Commenting Policy
Here at Our Thoughts, behind the scenes, we have been discussing what appears to be a decline in not only quantitative comments but qualitative comments. We have pinpointed what we see as being the causes. In addition, we have determined in order to address those causes, we need to implement some policies regarding commenting.
Enter our new commenting policy.
We encourage all new and longtime readers to familiarise themselves with the new policies. By adhering to them, we can all help make Our Thoughts a better place to come, chat and learn.
A couple of things to note.
As a result of the policy, past threads created as “open threads” for specific individuals will be deleted. Those persons wanting to post unrelated comments (i.e. use Our Thoughts as their own blog) are encourage to start a blog elsewhere. Blogger.com, for example, allows you to set up a new blog in seconds.
In addition, more comments will be moderated in a hope to address some of the underlying issues. In addition past comments will be purged, but only over time; this will take a while.
Feel free to comment on our new policy, but be aware that this is not a democracy and your comments may not have any effect on how things are administered here.
Popularity: 5% [?]
I beleive this is a great thing allowing others who may have been just sitting there lurking in the shadows to come out to freely post. Everyone needs to be encouraged to have an opinion. It is good to have differences of opinions. That is how we learn. But no one needs to feel like theirs doesn’t matter or they are stupid for their thoughts. We don’t allow children to be spoken to in that manner we shouldn’t allow adults to either.
Thanks Kim
15 Jan 2007 @ 10:22 | Permalink
Is it possible for a LDS member to have views different from the approved version without being ostracized?
16 Jan 2007 @ 21:09 | Permalink
There is no approved version on Our Thoughts.
16 Jan 2007 @ 22:58 | Permalink
I’m not even sure there’s an approved version in Salt Lake… :P
17 Jan 2007 @ 10:34 | Permalink
They probably have Our Thoughts on their anti-Mormon list.
17 Jan 2007 @ 10:51 | Permalink
Whom are you referring to when you say “They”?
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:15 | Permalink
Whom do you think?
And to be clear, I was being facetious.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:17 | Permalink
“Whom do you think?”—I think both you and rick were referring to some nebulous being rick refers to as “Salt Lake.” By this I assume you and he mean some unnamed department of the Church.
“I was being facetious.”—Yes, I realize that. But the comment still seems to give credence to the idea that there’s a Church department that keeps a list of anti-Mormon websites. If there is such a department, I don’t know what it is. Do you know if such a thing exists?
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:23 | Permalink
No, I do not know, and I highly doubt one such department does exist.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:25 | Permalink
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:43 | Permalink
Are you actually expecting me to find something sinister in this?
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:47 | Permalink
You’re grasping at straws, rick. It doesn’t say the SCMC tracks anti-Mormon websites.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:51 | Permalink
So the “gathering up . . . the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions” doesn’t sound sinister to you?
If someone were keeping files on me, I’d be a little weirded out.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:52 | Permalink
“You’re grasping at straws, rick. It doesn’t say the SCMC tracks anti-Mormon websites”
…just what I’d expect a member of the secret organization to say. Oh I’ve got you pegged now, Kim. ;)
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:54 | Permalink
Huh? I thought I had been very careful not to mention my involvement with the Klan.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:56 | Permalink
Kim, don’t even go there. People might think you are serious.
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:57 | Permalink
On a related note:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635175667,00.html
31 Jan 2007 @ 14:59 | Permalink
huh :) Good for him, pulled one over on them!
31 Jan 2007 @ 15:14 | Permalink
The GA’s operating a secret society. I wonder why that rings true. Could be a joke.
Is it possible SLC is recording these writings for judgement day or even a court of love?
Where is spellchecker?
31 Jan 2007 @ 19:00 | Permalink
As far as them keeping tabs on intellectual/liberal mormons, I have heard that Church Headquarters always sends someone to the Sunstone Symposiums just to see what’s being discussed, I guess.
There is an interesting story involving 6 synchronized ex-communications of Sunstone and Dialogue authors, but I won’t go into detail—because it doesn’t make the church look to good, and as was just stated, we’re being watched!
31 Jan 2007 @ 20:48 | Permalink
Is it possible the elite are afraid the masses will find out the truth and leave?
6 synchronized ex-communications what an interesting ideal for a thread.
Who said SLC does not get invovled in courts of love?
1 Feb 2007 @ 19:37 | Permalink
Anything’s possible. Probability is another thing…
2 Feb 2007 @ 12:28 | Permalink
Apparently George also believes in the mysterious bureau known only as “SLC.” Perhaps he and rick could collaborate on a book about the great UFO cover-up or the Trilateral Commission.
