RFD: soc.religion.mormon moderated
Peggy Rogers
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
moderated group soc.religion.mormon
Newsgroup line:
soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Moderated)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.mormon. This is
not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
RATIONALE: soc.religion.mormon
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, frequently referred
to as the Mormon Church, has a worldwide membership of some nine
million members; many others are interested in the religion, either
from intellectual curiosity or a cultural perspective. An alt.*
newsgroup, alt.religion.mormon, has existed since mid-1994, and
carries between 100 and 200 messages daily. In addition, there are
over 20 listserve groups, focusing on diverse topics such as LDS
scriptures, history, arts and letters, and genealogy. This seems to
indicate a desire for discussion which could be better served by a
more broadly propagated Big 8 newsgroup. The proposed group will also
provide the Usenet community with a readily-available point of contact
for information about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A moderated newsgroup is proposed. Due to the potentially volatile
nature of religious discussions, all but one of the soc.religion
newsgroups are moderated. The proposed moderation policy will seek a
balance between minimizing moderator interference and reducing
net.annoyances such as spamming and trolling, by utilizing
automoderation supplemented by occasional referral to human
moderation. To encourage equal access for all points of view, non-LDS
participants are mandated as part of the Moderation Panel.
CHARTER: soc.religion.mormon
[P1] This group, soc.religion.mormon, will provide a forum for open,
courteous discussion of issues pertaining to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).
[P2] Acceptable topics include, but are not limited to, the
following: church practices and policies, sharing "how-to" ideas for
implementation of church programs, philosophical discussions involving
Mormon doctrine, Latter-day Saint scriptures, lifestyle issues, church
history, Mormon culture.
[P3] Inappropriate topics:
Topics unrelated to mormonism and/or restoration theology.
Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
[P4] Moderation policy.
The newsgroup shall employ a combination of human and
automated moderation.
An Automoderator host will screen every submitted article and
either post it directly to the newsgroup or queue it for
human moderation.
Articles with the following attributes will be rejected after
verification by a human moderator:
Obscene and/or vulgar language.
Encoded binary files.
Crossposting to multiple newsgroups
Purely quoted material from a previous post.
Articles meeting any of the following criteria will be queued
for human moderation:
Longer than 400 lines,
More than 20 quoted lines and original content less than
25% of the post,
Contains characteristic words or phrases indicating
repeated, inflammatory, proprietary, or copyrighted
materials,
Is part of a thread which the moderators have indicated
as requiring attention,
Is from an unknown poster,
Is from a poster who has posted over a threshold of
rejected posts.
Two moderators must agree to reject an article. If an article
is rejected, the moderators will provide a comment back to
the original poster.
All articles will pass through Automoderation, including those
submitted by moderators.
Posted articles may be canceled by the moderation panel due to
forgery, errors in the moderation script, and violations of
the charter of the newsgroup.
[P5] The Moderation Panel will consist of at least three and no
greater than seven moderators. At least 33% shall be members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt
Lake City (LDS). At least 25% shall not be members of the LDS church.
The religious affiliation of moderators shall be public information.
Election of Moderators
Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
Elections for moderators shall be held as needed by
electronic mail vote among participants in the
newsgroup. A moderator will be elected by a majority
of respondents.
[P6] Two System Administrators, a principal administrator and a
backup, shall be appointed by the Moderation Panel by a majority vote
of the Panel. A moderator cannot act as System Administrator and vice
versa. The role of the System Administrator shall be to ensure that
the moderation host and Automoderator are operating according to the
policy set forth by the Moderation Panel.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: soc.religion.mormon
Moderator: David Bowie LDS <dbo...@sas.upenn.edu>
Roger Denison LDS <ro...@msg.ti.com>
Barb Gaynor Jewish <ga...@sasknet.sk.ca>
Tim Hill Atheist <bog...@earthlink.net>
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newsgroup, news.groups, alt.religion.mormon,
Pointers have been sent to the following listserve groups, informing
readers about this RFD, and refering them to the discussion of it in
news.groups:
ldsprimary, lds-grads, lds-phil, cougar-best, cougar-net, disciples,
elijah-l, interlds-l, joseph, lds-net, ldsstars, liahona, mormon-l,
sister-share, zion, free-saints, aml-list, bom read, eyring-l,
mormhist, samu-l, scripture-l, seminary, scouts-lds, lds-poll,
mormons-only-l, lds-bookshelf, lds-gems
Proponent: Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com>
Proponent: Mark Crego <mcr...@interserv.com>
Robert Craig Harman
Peggy Rogers wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
While I am in full support of the need for a moderated big-8 newsgroup
for the LDS religion, and agree fully that the highly-trafficked alt.
group and multiple listserves show definite interest, I am concerned
about the accuracy of the group name.
