Cat is right; the Evolution thread was heating up too much. I have closed it, and deleted the last inflammatory post that sought to continue the argument
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Probably a good thing I didn't see it then. I was really trying to be impartial about the whole thing.
Discussion on the concepts is good, if it can be done in a fashion that draws folks together, but I never saw actual discussion happening. It was debate that was talking past each other and no one was showing inclination to look at other folks' point of view in a courteous fashion.
If anyone wishes to talk about whether I was out of line for putting the warning out, we can do so. In fact, we can start a seperate topic in this Moderation Discussion area to do so. But, please, let's keep it fact based about what actually happened and not bring the debate or debate topic in to it.
As I told the other moderators privately when I first brought my frustration and concerns up about the thread, if I'm wrong about the actions and cautions I gave, I'll take my lumps. Unfortunately, in this particular situation, three out of the four moderators were directly involved in the thread, so we can't effectively do a "traditional" mediation if anyone feels they have been wronged by the thread being closed or a post being removed.
But, we can maybe do a townhall type discussion and discuss what people feel would have been proper or what alternatives could have been used or how we as a community can help to keep from letting passionate topics get in the way of our civility.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I would like to apologize for anything that I may have said that may of offended someone. There was a certain point where I felt like I shouldn't have posted, and I did anyway.
I too apologize if there is anyone that I offended. No such offense was intended. I love you all as my brothers and sisters.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I just got around to reading it today and didn't find any of it offensive enough to close it down. (That's why I wouldn't make a good moderator. ) I thought we were just starting to get somewhere... and poof! Bye bye. 'Course I think that a lot on nauvoo, too.
sigh...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I too apologize if there is anyone that I offended. No such offense was intended. I love you all as my brothers and sisters.
Just from a quick reading of the thread, I would say that you and your buddy Beldar were rude. You basically kept saying "you can believe whatever you want, but you're wrong. I don't care if church cannon (and several dead apostles who are not Bruce R. McConkie) allow you to believe the way you do, you're still wrong."
And that whole post by Beldar about how this, that, and the other posters "defended the truth" was just beyond condescending and rude; given the fact that none of us knows the exact manner in which the world was created.
Organist, I have edited your post because this is not the forum to rebut arguments. The moderation area is simply for the discussion of the moderation action taken. Anything else is inappropriate.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Hoss, the contention arose not from me, and not from Beldar. You are caricaturing our posts in an inaccurate and condescending manner.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
FWIW, I apologize for wording my first post as I did. I was tired and not thinking long term when I did so. Perhaps I inadvertantly made sure there was a spark there for people to fan by calling it a dare.
Others have misinterpreted what I said for that which it was not. As I stated in the thread, it was not an invitation to prove or disprove me right or wrong personally. It was, from my standpoint, a statement that no amount of debate on either side would be able to sway me to accept their dogma into darwinism or ex nihilo creationism (or anything along the lines of either). What I did not clearly state, the two are but extremes that have equal chance and opportunity to draw one away from the truth about The Savior and his power.
There was rudeness and a lot of assumption going on in the thread. As people calm down, I think more of it will become apparent to everyone.
This sort of lack of civility is what people need to avoid if you are going to have a meaningful discussion... as I've said elsewhere, I've seen these sort of passionate discussion topics elsewhere, and no good comes of it if people are only looking to make their point and are not actually communicating. It has no place amongst those who would be building up Zion.
So, what do we do as individuals and as a group to avoid devolution of a discussion in the future?
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Cat Herder wrote:So, what do we do as individuals and as a group to avoid devolution of a discussion in the future?
Well, we could refrain from "bearing our testimony" about our own opinion.
If it is not an official church doctrine, then we really don't need to be making statements such as "you are wrong" or "billy-bob is defending the truth;" especially when we are defining "the truth" as being "whatever I happen to believe at this moment."
When our discussion comes down to nothing more than "THIS I BELIEVE," then pretty much we're not having a discussion any more, and no one can disagree with us without denigrating our personal belief.
And if we're just restating our own belief over and over and over again, without seriously considering the value of the respondents' position, then it's pretty much a useless discussion.
Hoss, the contention arose not from me, and not from Beldar.
Well, yeah. But I didn't notice you doing much to lead him tothe straight and narrow. And he did use you as an example of "defender of the faith." A man is known by the company he keeps.
Cat Herder wrote:So, what do we do as individuals and as a group to avoid devolution of a discussion in the future?
Well, we could refrain from "bearing our testimony" about our own opinion.
If it is not an official church doctrine, then we really don't need to be making statements such as "you are wrong" or "billy-bob is defending the truth;" especially when we are defining "the truth" as being "whatever I happen to believe at this moment."