5 Feb 2007 @ 14:39 | Permalink
Loved the Deseret News article. Those hoods could come in handy for more than one thing. :)
5 Feb 2007 @ 14:42 | Permalink
…By the way, I can’t think of any reason the Church couldn’t or shouldn’t have a bureau that keeps track of anti-Mormon activity on the web. In fact, it would be an eminently responsible thing to do. The Church, like any large organization, has serious security concerns, as well as concerns about protecting its members from lies and distortions.
5 Feb 2007 @ 14:45 | Permalink
ltbugaf said:
There’s absolutely no evidence of a bureau that keeps track of anti-Mormon activity on the web. You’re crazy, rick. Oh, and there should be a bureau that keeps track of anti-Mormon activity on the web, it only makes sense.
Wow. How can I possibly fight mental jiu-jitsu like that?
The Church requires more protection from its’ own history than it does from its’ detractors.
5 Feb 2007 @ 16:22 | Permalink
This is an anti-mormon website?
5 Feb 2007 @ 18:57 | Permalink
I’m sorry rick’s need to distort my position is so profound that he’s resorted to substituting his own words for mine.
My position is as follows:
1. I know of no organization within the Church that tracks anti-Mormon web sites.
2. Even if there is such an organization, there’s nothing wrong with it.
What’s inconsistent about that?
I just asked for the evidence supporting your assertion that the Church has a secret bureau tracking anti-Mormon web sites. Since rick made the claim, I thought he might have something to back it up. If he has no such evidence, then he should simply say so; if he does have such evidence, he should offer it. But he shouldn’t try—again—to pass off an article about the Strengthening the Members Committee as something it isn’t. That’s just too disingenuous even for him.
5 Feb 2007 @ 19:39 | Permalink
We like to think we’re not, Sam, but some may think we are.
5 Feb 2007 @ 19:57 | Permalink
Well, Kim, that was a rather vague answer.
5 Feb 2007 @ 20:15 | Permalink
And incidentally, regarding comment 13—I DON’T see anything sinister in Doctrine & Covenants 123:1–5. Neither will rick, if he ever bothers to read verse 6, which explains the perfectly lawful and proper purpose of gathering such evidence.
5 Feb 2007 @ 20:18 | Permalink
I’m trying to say it depends on who you ask and how that person defines “anti-Mormon”.
5 Feb 2007 @ 20:51 | Permalink
Sam, there are people who actively oppose the Church on this site. Those who take that stance aren’t the ones who run the site, but they are included among the site’s main commenters and even among its “authors.” Their comments are generally tolerated, so some might think that allowing them to say what they say makes the site anti-Mormon. And certainly some of the stances taken here are anti-Mormon. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I comment here so often: To stand against those who try to smear the Church with distortions and falsehoods.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:18 | Permalink
Is the phrase “Anti-Mormon” ambiguous? I thought it was rather self-defining.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:18 | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification, Itbugaf. Are the majority of the people who ask questions on this site sincerely looking for an answer or are they just wanting an argument? I don’t feel that there is anything wrong with disagreement as long as all of the people involved in the discussion are receptive and open-minded.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:25 | Permalink
Sam, don’t take my opinion as the final word on who’s sincere and who isn’t. I can’t speak to what a MAJORITY of people are up to. On top of that, I’m neither an administrator nor an author of this site, so you certainly shouldn’t consider me an official spokesman. That said, I’ll give what answer I can:
There are some who are just out to libel the Church, some who just want to stir up dissent, some who just want to pass off fanciful gossip. (I’ll refrain from identifying them in this answer and let you make your own judgments.) But I think many, and I hope most, are here to engage in a genuinely purposeful and honest discussion.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:30 | Permalink
I am aware that you are NOT an authority nor an author. That’s why I asked your opinion. You are in a fairly neutral position and, therefore, judge without bias.
As for taking what you say as the “final word,” I am fairly good at not putting too much stock in what people say. Thank your opinion nevertheless.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:38 | Permalink
**Thank you for your opinion, nevertheless.**
Sorry
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:40 | Permalink
Wow. I know a few people who will disagree with you as to my “fairly neutral position.” Thanks nevertheless.
5 Feb 2007 @ 21:52 | Permalink
“I will refrain from identifying them in this answer and let you make your own judgments”
Well I think that it is fairly obvious of whom you are refering to. You might as well just come out and say it.
I thought that the purpose of this site was for people to give their opinions, and discuss with others.
I think that some people need to be more open-minded and respect all views and beliefs.