I am of the opinion that opponents of this church will latch use the
fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
While I recognize that s.r.quaker and s.r.unitarian-univ are equally
misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this group
appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
...Craig
Michael S. Scheidell
>to as the Mormon Church, has a worldwide membership of some nine
>million members; many others are interested in the religion, either
>from intellectual curiosity or a cultural perspective. An alt.*
>newsgroup, alt.religion.mormon, has existed since mid-1994, and
>carries between 100 and 200 messages daily. In addition, there are
>over 20 listserve groups, focusing on diverse topics such as LDS
Seems with all that trafic, then deserve a newsgroup in the big 8.
>[P3] Inappropriate topics:
>
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
you might want to look at the above...
one of the things that might hamper a solid vote..
There are other orginizations that take to canceling for 'copyright'
infringment an quotes from their documents.
>[P4] Moderation policy.
moderation policies look good, including the points of getting non-LDS
participation.
but, getting two to agree to reject an article (not posting it till all
moderators are asked?) might slow things down a lot.
>
> Two moderators must agree to reject an article. If an article
> is rejected, the moderators will provide a comment back to
> the original poster.
> Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
> the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
> consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
sometimes allows 'outside' takeover of the newsgroup.
maybe just leave it 'nominated by majority of existing panel'.
> electronic mail vote among participants in the
> newsgroup. A moderator will be elected by a majority
> of respondents.
again, enough people want to bash mormons' then could take over the group
with a vote.
--
Michael S. Scheidell Florida Datamation, Inc.
<mailto:sche...@fdma.com> <http://www.fdma.com/>
Distributors of QNX Real Time OS (407) 241-2966
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny
Bruce Baugh
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
Looks very good. I'm delighted to see more good forums for discussing
serious topics.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Scott Marquardt
Peggy Rogers wrote:
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
Only one comment:
If the material quoted refers to the faith of a contributor, it should be fair
game. Thus, the former ceremony depicting a mainstream Christian pastor and his
folly, ought to be fair game.
Since that has been dropped from the ceremony, its status should be no different
than the original Book of Commandments, which Mormons do not believe is
scripture for today. The dropped ceremony is not "ceremony for today."
Just a thought. Certainly not a major issue, even if my take on it were not
considered justifiable.
> More than 20 quoted lines and original content less than
> 25% of the post,
But permitting 400-line posts to pass the automoderator? Come now. Many 200-line
posts will have more than 20 quoted lines. Why bail out of auto on that account
alone?
> Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
> the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
> consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
Here's my short list (alphabetical, of course), eliminating many for what I deem
to be their apparent lack of time, not qualification (IOW, there were several
LDS I would have added to this list):
David Bowie
Keith Campbell
Mark Crego
Arden Eby
Clark Echols
Robert Craig Harman
Doug Palmer
Peggy Rogers
Marc Schindler
Lehi Sellers
_____________________________
OK--Monday, I'm outta here for the summer.
My best to all.
Cordially,
Scott Marquardt
s...@wwa.com (RTF-enabled) Please respond EITHER with a post
http://miso.wwa.com/~sam/ or email--but not both. Thanks!
Lee S. Bumgarner
> [P3] Inappropriate topics:
> Topics unrelated to mormonism and/or restoration theology.
> Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
> LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
> not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
Wait a doggone minite. What if the so-called Church of Zenu AKA
Scientology decided to have moderation rules like this? What about posts
about alledged racists history of the LDS? Hmmmmm????
-l
---
----> Undertoad<---
http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/
"God is a concept / by which we measure our pain." -John Lennon
"Klaatu barada nictow"
Doug Weller
In article <4o9pij$e...@doc.jmu.edu>
bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S. Bumgarner) wrote:
>
> > [P3] Inappropriate topics:
[SNIP]
> > Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
> > LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
> > not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
Why not? The relationship between church and state anywhere might
be of interest to anyone, plus -- there may be Mormons, or even Ohioans,
anywhere, who might well be interested.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Guy R. Briggs
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S. Bumgarner) wrote:
| >
| > > [P3] Inappropriate topics:
|
| [SNIP]
| > > of LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but
| > > is not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
|
| be of interest to anyone, plus -- there may be Mormons, or even
| Ohioans, anywhere, who might well be interested.
|
church and state, it would be fine. All to often, however, the
discussion in alt.religion.mormon (a.r.m.) centers around "If Mormons
believe [A] then how come Utah has such a high rate of [A']?"
Which is bad enough, but gets worse when critics of the Mormon Church
(CsOTMC) start misquoting the statistics!
It has led to the use of something a.r.m. affectionately refers to as
"Bowie's Inequality Constant," i.e. "Utah != Mormon." If you were to
peek in on a.r.m. today, for example, you can learn how bad potholes are
in Utah roads! Surely, this would be off-topic in soc.religion.mormon
and of little use to anyone outside the state.
IMHO, it's what proponents of the new group wish to avoid.