When our discussion comes down to nothing more than "THIS I BELIEVE," then pretty much we're not having a discussion any more, and no one can disagree with us without denigrating our personal belief.
And if we're just restating our own belief over and over and over again, without seriously considering the value of the respondents' position, then it's pretty much a useless discussion.
Hoss, since that's not what happened here, I'd say we're in good shape
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Hoss, the contention arose not from me, and not from Beldar.
Well, yeah. But I didn't notice you doing much to lead him tothe straight and narrow. And he did use you as an example of "defender of the faith." A man is known by the company he keeps.
If his posts on the thread are demonstrative of his character, I would be happy to be associated with Beldar.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Hoss, since that's not what happened here, I'd say we're in good shape
Given the fact that you are completely disregarding every single post I make, I'd say it has a tendency to happen anywhere. (The not taking another person's opinion into account thing, that is).
On the "bearing of testimony" thing, it is my opinion that everyone on your "side" of the argument did it about three times each. But that is just my unbiased view, having not participated in the actual "discussion."
No Hoss, I've read every post you've made. Every part. But the assertions that you are making are without base. I was backing up my opinion with references on that thread, something which you totally seem to ignore.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
FTR, I agree with Hoss that one who felt as Organist did about the whole topic would've felt attacked and dismissed. I was a little disappointed he couldn't attempt to make a stronger case--but then to what effect would it matter?
Perhaps sometime later we'll reopen the topic and give it another go...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
"At the heart of the message of the Savior of the world is a single, glorious, wonderful, still largely untried concept. In its simplest terms the message is that we should seek to overcome the selfishness we all seem to be born with, that we should overcome human nature and think of others before self."
--James E. Faust, "A Pattern of Love," Ensign, Dec. 1999, 2
Hi all, I was looking to post one more reply to the evolution thread & saw it was closed. Then I found this thread & saw it was about right for what I wanted to say anyway, so here it is:
I can see no evidence of anyone saying "you don't have a testimony unless you see it my way". My words probably came closest to that, so I will respond.
First, I am sorry if anyone felt that I said that. It was not my intent. My intent was to say this: "There is but one version of the truth, and it is our duty to seek it, and we will be held accountable for seeking it. In aid of seeking truth, here are my reasons, scriptures etc for believing that certain things are true, and why I think that matters."
I meant to say that you can, of course, disagree and believe as you best see fit, but I guess that didn't come out clearly enough.
I would also like to say that, as far as what you choose to believe, God will not condemn us for honest mistakes, or for not having all the relevant evidence etc. So go ahead and believe what you honestly believe. He judges us according to our honest best efforts. But there is also no fooling him as to what our best efforts are, or when we are not really being honest.
Also note that, throughout the scriptures, one of God's favorite themes is the value of humility. He defines humility, in part, as being teachable. That doesn't mean that you have to accept, uncritically everything that comes your way. But it does mean that you are willing to accept truth when you come across it, even when you don't like its implications.
Or, in the words of Abraham Lincoln: "When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
And, in an effort to practice what I preach, I will consider, at length, the browbeating charge. My dictionary says that browbeating is "To intimidate by domineering words, or bully". I put the case as clearly and firmly as I know how, in an effort to maximize the chances people would understand.
I did not mean to intimidate or bully. I'm not sure that I believe it did come across that way, but I will consider that at length. And I apologize to anyone who felt bullied. That was not my intent.
As for spiritually edifying and meaningful posts: I enjoyed all the scriptures and conference quotes that people posted. I definitely felt edified by those.
Okay...you know, from someone who didn't read ANY of the closed thread and has no idea who is supporting which theory...
That statement comes off sounding pretty condescending.
It read to me as saying "I feel that my beliefs more closely approximate Truth than yours. Maybe you haven't studied it enough because if you had, you would believe as I do (for reasons cited, etc.). You should study harder or you're just lying to yourself. Oh, and sorry."
So Euph...??? Given what you read in Beldar's post... IF he had managed to get that post into the other thread... do you think that would be a good enough reason to close said thread? As a previously silent observer on the topic... and because the topic itself is not a button for me, I suppose... I did not see the deterioration that others who felt more strongly about this discussion saw/read. I agree that many of the posts were critical of other posters... but I did not read into any of the posts (including the last one) the condescension that you and others mention.
While I understand Beldar that you simply wanted to get one more post in, I disagree with you posting it here... because the purpose of a moderation thread is to help the moderators to do a better job with that task, not to explain why you said what??? But then the thread had already become a place to explain... right???
So I ask honestly, because I really am trying to understand what the purpose is of an open moderation... when a topic is still fresh in everyone's mind is it possible to carry on an objective discussion, for those parties, about why it went wrong? It appears to me that the conversation above was simply a continuation here, from the other thread which was not the intent, I understand that.