I certainly wouldn’t call this an Anti-Mormon site.
This all, of course, is just my opinion.
5 Feb 2007 @ 22:07 | Permalink
Lol. Well, I wasn’t talking about your beliefs, just your relation to the site.
5 Feb 2007 @ 22:09 | Permalink
“Well I think that it is fairly obvious of whom you are refering to.”—In which comment? The ones who are out to libel the Church? The ones who are stirring dissent? The ones who are passing on gossip? Your lists of which people you think I believe fall into each of these categories might differ from mine, and from those of others.
“I thought that the purpose of this site was for people to give their opinions, and discuss with others.”—How nice that we agree.
“I think that some people need to be more open-minded and respect all views and beliefs.” So do I. On the other hand, I draw the line at respecting people who, rather than expressing their own actual beliefs, just playfully denigrate the beliefs of others. I’m afraid I don’t have much respect for those who do that.
“I certainly wouldn’t call this an Anti-Mormon site.”—Nether would I.
“This all, of course, is just my opinion.”—Can’t disagree with you there, either.
5 Feb 2007 @ 22:18 | Permalink
“I draw the line at respecting people who, rather that expressing their own actual beliefs, just playfully denigrate the belief of others.”
That is fairly bold of you to judge whether or not these are “actual beliefs”. Just because someone may not have the same beliefs as yourself or many others, this doesn’t make their beliefs false.
By making this accusation, are you not denigrating the beliefs of others yourself?
5 Feb 2007 @ 22:46 | Permalink
Actually, Dar, I’m talking about people who openly deny having any religious belief but still feel the need to spend their leisure time bashing mine. It doesn’t require any bold speculation on my part.
I don’t respect that behavior and I don’t plan to start respecting it.
5 Feb 2007 @ 23:02 | Permalink
“I have heard that Church Headquarters always sends someone to the Sunstone Symposiums just to see what’s being discussed, I guess.”
Jeff, again I’m curious: Where have you heard this?
5 Feb 2007 @ 23:05 | Permalink
“still feel the need to spend their leisure time bashing mine”
You say ‘bashing’ and I say ‘discussing’.
There are portions of my beliefs which many on this site do not agree with. Shall I label them anti-rickists?
Because I poke, prod, and investigate portions of the LDS belief system, you call me antimormon. I can deal with that.
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:18 | Permalink
No, rick, I call you anti-Mormon because you will twist, spin and distort any story you come across in order to try to make the Church look bad. The example in this thread is only the latest example of such irresponsible behavior.
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:29 | Permalink
ltbugaf
I believe that anyone who actively tries to discredit or destroy the Church and I don’t see Rick doing that. He has opinions that don’t agree, but I don’t see him as being “anti”.
Nothing can make the Church look bad, unless we allow such actions to affect our personal testimonies. There are things in Church history or even in present behaviour that reflect poorly on the church membership, and periodically, the leadership. That doesn’t make the Gospel less true. I don’t feel the need to get on a high horse every time someone says something negative about the Church. It used to, so many years ago, bother me. It doesn’t anymore, because my testimony isn’t based on what other people think. It’s based on what the Lord thinks. We can stand up for the church and for our beliefs without getting offended.
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:40 | Permalink
Mary, I disagree with your assessment. I think rick loses no opportunity to try to discredit the Church; his comments in this thread are just one of many examples.
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:46 | Permalink
“you will twist, spin and distort any story you come across in order to try to make the Church look bad”
Why do you find the need to find bad things about the church in everything I say?
If I say I don’t agree with something is that twisting?
If I challenge you to see something from a different prerogative, is that distorting?
If I point out the implications of an incident to non-LDS participants, am I spinning?
Just because we don’t agree, it doesn’t mean that I am anti-anything; I’m just pro-discussion.
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:48 | Permalink
The only thing I’m curious about is why you object to being called anti-Mormon. What’s wrong with it?
6 Feb 2007 @ 11:57 | Permalink
Well, I don’t expect you to agree, but I am not bothered by what Rick, or anyone says, negative about the Church because it doesn’t change the truth and there is no point in getting all riled up. They are entitled to their opinions, just as anyone is. You don’t have to agree with their opinions.
Keep in mind, Rick is a non member in a community that is over run with LDS members. *I* BEING a member of the Church would have a very hard time living there (just having to deal with the fact that too many LDS in this area are too focussed on who their and everyone else’s ancestors were. If you aren’t descended from LDS pioneers, you are barely bordering on being an outcast). I am really not surprised at his (sometimes) cynicism.