Best Regards,
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Guy R. Briggs, MACROLINK, INC. | "The last breath he drew in he wished|
| email: gbr...@primenet.com | might be through a pipe and exhaled |
| voice: +1.714.777.8800 | in a pun." - Charles Lamb |
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Guy R. Briggs
|
|> Topics unrelated to mormonism and/or restoration theology.
|
|> Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
|> LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
|> not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
|
|> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
|> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
|> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
|> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
|> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
|> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
|
|
| Scientology decided to have moderation rules like this? What about
| posts about alledged racists history of the LDS? Hmmmmm????
|
listed inappropriate topics, and would be a valid topic under the
proposed charter.
Even if it was listed as inappropriate, there is a perfect forum for
it - it's called alt.religion.mormon, where anything and everything is
considered fair game, including the "MORMUNS 5UCK" variety of post.
The problem with alt.religion.mormon (aside from the 150-200 posts
per day) is the combative nature of many of the posts. Many potential
contributors are put off by the "freewheeling" nature of a.r.m. and are
thus effectively censored.
One of the stated goals of s.r.m is "open, considerate discussion"
which is currently impossible on a.r.m. and, IMHO, the best reason for
the new, moderated group.
Blain Nelson
This looks like a pretty good proposal. I've not spent any time in
moderated groups, so I don't know how the moderation details will work
out but they look pretty good to me.
I don't have anything to add to it at this point.
Blain
--
The opinions expressed in this message are not only mine, they are yours too.
Aren't you glad I told you? She-yeah, right!
http://www.az.com/~blainn bla...@az.com anon...@anon.twwells.com
<c> 1996 Blain Nelson All Rights Reserved Film rights available
Yeechang Lee
Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> wrote:
[Snip]
> While I recognize that s.r.quaker and s.r.unitarian-univ are equally
> misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
> were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this
> group appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
Like Craig, I am torn. As one of the founding participants in the
current RFD-creation process (now retired) and author of an early
draft RFD, I've been hoping for a Big 8 group for literally years now.
However, I am not quite sanguine about the idea of giving up our claim
that the LDS Church is a Christian faith. The claim that we are not
is the surface rationale of many of our fiercest critics' charges, and
I am concerned that the choice of newsgroup name will only add fuel to
the fire. As seen above, it may also cost us LDS members' support.
On a separate note, I am somewhat surprised the ad hoc RFD committee
never took a public straw poll in a.r.m. on the choice of names.
There was a small flurry of discussion on this topic when I sent out
my draft RFD for discussion to a.r.m. in January '95, but not since
then (but then my memory could be faulty). I wonder whether a public
debate of the merits of different potential names might have produced
a different result.
(Inappopriate message ID snipped)
http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/ _. icbm://40.83.-73.91/
__./ |
/___. |___
PERTH------>\*./
Michael Gillman
Would this group, which I think should be named soc.religion.lds,
include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
Mike
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Look. alt.config is where you can propose and create groups without |
| moderation, whereas news.announce.newgroups is the moderated place |
| for doing so." |
| |
| "I was off on a tangent" |
| Mike Chapman in News.groups |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
Keith Rogers
Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> writes:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>
>Newsgroup line:
>soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Moderated)
I'll say first of all I'm rather relieved to find that the strongest
objections to this RFD so far have focused on its name. I'm not
surprised by this at all, since the question of naming was the one
discussed most often and most fruitlessly in the planning stages. We
considered possibilities ranging from "soc.religion.lds" (which was
judged by mentors we consulted as being too cryptic for readers not
familiar with the church) to "soc.religion.restoration.mormon,"
trying to put the religion in a historical context. I certainly
understand and sympathize with the opinions of those who want to see
.christian. in the title, in spite of the inevitable objections and
conflicts that this would bring. And it's entirely possible that we'll
ultimately decide to go with the name soc.religion.christian.mormon.
I'm open to persuasion on this point.
Let me just suggest two ideas in favor of the present name. If we
keep the name of the newsgroup shorter, then there is room on the
newsgroup line for the whole, correct name of the church. That would
not be the case with s.r.c.m. In addition, I see the shorter title as
a manifestation of humility--a way of saying, "If you want to see what
we believe, come and read about it," rather than, "Look! We are _so_
Christians! It says so right there in our newsgroup name!"
--
| " For when two beings who are not friends
Peggy Rogers | are near each other, there is no meeting,
kro...@xmission.com | and when friends are apart, there is
| no separation." Simone Weil
Blain Nelson
Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> writes:
>I am of the opinion that opponents of this church will latch use the
>fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
>hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
Doubtless. Of course, since the name of the newsgroup has no real
inherent meaning about the church, they will be latching on to nothing
and trying to make it something. And they can and will always find some
way to latch on to some other nothing and try to make it something as well.
I don't think anything anybody's going to do is going to fail to give
fodder to critics.
