agree that it would have spiraled out of control very quickly. He’s at it again. Here is the link to his latest comment on the old Joseph Smith as a prophet post: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1059&start=30#p14154 I understand the position he is stating, and it’s reasonable in and of itself as a clasic black-and-white paradigm, but then at the end he lays out a strawman that implies Joseph, as not a real prophet, was a liar and conman – based on his first paragraph. It’s like he’s trolling for threads where he can make comments that are in line with what he posted in the cult thread – that draw everything in black-and-white and leave no room for shades of gray and nuance.
I answered directly again in order to see how he will respond, but he’s only commenting on this type of thread and only in a negative way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.