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.
The only thing I’m curious about is why you object to being called anti-Mormon. What’s wrong with it?
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.
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.
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.
“‘Spies’ from Salt Lake were keeping tabs on them to make sure they weren’t preaching apostasy.â€
Doesn’t that make The Church seem a little paranoid?
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.
Well, it was the “spy†part that sounded paranoid, not watching for apostasy.
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.
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?
My comment was meant facetiously. Don’t take it too seriously.
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.
George, what gives you the impression that I was “attacking†anybody? If I gave you that impression, I apologize.
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.
“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?
Oh, the irony.