>While I recognize that s.r.quaker and s.r.unitarian-univ are equally
>misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
>were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this group
>appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
It could well be that all the critics would land on the proposal and
oppose it if you try to add .christian. to the name, even ones who would
not necessarily oppose the existing proposal. I don't know.
I guess I don't think that this kind of detail in a name means a heck of
a lot.
>...Craig
Keith Rogers
mgil...@halcyon.com (Michael Gillman) writes:
>Would this group...
>include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
>not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
>
>Mike
Yes, discussion of the Reorganized Church would be welcome. Thank you
for pointing out the omission.
Robert Craig Harman
> >fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
> >hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
> >
> >misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
>
> Protestantism, and many members consider themselves Christians, but
> soc.religion.christian.unitarian-univ is as nonsensical as
> soc.religion.jewish.christian.
I stand corrected, though a casual search through the UU pages on the
web does indicate that many of them still do (as you note) cling to
Christian beliefs.
...Craig
Robert Craig Harman
Scott Marquardt wrote:
>
> Peggy Rogers wrote:
>
> > Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> > detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> > postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> > be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> > of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> > open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
>
>
> If the material quoted refers to the faith of a contributor, it should be
> fair game. Thus, the former ceremony depicting a mainstream Christian
> pastor and his folly, ought to be fair game.
>
> Since that has been dropped from the ceremony, its status should be no
> different than the original Book of Commandments, which Mormons do not
> believe is scripture for today. The dropped ceremony is not "ceremony
> for today."
However, the LDS take on the temple ceremony is not parallel. The
temple ceremony regardless of what variation or form it may take is
viewed as stated above sacred and not for open discussion. Just
because the former versions of the ceremony are no longer used does
not diminish their sacredness in the eyes of the LDS.
> > Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
> > the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
> > consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
>
> Here's my short list (alphabetical, of course), eliminating many for what
> I deem to be their apparent lack of time, not qualification (IOW, there
> were several LDS I would have added to this list):
>
<list snipped except for:>
> Robert Craig Harman
I'm flattered to be included. I do not know if I will have the time,
but I will indicate my availability when and should I be asked...
...Craig
Robert Craig Harman
Keith Rogers wrote:
>
> mgil...@halcyon.com (Michael Gillman) writes:
>
> >Would this group...
> >include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
> >not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
>
> for pointing out the omission.
A prominent web list of restoration churches
<http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/restore/restoration.html>
includes 43 different organizations beyond the LDS and RLDS churches.
One might ask if this group will all accept discussions of these
offshoots of the LDS and RLDS churches.
If this is the case, the argument must be made against s.r.mormon,
on the basis that many of these religions do _not_ espouse using the
appelation Mormon for their members. Foremost among these groups,
incidentally, is of course the RLDS.
...Craig
Robert Craig Harman
Keith Rogers wrote:
>
>
> Let me just suggest two ideas in favor of the present name. If we
> keep the name of the newsgroup shorter, then there is room on the
> newsgroup line for the whole, correct name of the church
No there isn't. A group with "Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_
Saints" as part of the name would not be reasonable. Several newsgroup
readers cut off each level of the name after 16 letters. The
whole correct name of the church requires 43 characters.
Moreover, levels of the hierarchy do not effect any other levels, thus:
soc.religion.christian.latterday_saints
soc.religion.christian.mormon
soc.religion.christian.lds
are as viable as newsgroup names as:
soc.religion.latterday_saints
soc.religion.mormon
soc.religion.lds
> That would not be the case with s.r.c.m.
Again, this is inaccurate.
> In addition, I see the shorter title as
> a manifestation of humility--a way of saying, "If you want to see what
> we believe, come and read about it," rather than, "Look! We are _so_
> Christians! It says so right there in our newsgroup name!"
No, the question is whether we are respecting the principle that the
placement of a new group in the Usenet hierarchy so be done as
accurately
as possible with relation to the currently existing groups. s.r.mormon
violates this principle.
...Craig
Gregory J. Woodhouse
I must confess feeling rather torn about the naming issue (in both aspects:
*.mormon vs. *.lds and s.r.m vs. s.r.c.m). To begin with, I do recognize
that it is likely that some people will oppose the proposal if the
newsgroup is placed in the *.christian.* hierarchy. But that is where it
properly belongs. We also need to recognize that it the proposal passes,
this is a name we may be stuck with for a long time. That being the case, I
have my doubts about whether we should opt for an inappropriate placement
in the hierarchy simply for the sake of expediency. On the other hand, I
think Peggy Rogers does have a good point in saying that it could be seen
as an issue of pride vs. humility, placing too much emphasis on
externalities. There is also something to be said for brevity in newsgroup
names, but usenet is so large now, that I think appropriate classification
is especially important.
When it comes to *.mormon vs. *.lds, I also have mixed feelings. The
correct name of the church *is* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and so it would be appropriate to use the acronym LDS. On the other
hand, the nick name "Mormon" has a long established history, and there is
nothing inherently wrong with it -- provided, of course, that we recognize
it is just a nick name. To me, this all seems rather analogous to the name
soc.religion.quaker as opposed to soc.religion.friends. I suspect that
here, too, the choice was based on historical precedent and name
recognition.
Perhaps a little background is appropriate here (I apologize if I stray too
far into faith issues here), so that non-LDS can better understand why many
people see this as such a significant issue. We are sometimes referred to
as "Mormons" because of the name of one of our four books of scripture
(which are The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and
The Pearl of Great Price). We believe that The Book of Mormon is a record
of several peoples that anciently lived on the American continent. One of
the prophets in The Book of Mormon was named Mormon. He also played the
role of the principle redactor of the text. That is, he took several
independent records, summarized them, and consolidated them into a single
work. Thus the name. It is important to realize, though, that Mormon is but
one of many prophets. Many LDS dislike being called Mormon for essentially
the same reason that any Christian might object to being called members of
the "Church of Paul".
---
Gregory Woodhouse g...@wnetc.com
home page: http://www.wnetc.com/
resource page: http://www.wnetc.com/resource/
Roger K. Denison
Michael Gillman wrote:
> Would this group, which I think should be named soc.religion.lds,
> not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
I believe RLDS discussions are allowed. The reason for not using lds is due to
a USENET nettiquette thing discouraging the use of acronyms.
--
Roger.
...True religion is the creator of scripture,
not the interpreter thereof...
Natalie Overstreet
Keith Rogers (kro...@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:
: Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> writes:
: > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
: > moderated group soc.religion.mormon
: >
: >Newsgroup line:
: >soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Moderated)
: I'll say first of all I'm rather relieved to find that the strongest
: objections to this RFD so far have focused on its name. I'm not
: surprised by this at all, since the question of naming was the one
: discussed most often and most fruitlessly in the planning stages. We
: considered possibilities ranging from "soc.religion.lds" (which was
: judged by mentors we consulted as being too cryptic for readers not
: familiar with the church) to "soc.religion.restoration.mormon,"
: trying to put the religion in a historical context.
Might I humbly propose soc.religion.latter-day-sts?
12345678901234
This is not as cryptic as "lds" but is not as exclusive as "mormon."
However, I might suggest with regard to "lds" that anyone who is
interested enough in the LDS (and restoration theology in general)
to make an on-topic post to the new group is going to be aware of
and familiar with the acronym "LDS." I merely offer the above as
an alternative.
: I certainly
: understand and sympathize with the opinions of those who want to see
: .christian. in the title, in spite of the inevitable objections and
: conflicts that this would bring. And it's entirely possible that we'll
: ultimately decide to go with the name soc.religion.christian.mormon.
: I'm open to persuasion on this point.
I'm going to have to abstain totally on this one. My only caveat would
be to warn folk that its addition *might* create a lot of hostility,
and that the precedent recently advised is that "controversial" groups
are placed at the third level (s.r.m) rather than the fourth one
(s.r.c.m). Compare the flaming over soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir
(as opposed to soc.culture.kashmir) or talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah
(which was later changed to talk.religion.messiah).
[snip]
Blessings,
Natalie
--
*** I don't speak for HP *** *** fight breast cancer ***
WARNING! This is an UNCENSORED copy of Natalie's signature! Transmitting
this signature could be in violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Free Speech Online Blue Ribbon Campaign: http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html
Keith Rogers
kro...@xmission.xmission.com (Peggy Rogers) writes:
>Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> writes:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>>
>>Newsgroup line:
>>soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Moderated)
1)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 2)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Let me just suggest two ideas in favor of the present name. If we
>keep the name of the newsgroup shorter, then there is room on the
>newsgroup line for the whole, correct name of the church. That would
>not be the case with s.r.c.m.
Okay, I blew it here. Please note that there are two parts to the
"Newsgroup line": 1) the name of the newsgroup and 2) a brief
description. The total characters in these two parts, plus a tab
between them, cannot exceed 80. As the line stands, there are 72
characters in it. My (erroneous) assumption was that by adding
".christian." to the newsgroup name we would be adding ten extra
characters, bringing the total to 82. It turns out, though, that
because of the spacing of tabs, the name "soc.religion.christian.
mormon" plus the name of the church adds up to exactly 80 characters.
Just a small technobabble detail, of little interest to real humans.
Matthew Daly
In article <4ob708$p...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> yl...@simile.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) writes:
>
>However, I am not quite sanguine about the idea of giving up our claim
>that the LDS Church is a Christian faith. The claim that we are not
>is the surface rationale of many of our fiercest critics' charges, and
>I am concerned that the choice of newsgroup name will only add fuel to
>the fire. As seen above, it may also cost us LDS members' support.
I'm afraid that I would have to verify that your fears are founded.
