- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree the sifting thread has strayed way off course, and acknowledge my part in that. I’m good with locking it. Thanks Roy for your efforts here and with Watcher. I had a somewhat busy weekend (we’re redoing the bathroom floor) and wasn’t on the forum a lot after the sex abuse post, but I had to get that out. I did not see Watcher’s response before you intervened, thanks for taking quick action there. That post is troubling on multiple levels. I agree that his aim seems to be finding fault in other’s logic, perhaps just wanting to argue. The thing is, there’s not much logic in religion or faith – faith is inherently illogical.
Right! It is logical IF you accept the major assumptions of the worldview. When the JW’s came over they felt that I was a golden investigator because I could follow the logic of all of their positions based on 1) the idea that the bible is the perfect word of God and 2) their particular interpretation of particular verses that they use as doctrinally significant. They stopped coming by when they discovered that we had some big differences in the underlying assumptions on which they were hoping to build their case.
There can be great comfort in a world where everything is simple and dichotomous. God vs. Satan, Heaven vs. Hell, Good vs. Evil. To break everything down into those boxes makes the world appear much more simple and in that way also more logical.
I think Wayfarer used to refer to this as a schema – for example, if I can get you to accept that the BoM is truly the Word of God then I can logically argue for you to take all sorts of positions (JS was a true prophet and the COJCOLDS is the true church) reasonably and logically based on this first major assumption.
I have heard that argument relatively often Roy, and not all that long ago in GC as I recall. If the BoM is true (as one puts Moroni 10 to the test) then all the rest of it must be true – Joseph was a prophet, he organized true the church, etc. I’ve also heard it put if Joseph was a prophet then the BoM is true, etc. But like many other things I don’t think the dominoes actually fall like that. The Joseph could have been a prophet but why does that guarantee the BoM isn’t made up? Back to Watcher, I really appreciate Nibbler’s response in the heaven thread. Short, to the point. I did a much longer answer to say the same thing. I thought about not responding and sort of letting it go and see what happens. I think it does fit the forum though because there’s the opportunity to show people stuck in the dogma that there really are multiple points of view regarding heaven other than the church’s version. I think it’s very much akin to SD’s daughter post – a child “going astray” is not the end of the world or anyone’s eternity. People need to hear that (probably people like Watcher). I’m cautiously awaiting Watcher’s response. Family reunion (wife’s side) Saturday so I’ll pretty much be out of commission that day.
And speaking of SD, he’s clearly in one of his depressive valleys.
We are close to the point where we might need to ban Watcher. I don’t want to do it, but we have tried to help him see that this doesn’t appear to be a good fit for him. I think he saw the forum name and assumed we were like FAIR and FARMS – and I am quite certain he did not dig into the archives and see how we discuss things. My last message was quite blunt, as others have been. We will see how he responds.
Thank you old-timer. I agree. I agree as well. He doesn’t seem to get it and doesn’t seem to want to. Of late it seems he has been avoiding responding to our moderation posts as if ignoring them makes them go away. Is a PM warning in order? I believe the addition of lots of language like this in his more recent posts is his response to moderation: Quote:I do not give these principles because I think I know all or the only possible answers but…
Quote:I welcome any and all criticism or other comments. As a side note – I am not afraid of any criticism, nor do I find angst in comments contrary to my opinions. …
Quote:I did not intend these to be the answer to all questions but…
I think it’s less him ignoring the moderation and more him not understanding the reasoning behind the moderation. Now we see the I don’t know everything disclaimer right before he goes right back to trying to prove such and such.
I think we have tried to explain our reasoning for moderation. I suppose that doesn’t mean he thinks he should be moderated, although we have at times been very direct. Rather than just outright delete it I moved the post “fracking” by watcher to the parking lot so we could discuss. While traditionally we have steered clear of politics here, there is no specific rule against politics. Either way, I don’t see how this topic is fitting with the mission and I fail to see how it’s gospel related. My vote is to delete and explain why, but I’m open to the thoughts of the team.
Some time ago we did add the following to the rules and etiquette page: Quote:Political DiscussionsMembers of the church around the world come in all different political and socio-economic stripes and colors. Politics and political discussions can elicit strong emotions in individuals and divide communities and families. While some members of the church live in areas where their political views are different from the majority view, this is generally not the sole reason people dissociate themselves from the church. The mission of StayLDS is to help people in their desire to maintain a relationship with the church. Discussions of politics not directly related to helping someone maintain their relationship with the church are therefore prohibited.
I read the fracking post. Even outside of politics, the post doesn’t appear to have anything to do with church or staying LDS, not even a little. He can take the discussion to the StayFracking message board.
I had remembered having the discussion, but forgot that it actually was done. Good on ya mate (a NZ phrase for “well done”). FWIW, fracking is a real hot topic where I live and has been for more than a decade. Fracking is happening less than 5 miles from my house in Pennsylvania where it is still hotly debated, and it is not happening in New York where it is also hotly debated. It is as polarized – and as polarizing – as abortion.
I saw that post before seeing this one and missed that it had been moved to the parking lot for discussion. 😳 I deleted it and wrote a specific post explaining that political posts are not appropriate for this site and will be deleted.
Then I saw the newest comments in this thread and realized I had deleted it unnecessarily.
I’ve done similar things before, so no worries. I had sent a note to Watcher explaining that the post was under review and why, and that they should not expect it to be approved.
Watcher’s posts are becoming tiring. I don’t think they add anything by way of support… other than to remind me why I stopped attending Sunday School. He’s constantly flirting with violating the rules of ettiquite:
Quote:Please do not start discussions that lead to a debate with the results of finding the one correct answer to a problem. Topics like this will probably be moderated.
I’ve largely ignored them but was curious as to what others thought. I’ve been touchy lately and can’t trusty my judgement.
I agree, but I can be touchy around orthodox types. His recent post in the two churches thread sounds very Sunday Schoolish – “only in the one true church” are the pre-earth and correct version of post earth life (which is not actually correct, Givens explains early Christian belief in the pre-earth, and the Catholic idea of purgatory bears some resemblance to spirit prison).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.