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.
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
Is it possible for a LDS member to have views different from the approved version without being ostracized?
There is no approved version on Our Thoughts.
I’m not even sure there’s an approved version in Salt Lake… :P
They probably have Our Thoughts on their anti-Mormon list.
Whom are you referring to when you say “They”?
Whom do you think?
And to be clear, I was being facetious.
“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?
No, I do not know, and I highly doubt one such department does exist.
I’m surprised you both don’t know about the ‘Strengthening the Members Committee’.
Hmmm… looking for a citation
This’ll probably work.
(cite:: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=22860&REC=19 )
8 August 1992. An Associated Press story by Vern Anderson quotes church spokesman Don LeFevre’s acknowledgement that the “Strengthening Church Members Committee” “provides local church leadership with information designed to help them counsel with members who may hinder the progress of the church through public criticism.” It also reports the experience of Omar Kader of Washington, D.C., formerly of BYU’s political science department. Kader says a BYU administrator told him that [Russell M.] Nelson, then Kader’s stake president, kept a file on his political activities as a Democrat in Provo in the late 1970s. Nelson “categorically denied keeping a file on Kader” and also denied “knowing Omar and Nancy Kader.” (p. 45)
and…
13 August 1992. The First Presidency issues a statement in response to “extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files.” The statement cites Doctrine and Covenants 123:1-5, which enjoins “the propriety of all the saints gathering up . . . the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions” during the Missouri period and then continues: “In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities. . . . The Strengthening Church Members committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.” The statement counsels members with “questions concerning Church doctrine, policies, or procedures” to “discuss those concerns confidentially with their local leaders.” [Footnote 105: “First Presidency Issues Statement on Scriptural Mandate as Reason for Church Committee,” 13 Aug. 1992, news release; photocopy in my possession.] (pp. 46–47)
Are you actually expecting me to find something sinister in this?
You’re grasping at straws, rick. It doesn’t say the SCMC tracks anti-Mormon websites.
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.
“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. ;)
Huh? I thought I had been very careful not to mention my involvement with the Klan.
Kim, don’t even go there. People might think you are serious.
On a related note:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635175667,00.html
huh :) Good for him, pulled one over on them!
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?
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!
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?
Anything’s possible. Probability is another thing…
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.
Loved the Deseret News article. Those hoods could come in handy for more than one thing. :)
…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.
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.
This is an anti-mormon website?
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.
We like to think we’re not, Sam, but some may think we are.
Well, Kim, that was a rather vague answer.
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.
I’m trying to say it depends on who you ask and how that person defines “anti-Mormon”.
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.
Is the phrase “Anti-Mormon†ambiguous? I thought it was rather self-defining.
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.
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.
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.
**Thank you for your opinion, nevertheless.**
Sorry
Wow. I know a few people who will disagree with you as to my “fairly neutral position.” Thanks nevertheless.
“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.
Lol. Well, I wasn’t talking about your beliefs, just your relation to the site.
“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.
“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?
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.
“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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.