While I am not a "fierce critic" of the LDS, I get queasy when it is
referred to as a Christian faith. Similar to the way that the American
governmental system has become so weighed down that "democracy" no
longer describes it, LDS is filled with so much that is unrelated
(or antithetical, IMHO) to Christ's life and ministry that the name
"Christian" hardly seems applicable.
This is not an attack on your faith -- I am a firm believer in the
First Amendment and people's right to do what they wish spiritually.
But, if it were named s.r.c.m or something similar, I would come off
the fence and vote against it on namespace issues.
Looking at the difference in voting patterns with the two names:
If you keep s.r.m instead of s.r.c.m, you get people voting "no"
instead of abstaining, both critics and any members that you feel
are opposed. You might also turn some yes votes into nos if
members feel that you're not being sufficiently bold for a
permanent name, although they would probably be tempered by the
possible six month delay and the fact that anything would be better
than the alt group at this point.
The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
-Matthew Daly
David Bowie
According to thirdhand reports, bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S.
Bumgarner) wrote:
: the RFD read:
: > [P3] Inappropriate topics:
: > Topics unrelated to mormonism and/or restoration theology.
: > Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
: > LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
: > not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
: > Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
: > detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
: > postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
: > be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
: > of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
: > open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
: Wait a doggone minite. What if the so-called Church of Zenu AKA
: Scientology decided to have moderation rules like this? What about posts
: about alledged racists history of the LDS? Hmmmmm????
Please note that alt.religion.mormon would continue to exist as an
unmoderated group, and that posts on any subject at all would be welcome
there. The proposed soc.r.m. would be moderated in order to eliminate
the flamewars that posts on the above-listed subjects fairly invariably
cause.
(You bring up the always-touchy issue of Scientology. Note that in a
parallel case, the unmoderated alt.religion.scientology, with no such
rules, would exist next to a hypothetical soc.r.s., with limits on what
was posted. Your attempt to bring up censorship as an issue by equating
it with what the Church of Scientology has attempted to do doesn't work,
because in neither your hypothetical situation nor the RFD currently
under discussion is posting of information stifled.)
--
David Bowie _--_|\
dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu / \
PhD student in Sociolinguistics Philadelphia-->\_.--._/
And yes, that actually *is* my real name! v
Guy R. Briggs
da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
|yl...@simile.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) writes:
|>
|> However, I am not quite sanguine about the idea of giving up our
|> claim that the LDS Church is a Christian faith. The claim that
|> we are not is the surface rationale of many of our fiercest
|> critics' charges, and I am concerned that the choice of newsgroup
|> name will only add fuel to the fire. As seen above, it may also
|> cost us LDS members' support.
|
| I'm afraid that I would have to verify that your fears are founded.
| While I am not a "fierce critic" of the LDS, I get queasy when it is
| referred to as a Christian faith. Similar to the way that the
| American governmental system has become so weighed down that
| "democracy" no longer describes it, LDS is filled with so much that
| is unrelated (or antithetical, IMHO) to Christ's life and ministry
| that the name "Christian" hardly seems applicable.
|
| This is not an attack on your faith --
|
|
| -- I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and people's right
| to do what they wish spiritually. But, if it were named s.r.c.m or
| something similar, I would come off the fence and vote against it
| on namespace issues.
|
This is a great example of those who are more interested in "word
games" than serious discussion. Matthew doesn't even call himself a
"fierce critic" yet he would move to veto based on the name only.
One wonders where Matthew would put a new group discussing government
issues -- government.socialism.america? government.communism.america?
government.monarchy.america? Where is the logic in mis-classifying a
group because it doesn't fit ones preconceived notions?
|
| Looking at the difference in voting patterns with the two names:
| If you keep s.r.m instead of s.r.c.m, you get people voting "no"
| instead of abstaining, both critics and any members that you feel
| are opposed. You might also turn some yes votes into nos if
| members feel that you're not being sufficiently bold for a
| permanent name, although they would probably be tempered by the
| possible six month delay and the fact that anything would be better
| than the alt group at this point.
|
| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
|
Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
word "Christian."
Like our forebearers a century and a half ago, driven from their
homes in the dead of winter, we are now being told we are unwelcome
under the classification where we rightly belong.
Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group, under
the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh the
benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
After all, we haven't been posting for the last two years to
alt.religion.christian.mormon!
Matthew Daly
In article <4oghn3$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> gbr...@primenet.com (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
>da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>| This is not an attack on your faith --
> <ahem>
>| -- I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and people's right
>| to do what they wish spiritually. But, if it were named s.r.c.m or
>| something similar, I would come off the fence and vote against it
>| on namespace issues.
> This is a great example of those who are more interested in "word
>games" than serious discussion. Matthew doesn't even call himself a
>"fierce critic" yet he would move to veto based on the name only.