The suggestion was made before in another moderation thread I am thinking I agree with that suggestion... that when a thread is closed... for whatever reason... perhaps a cooling off period needs to happen, of a few days?
Beldar none of us believe there is more than one truth, stating it like we believe otherwise comes across as condescending, and seems to imply that we live our lives jumping from one philosophy to another. It is one thing to believe that there is ONE truth, and quite another to know exactly what that truth is... especially in regards to the mechanics of the universe and life itself.
Talmage, Eyring, and other G.A.s and apostles held out the question mark.
We who hold the door open to scientific discoveries, as imperfect as they may seem, simply don't believe that all mysteries have yet to be revealed in their entireity, and are willing to take in as much evidence as possible. It does not mean we ignore or refuse to believe revelation, if anything we would rather we seek to better understand it.
Why should we be required to draw a battleline between our religion and science when our prophets have told us not to do so?
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 23:43, 2007-05-21
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Good question. By itself, no, I wouldn't call that a closing offense. But if that kind of thing had been going on and on, then I would think the thread was no longer going any where, and allowing it to continue would only breed frustration. I'd have to actually have read the thread to know if I thought closing was justified in this case.
I was just offering a mostly unbiased take on the post.
You are right, though, in that this probably isn't the place for that discussion. (Although, to be fair, arbilad started it. )
This is really a kind of a unique situation, isn't it everyone? I doubt that the freedom to do this sort of analysis would be afforded elsewhere.
We all acknowledge that the topic is one of those that has a great potential for turning incendiary. I think everyone who was directly involved has publicly acknowledged and apologized for their part in letting the discussion change from what could have been a decent exchange of viewpoints into a virtual soapbox of sorts. We each have a differing feeling as to how much frustration was breeding (thanks for that succinct description, Euphie).
Why, I think even Beldar and I are patching things up off-line.
Now that I don't have to worry about moderating in the political arena anymore, maybe I can offer some suggestions for the future based off my observation and my background.
As most of you know, I was never schooled in areas like philosophy, debate, or logic. Just was never a part of my curriculum in any of my degrees or majors, and was never a thing that interested me. My fields of study have been in Natural Sciences, Humanities, Business, IT and HR. Therefore, I look at things very much from a macro perspective and how things relate to one another and fit together. In the business world, I am what is called a Qualitoid -- a "needs to feel the love" kind of person -- as opposed to a Quantoid -- someone who is interested in "just the facts, ma'am". Right, wrong, or indifferent, my perspective often becomes that of seeing contention when perhaps there is none or where others don't perceive it.
So, my suggestion is thus: If folks want to have a thread to debate something, then start the thread out clearly stating that this is going to be a debate. Post some ground rules and definitions instrinsic to the debate. Include in them what is in and out of bounds. And explain the ground rules and definitions clearly so that a neophyte like myself can understand. Perhaps even choose someone to be the debate judge (wouldn't need to be a forum moderator) to keep everyone in line with the rules and definitions. Don't just leave the debate open ended, state it will be open for participation for x amount of time. Possibly also decide at the beginning if it will be open to all to pipe in, or if those who are interested in participating have to "sign up" as one of the debators before it begins.
I think this could go a long way to keep frustration and contention in check. I also think it would provide the avenue for those who so choose to have the intellectual stimulation they get from debate and logic arguments without running over innocents. You know, kind of like not having the primary kids in the gym when the YM are playing basketball or dodgeball...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I think if a thread drifts, and the originator of the thread doesn't care, it should not be the point of anyone else to try to bring it back to the original question.
Often I throw out topics because I'm mining interesting conversational points... Arbi calls that trolling... but seeing as how I'm an elf, I cannot be a troll.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
"I think if a thread drifts, and the originator of the thread doesn't care, it should not be the point of anyone else to try to bring it back to the original question."
That is AWESOME!! Amen! Amen!
Also, if you're not a moderator and you want to moderate someone just SHUT UP instead.
(Gosh, I wish I had the guts to say that over across the river.) :wimp:
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
The remarks that I found troubling (and deserving of some moderation) were ones that said 'If one poster believes "X" differently than another poster, the first poster believes a religion other than the religion of Jesus Christ.'
Aside from that, I think there was a possibility for an open exchange of ideas, including citations and explanations for beliefs in that thread if given more time. I don't have much time to read or post, so my replies often take a few days.
Ok, I looked up the scriptures and now realize that I'm supposed to be humble and to understand that all things remained in their created state until Adam's fall.
Dude. Links, people. If you're going to be cryptic and snippy using scriptures (speaking to no one in particular ), then at least don't add "making Euph go look things up" to your list of offenses.
We're starting to wander off the topic of discussion. The Moderation area is strictly for discussions about moderation - I will start deleting posts if the derail continues.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams