Cadence

[Anonymous]

I’ve been concerned about Cadence for a while now. Every comment he has left has been completely negative, with no support or attempt to add to our mission. He’s a long-time participant, so I’ve been hesitant to suggest anything formal or official, but his last comment (the one I deleted as a duplicate) is perhaps the best example of why I am concerned.

It is in the active thread about symbolism. He left his comment that symbolism is for when something can’t be true, after which a few people clarified their view of that statement – including a really good comment by Orson. Cadence’s response was to re-post his previous comment – word-for-word, like he simply had copied and pasted it into a new comment.

Aside from the concern I mentioned above, that is incredibly condescending and rude. It’s the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and raising his voice to drown out everyone else while repeating the same thing. When Shawn did essentially the same thing a while ago, everyone, including Cadence, rightly called him on it. I wouldn’t dream of doing that on any forum, much less one like this.

Is anyone close enough to him to call him on it and ask what his intention is at this point in participating – or should we simply ignore it for now and see how he responds to having his last comment deleted as a duplicate?

[Anonymous]

I just sent him a note asking what happened – before I saw this – I wondered if the full deletion was a mistake. I’ll see what he says.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Orson. I added the admin note instead of just deleting the comment to make sure he saw it and see if he said anything about it.

if it was a mistake, cool – but it doesn’t change my overall concern.

[Anonymous]

I sent another note saying he could edit out your note to express himself using different words than his comment above.

I take it as a sign of frustration that his original point was not validated or answered.

[Anonymous]

He’s at it again. His “Where’s the Beef?” post would be fine from a new participant, but from a long-time participant it is completely inappropriate – especially given how often he tells everyone he doesn’t believe anything the Church teaches. He appears to be trying, actively and intentionally, to pull people away from belief in anything the LDS Church teaches toward his own perspective.

I asked him directly in the comment thread why he posted it and how it furthers our mission, but how do we handle / address the overall issue?

[Anonymous]

He seems to be frustrated, but continually doing the same thing and expecting different results. I like that you called him out, we’ll see if he responds. I think that is probably the answer with cadence, he may either broaden his perspective if he sticks around or he may give up. While his question/statement was not phrased in the best way for our purposes, I think most of the responses on the topic may be helpful to lurkers that have similar questions. What we definitely don’t want is the Cadence frame of mind to gain traction and support here, but I don’t mind that it exists.

[Anonymous]

I know this is a bit of a broken record, but he did it again. Calling the Church a “stumbling block” (in totality) in the thread about whether it is the end or a means to an end, with no qualifications or focus on specific aspects – or even a simple “for me”), is over the line, especially for someone who has been around as long as he has. I would overlook it from a newbie, but he’s been around long enough to know better.

I can’t remember the last time he made a constructive, helpful comment that contributed meaningfully to the mission of the Church.

Should I start deleting comments like that – or continue telling him to knock it off – or what?

[Anonymous]

I am bumping this up for all of the newer moderators to see. I want you all to see that what happened again today and my telling him to knock it off has been happening for a long time – far longer than this thread even.

I was more direct and pointed in my last comment to him, since he hasn’t listened to the previous warnings. I don’t like to threaten longtime participants, but he still is commenting solely to throw insults at the Church and believers – and he is doing it ways now that are even more direct and derogatory.

I’m really frustrated with him, but I took a long time writing and editing my comment to be very direct while still trying to explain fully why I wrote it. If anyone thinks I was too harsh with him, let me know – and let me know how you think Inshould edit it.

[Anonymous]

It didn’t raise any red flags for me on the initial read but I wasn’t scrutinizing the post and I don’t know the history other than what’s just been bumped in the admin forum just now, but I read that long after I initially read the post. I may not have put much weight on his last sentence until the spotlight was shined on it, but I wasn’t thinking implication, I was just seeing someone blow off some steam.

Quote:

When I started think rationally and for myself things became more clear. All the historical inconsistencies and doctrinal strangeness just confirmed what I perceived on my own. I just wonder why it took so long it figure it all out. It speaks to the power Mormonism has over its members, especially those raised in the church.

I don’t have any issue with the part I didn’t underline. “Rationally” is a bit of a dig but it’s ambiguous. You could take that to mean that he feels Mormonism is irrational or that his approach to Mormonism was irrational – being charitable.