Well, a couple things. First, I don't want to start a serious discussion
of the Latter Day Saints in news.groups, because it's off-topic. Second,
I see a difference between freedom to practice a faith and questioning
"word games". Let's say for instance that a Satanist troll wanted to
establish soc.religion.christian.satanism on the grounds that he
worships the "Christian Satan". Does he have a point? Of course
I'm not associating LDS with Satanism. But there is a long list of
beliefs that LDS holds that is not shared by any "other" Christian
faith, and you know that list as well as I do.
> One wonders where Matthew would put a new group discussing government
>issues -- government.socialism.america? government.communism.america?
>government.monarchy.america? Where is the logic in mis-classifying a
>group because it doesn't fit ones preconceived notions?
Thanks for asking. How about government.america? I would recommend
government.constitutional-repulic.america, but that goes over 14
letters. :-) My point is that it isn't a democracy and it was never
intended to be a democracy, and that telling second grade children
that we live in a democracy doesn't make government.democracy.america
a good newsgroup name.
>| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
>| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
>| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
>|
> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
>would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
>amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
>so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
>word "Christian."
Well, for me, that "emotion" is based on the fact that a "Christian"
faith should be Christ-centered, and my research doesn't lead me to
believe that that's true of the LDS. As to my so-called Christianity,
I don't see the violation in questioning the closeness of our
two faiths.
As to your other points, I support your logical and 1st amendment
rights to have a moderated group as good common sense. But, you
know, I would vote against soc.religion.christian.white-power too.
:-)
> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
>said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group, under
>the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh the
>benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
I think this is a wise course. I hope that you are not offended by
my words, or at least that you are not offended by my bringing to
light views that you might find offensive. I thought that it would
be more honest to let you know of my doubts (and perhaps the doubts
of others) in a more constructive way than voting against s.r.c.m.
-Matthew
LD...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
I'm with Mr. Daly on this. As a confessional (as in the historic creeds
and confessions of the church) Christian, I would feel obligated to
vote against the formation of a Mormon newsgroup under the s.r.c
heirarchy. If the proposed name were retained, I would abstain.
Shalom,
Lon Mendelsohn
Raymond Bingham
Blain Nelson (bla...@anna.az.com) wrote:
>Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> writes:
>>I am of the opinion that opponents of this church will latch use the
>>fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
>>hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
>Doubtless. Of course, since the name of the newsgroup has no real
>inherent meaning about the church, they will be latching on to nothing
>and trying to make it something. And they can and will always find some
>way to latch on to some other nothing and try to make it something as well.
Well, that is why there has been no proposals for
soc.religion.<whatever>.is.the.best! :)
I must agree that I think it would be more accurate to place the LDS newsgroup
under the christian hierarchy. But since there are already exceptions to
the rule, I don't think it is a big deal. I would rather see the proposal
pass than fight over name changes.
>>While I recognize that s.r.quaker and s.r.unitarian-univ are equally
>>misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
>>were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this group
>>appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
>It could well be that all the critics would land on the proposal and
>oppose it if you try to add .christian. to the name, even ones who would
>not necessarily oppose the existing proposal. I don't know.
>I guess I don't think that this kind of detail in a name means a heck of
>a lot.
You need to be aware of the constant "battles" in ARM to be familiar
with why this would be an issue. I personally think it would make the
group less likely to pass the a CFV. About a week after we quelch one
discussion about "Mormons aren't Christians" another one pops up. It
could be an FAQ issue, except that in ARM that is a moot point. People
simply don't respect the rules in ARM.
I honestly think it would be quite refreshing to have a place to exchange
faith promoting messages and discuss things with a new perspective rather
than always putting out flame wars.
Those who are skeptical to the volatile nature of ARM needs only go to
the group and discover the depths of ignorance we have the privelage to
suffer... :)
----
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com *
*****************************************************************
* my opinion 100% * System Simulation: The Bug stops here! *
*****************************************************************
"You have 7 nanoseconds, what's the problem?"
Raymond Bingham
Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>In article <4oghn3$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> gbr...@primenet.com (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
>>da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>>| This is not an attack on your faith --
>> <ahem>
>> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
>>would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
>>amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
>>so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
>>word "Christian."
>Well, for me, that "emotion" is based on the fact that a "Christian"
>faith should be Christ-centered, and my research doesn't lead me to
>believe that that's true of the LDS. As to my so-called Christianity,
>I don't see the violation in questioning the closeness of our
>two faiths.
I think you have clearly demonstrated why, while it would be more accurate
and more meaningful to the particepants of the group, will never have the
newsgroup in the hierarchy we desire. This vocalization of your beliefs
demonstrates pure ignorance, and unfortunately, you are not unique in your
religious intollerance.
For a religion called "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latterday Saints" it
has taken more crap from so called experts of Christ, when truth be told
they have no clue as to the center of LDS beliefs.
The point is, if we want a moderated newsgroup in the Big 8 Mormons are
required to sacrifice their dignity and verily the CORE of what they believe
in, because of the big bullies on the net.