I do think that some members of the Church are ready to jump on anything that isn’t totally pro LDS as being “anti”. One of the things we have a tendency to forget is that we ALL have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Rick likes to discuss things. You don’t have to always agree with him. It’s actually not a bad thing to see different perspectives. It can help create more tolerance for views that don’t match your own.
6 Feb 2007 @ 12:03 | Permalink
ltbugaf see #46
I don’t have a problem with you calling me an anti-mormon.
In #50 I was just trying to get you to analyze why you do.
6 Feb 2007 @ 13:35 | Permalink
Re: 45
“Jeff, again I’m curious: Where have you heard this [about Church HQ sending someone to observe the Sunstone Symposia]?”
I’m the first to admit, my sources are not official, but I heard it mentioned within a Sunstone article—one speaking directly about the six members involved with Sunstone and Dialogue contributors that were all given church discipline simultaneously, and in the text of a speech given at one of the symposia where the speaker welcomes everyone out and makes a special mention of those sent from Salt Lake City headquarters to keep an eye on them. He said it in a jocular tone and could have been joking entirely, but I don’t believe that to be the case.
Also a friend of mine (whom I met on my mission) told me that this was the case. His father used to contribute to Sunstone and Dialogue and he said it was well known that “spies” from Salt Lake were keeping tabs on them to make sure they weren’t preaching apostasy.
I don’t think this observance by HQ particularly bothers the Sunstone people. I think the opposite is true, they are happy that Salt Lake is aware of what they are discussing, and I believe certain changes in church policy and ceremony have been a direct result of the church’s relationship with organizations like Dialogue and Sunstone.
6 Feb 2007 @ 15:26 | Permalink
“‘Spies’ from Salt Lake were keeping tabs on them to make sure they weren’t preaching apostasy.”
Doesn’t that make The Church seem a little paranoid?
6 Feb 2007 @ 15:42 | Permalink
The word paranoid denotes extreme and irrational fear.
The Church is concerned for it’s standing in the world, and for its members, and I think that’s reasonable.
Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is irrational or extreme to watch for apostasy.
6 Feb 2007 @ 15:59 | Permalink
Well, it was the “spy” part that sounded paranoid, not watching for apostasy.
6 Feb 2007 @ 19:51 | Permalink
When a so called prophet is not sure what his own Church teaches, it only makes sense there would be those who worry the lies and mistruths will be discovered and they would lose their power and perks. Thus you see them attacking those who are brave enough to ask questions.
For a religion that claims to support freedom of religion, it seems ironic they would try to suppress speach and thought of its members.
Perhaps so called prophets should listen to those brave enough to ask questions so they would know what their church really teaches.
6 Feb 2007 @ 22:44 | Permalink
The word “spy” doesn’t necessarily connote paranoia to me. Just because you fear someone is observing you doesn’t mean you are wrong.
Oh, and I wanted to correct something I said earlier:
“I don’t think this observance by HQ particularly bothers the Sunstone people.”
Actually I bet it does bother them. Most of the people that attend symposia are very smart and at the same time are interested in frank discussion of their religion. I would think they would see the people keeping tabs on them as demeaning. Wouldn’t you?
7 Feb 2007 @ 02:11 | Permalink
My comment was meant facetiously. Don’t take it too seriously.
7 Feb 2007 @ 19:29 | Permalink
My only problem with the word “spies” is that, I guess, to me, it suggests that the Church has something to hide or that, as George implied, that the LDS fear that something will impede their progress. Which, of course, isn’t true.
7 Feb 2007 @ 19:34 | Permalink
George, what gives you the impression that I was “attacking” anybody? If I gave you that impression, I apologize.
7 Feb 2007 @ 19:50 | Permalink
Sam, I was not under the impression you were attacking anybody. Did you write something that was removed from the thread?
Spies is most likely not the word you meant to use. KGB is perhaps a better word with closer meaning.
A sane person would have to ask themselves why a religion that changes it beliefs often worry if a few people speculate on its doctrine and meaning unless the religion is based upon stories and the leaders know it and are afraid the truth might be told. KGB.
I would be interesting hearing why the true church of god would worry what a few smart people say if the leaders were telling the truth to start with.
7 Feb 2007 @ 21:50 | Permalink
“My only problem with the word “spies” is that, [...], it suggests that the Church has something to hide or that, [...] the LDS fear that something will impede their progress. Which, of course, isn’t true.”
I think you missed something. The church believes it has a legitimate concern to watch for apostates and does so. Did you really not know this?
7 Feb 2007 @ 22:17 | Permalink
Oh, the irony.
27 Jun 2007 @ 20:08 | Permalink