The underlined portion:

To be completely honest on the initial pass I was more… offended is too strong a word, maybe drawn in… by the implication that people raised in the church have it any better or worse than people that weren’t. People that are converts can be “in” just as deep as people that are BIC. I didn’t respond because I didn’t feel too strongly about my opinion, I’m heavily influenced by my perspective as a convert, and he could be right after all. The dig on Mormonism didn’t initially register, maybe the last part of the sentence masked it from my view.

I think the last sentence could be diffused by changing the language to something along the lines of “It speaks to the power that a black and white mindset can have” …but he didn’t say that.

I felt the admin response was a little harsh (I’m afraid to post in the thread now ) but again, I don’t know the history, the warnings, or more importantly Cadence. I agree though, I don’t want a negative tone to take over. The overall non-negative tone of StayLDS helps provide an example of how to hold the beliefs we hold without becoming negative, it’s vital.

I feel for Cadence because I feel where he’s coming from. I think some of us are in a difficult position and a little steam comes out of the cracks every once and a while… even years later. Trying to find a middle ground can be like walking the razor’s edge, walking on the razor edge can cut up your feet, and when it starts to hurt again it’s usually more comfortable to walk just “left” of center. Emotion can overpower logic.

I don’t know that I’d change anything in your response, I’m not smart that way. I’ll just post the equivalent to an uncomfortable cough, a little eye contact with the people that were uninvolved in the exchange, and change the subject.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the heads up. I found the comment more in the nature of another forum. I think they talk that way all the time. I agree with Nibbler that we all have razor’s edge days, my biggest concern is newcomers and lurkers. I love discussion and venting, but hard line statements will move this board to another direction.

I like Cadence but I think the mission statement needs to come first.

[Anonymous]

At my first reading I didn’t really give that line a second thought. It was Cadence, after all, and while I don’t agree with much of what he says I can tolerate it. My first gut reaction to the line in question was that Mormonism does have a hold on some people – from a certain point of view. That is, there are people to who that applies, typically those who we would consider the most orthodox or most black and white thinkers, those that are so afraid of doubt or questioning that they refuse to think outside the box. I agree that it is an unfair generalization for either the church or members of the church. Like Mom says, on the NOM site (where I think he does participate under a different user name) this would be a normal statement, but is less appropriate here. In context of the larger picture of this type of thing going on for a very long time with Cadence and with multiple prior warnings (some of which I have seen as admin notes), perhaps a more stern tone is in order. The funny thing is, that despite the fact I don’t like or agree with many of his comments I kind of like him.

[Anonymous]

It definitely had a hard edge to it, but I didn’t read it and think, Whoa, he’s going to get called out on that. Maybe you were more inclined to because the thread, overall, is on the negative side – everyone giving the run down on their FC.

[Anonymous]

That might have been part of it, Ann, and I appreciate that input – but mostly it is his constant charge that all believers are illogical and foolish. I like him, but he also has been and is condescending and insulting here – and he has never tried to support our mission.

That is my main concern. This is not NOM, and he knows it – but he flat-out refuses to accept that and fights it constantly.

[Anonymous]

The interesting thing about Cadence is that he is stayingLDS. My read over the years is that he frankly doesn’t believe the church and is agnostic or atheist.

But he continues to go to church for social/relationship reasons. This is his way to make it work.

In the past I hoped he would realize he could participate productively with his ideas if he would just add his ideas but more balanced or kind to others struggling.

But…he doesn’t seem to change. He adds his thoughts, and many others identify with him.

It is frustrating for a moderator when he isn’t getting the coaching points, but I don’t see it too harsh to move to ban him or something.

I think most people have a similar reaction as nibbler, DJ, mom3 and ann seem to have…which is that it has an edge, but isn’t too bad or disruptive to the discussion.

I kind of like him too, DJ.

Ray, you’ve had the most interaction with him. I’m supportive of your guidance on it.

[Anonymous]

I just deleted a comment of his that said anyone who can leave the Church should do so, since raising kids in the Church will damage them for life. It wasn’t can or might; it was universally will (and he thumbed his nose at us by adding “in my opinion”). It was comprehensive and blatant. He now is actively fighting our mission. I am sure he is mad at me, but the comment was an all out attack. Seriously, it might be the most blatant attack we have had here since the site began seven years ago.

That is my last straw.

I can’t be the one who calls him on it, and I also won’t allow participants to encourage others actively to leave. If it were my decision alone, I would ban him, but I am willing to not do so if you all think we shouldn’t and if someone wants to reach out and talk with him privately.

What do you all think?

[Author]

Posts