- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We need to keep an eye on bridget_night. There’s nothing wrong at all with the general topic of her last post, but she’s continuing to walk a fine line between our mission and actually prostelyting against the LDS Church. Sometimes, I’m not sure which side of that line is attached to her feet. Her Gift of the Holy Ghost post is a good example. There is nothing blatantly bad about it, but there also is nothing “StayLDS” about it. In essence, it says the exact same thing as almost all of her posts:
Quote:We now attend the Church of the Nazarene. We love the people, and they are teaching us how wrong the LDS Church is about (fill in the blank). Do you agree that the LDS Church is wrong about (fill in the blank)?
Coming from someone else, with the same question framed differently, I would have no problem with it whatsoever. However, I honestly can’t get a read on her motivation, and that concerns me.
What think ye?
See if she picks up on my response. She has gone from Stage 3 mormonism, to stage 3 Nazarene, IMO. Based on her response to you, Heber, I personally think she has absolutely no interest in StayingLDS and isn’t trying in any way to help others do so. I don’t know what to do, or if we need to do anything.
Thoughts would be appreciated.
I rarely read what she writes, except maybe a quick skim to get the gist and make sure there isn’t something glaringly wrong. There never seems to be anything engaging about them. Her posts are either self promotions (book, etc.), or they are formatted like Ray pointed out. Old-Timer wrote:I don’t know what to do, or if we need to do anything.
What bugs me about it is that I feel it puts me in a position to have to respond to moderate it and make the point that she is not evenly representing valid LDS and non-LDS views alike, but is clearly lop-sided towards “things are so much better outside the church”, so I feel the need to balance her comments…that’s just my take on her readings, which haven’t changed in over a year as far as I can remember.However, as I read through the Rules of Etiquette again to see if anything is blatantly being violated…I don’t see anything that warrants action. Perhaps there is gray area, especially around the fact she doesn’t seem to be working towards or presenting any solutions…just sharing she likes Nazarenes better than Mormons, with no real solution on how she reconciles that with efforts to stay in the church.
I can be tolerant of it because she is usually respectful in her tone, and not over-bearingly critical.
But since the messages haven’t changed in over a year, I’m like Brian…nothing interesting to read.
I don’t sense others in the community are bothered by her messages.
To answer your question, Ray…I don’t feel the need to take any extreme action in terms of PMs or banning. But I’m happy to send her another response to nudge the issue and remind her of the site mission. She may not change, and I’d be ok with it because it isn’t stirring trouble, but it may be of value to make the point the rest of the community so the site mission is revisited in everyone’s minds.
I will wait to hear a response from the admins before making a post…just to make sure we’re in alignment or if you think otherwise.
Heber, how about you sending her a PM just asking about her purpose in the last post? Nothing challenging, but just something like, “I was wondering, because I’m not sure how to respond . . . “
Ya, I sent her a PM. Will let you know what she says. Bridget’s response:
Quote:Hi Heber,,, I just wanted to know if people on the group thought the lds church had a monopoly on the gift of the HG. It seems those who replied to me do not believe the lds church has a monopoly on it and that was satisfying to me. I was not trying to say anything against the church or that they do not have the HG in the lds church. I just believe the lds church is wrong in stating only lds baptized members have the gift of the HG. I did not mean to make any big deal. In fact I think many of the things the lds church teaches about the HG are correct. Does that help? I just don’t want you to think I was bashing the church or that I did not still care about the church.
Any thoughts?
Yeah, I think it’s interesting that she immediately knew that her post sounded like she was bashing the Church. “Caring about the Church” and wanting to help people stay LDS are very different things – and I’m sure she knows that. I think she’s looking to help people leave the Church without feeling bad about the Church – but I might be very wrong about that.
Oh, and, as always, she managed to work her gay son into the post by mentioning him in her follow-up comments. I was waiting for that, frankly.
I really think she’s an issue advocate, at the most fundamental level,and just couldn’t do that inside the LDS Church – so she found a religious community where she could be that advocate openly and aggressively. I’m happy for her, but she certainly doesn’t fit our mission in any way. I don’t think we should take any administrative action, but I do want to keep an eye on her posts and comments and see if the pattern continues – and re-visit this discussion later, if necessary.
I’d probably get more stern with her if she continues. See how she reacts to this exchange in future comments. I frankly ignore her stuff too, but I think we have to remember that most of our audience are lurkers, not the commenters. I agree with Ray that she’s an issue advocate, and I also believe she has some mental problems (depression, etc.) that make her a bit unstable. I just deleted bridget’s latest comment, both because of the content and because I want to see how she responds. It was in the good days, bad days post, and it explained why she left the LDS Church, how she thinks about how she might fit in if she started attending again, how that would be next to impossible and how much she loves the Nazarene Church she’s attending currently. Then she asked, “What does everyone think about that?”
That was it. The only reasonable response would have been, “Yes, bridget, you did the right thing by leaving – and you’re probably right that you wouldn’t fit in anymore – and I’m glad you found a wonderful church that works for you – but quit trying to tell people very subtly that they need to leave the LDS Church if they don’t fit in perfectly. That’s not our purpose, and we’ve told you that already.”
I’ll see how she responds to the deletion.
If I over-stepped our boundaries, let me know – seriously.
She sent me a PM asking me if her post was deleted and why. She doesn’t see it now. I think we at least need to tell her we deleted it and why. I’m on the fence about her. I don’t think she fits our paradigm, nor do I think she contributes important ideas to the conversations. I feel like most of her posts are self-promotion or self-congratulatory. Fine for her. *Shrug* But it doesn’t make for compelling content on our site.
On the other hand, I don’t want to be in the habit of chasing off folks who are different, or who are borderline. That seems too … I don’t know. It’s too much like the kind of problem that drives folks in the Church to seek refuge elsewhere in a community like ours — the lack of acceptance and tolerance.
If Bridget gets offended and leave, I don’t really care though ultimately. I don’t think she contributes much if any value to the conversation. (Except as like Ray points out — how some people are better served by leaving the Church).
Oh yeah, one other thing. It’s more standard procedure to move posts to the parking lot instead of deleting them. That way, at a minimum, we have a record of why we boot people out and/or spike their posts. Certainly it has been a borderline issue for a while, I think because she is mostly respectful and not bombastic (to use John Larsen’s favorite word 
However, I support Ray’s call on this because one thing I notice is that she often goes for the Introductions posts, or the “newbies” on the site with a semi commercial for her issues or leaving the church. The concern is many people search around the Internete and like a positive supportive place to open up about issues, and while all of us are open to a person deciding to leave the church or find other churches, that isn’t the first message they need to hear, I don’t think.
To compare to someone else like cwald, cwald has serious issues with the church and I don’t think attends much if at all now, but doesn’t lead with introducing himself to others that way…he sticks to issues and has opinions, but Bridget seems to seek validation or show she is better off without the church, and that just isn’t the mission here. I wouldn’t mind it coming up in conversation, and I think we are tolerant of people sharing that, but not bombard a new person with negatives of the church or how awesome Nazerenes are. She does it subtly, but still does it, which is why I think it sits wrong with all of us, even though she is respectful in tone.
Just my take. Perhaps feedback to her is that she isn’t intentionally doing it, but is less supportive to others by her constant messages she touts. It’s very borderline in my mind.
I agree. She always sounds like she craves validation and is a (even if sub-conscious) missionary for her perspective. I also wish we could be most inclusive, so I’m torn.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.