While I don't think this is fair, I also, realistically don't think there is
anything we can do about it.
Furthermore, I would ask the opponent whether they would partecipate in EITHER
proposed newsgroup, or is this just a cry of sour grapes?
>As to your other points, I support your logical and 1st amendment
>rights to have a moderated group as good common sense. But, you
>know, I would vote against soc.religion.christian.white-power too.
>:-)
Thankyou for equating us with "white-power" movements. This is kind
of you. It demonstrates how high we rank in your mind. Is it any
wonder you would oppose this suggestion?
>> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
>>said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group, under
>>the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh the
>>benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
>I think this is a wise course. I hope that you are not offended by
>my words, or at least that you are not offended by my bringing to
>light views that you might find offensive. I thought that it would
>be more honest to let you know of my doubts (and perhaps the doubts
>of others) in a more constructive way than voting against s.r.c.m.
I find it offensive that a religion that has a large number of Usenet
partecipants must forego the core of their religion because of bigotry.
Randy Clapper
In article <31A659...@byu.edu>, Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> writes:
|> Peggy Rogers wrote:
|> >
|> > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
|> > moderated group soc.religion.mormon
|>
|> for the LDS religion, and agree fully that the highly-trafficked alt.
|> group and multiple listserves show definite interest, I am concerned
|> about the accuracy of the group name.
|>
|> I am of the opinion that opponents of this church will latch use the
|> fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
|> hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
|>
|> misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
|> were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this group
|> appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
The formation of a moderated group s.r.m. is needed, and I support the
idea. However, as Craig points out, it would be more accurate to call
it soc.religion.christian.mormon. Whichever, I'll support either one.
The important point is to have the right place in a big-8 ng, for which
the name will identify, to a reasonable extent, something significant
about the ng.
Randy Clapper
Blain Nelson
Robert Craig Harman <pa...@byu.edu> writes:
>Keith Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me just suggest two ideas in favor of the present name. If we
>> keep the name of the newsgroup shorter, then there is room on the
>> newsgroup line for the whole, correct name of the church
>No there isn't. A group with "Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_
>Saints" as part of the name would not be reasonable. Several newsgroup
>readers cut off each level of the name after 16 letters. The
>whole correct name of the church requires 43 characters.
Craig -- Yes there is. Note that what is being talked about is the
*newsgroup line* rather than the *newsgroup name*. The newsgroup line is
the one-line description that appears in some newsreaders the first time
they read the group.
>...Craig
Blain
--
Wanted: Blain Nelson aka "bla...@az.com" aka "bla...@aol.com"
aka "Rahab the Tyrant" aka "anon...@anon.twwells.com"
Subject is considered armed and legged. Persecutors will be violated.
Finger for PGP key. Homepage: http://www.az.com/~blainn
Randall P Devol
Peggy Rogers wrote:
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
So cordial discussions of ceremonies are not possible within the LDS
community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
proposal on philosofical grounds.
> Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
> the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
> consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
There is no mention about when moderator terms expire. Do they ever
expire?
Also, the proposal says that moderators religious affiliation will be
a matter of public record. On the Usenet, you can't tell a person's
gender, let alone their religious affiliation. I will also vote against
this proposal for administrative reasons. It cannot be administered
as proposed. It is just not possible to assure anyone that the moderators
have a mixture of religious beliefs.
-=O=- Randy
Randall P Devol
Peggy Rogers wrote:
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
So cordial discussions of ceremonies are not possible within the LDS
community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
proposal on philosofical grounds.
> Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
> the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
> consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
There is no mention about when moderator terms expire. Do they ever
expire? I will vote against this proposal because there is not limit
to how long a moderator can be a moderator.
Russ Allbery
wReam!! Fancy seeing you here! :)
Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> writes:
> I must agree that I think it would be more accurate to place the LDS
> newsgroup under the christian hierarchy. But since there are already
> exceptions to the rule, I don't think it is a big deal. I would rather
> see the proposal pass than fight over name changes.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on one's perspective, I think
you're right on the nose here. As I recommended to the proponents before
this group was proposed, I think the name should be soc.religion.mormon.
This group clearly falls under the "controversial naming rules of thumb";
there is an ongoing argument over the correct classification of the
religion, and therefore the group should be placed in the neutral
third-level hierarchy, just like soc.religion.quaker and
soc.religion.unitarian-univ.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Natalie Overstreet
Randall P Devol (ran...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
: Peggy Rogers wrote:
: > Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
: > detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
: > postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
: > be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
: > of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
: > open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
: So cordial discussions of ceremonies are not possible within the LDS
: community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
: like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
: proposal on philosofical grounds.
It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for LDSers
only, and not for public dissemination. To quote extensively from those
ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy. Since the group is intended primarily
as a "fellowship" forum for LDSers (right?), blasphemy against the
LDS beliefs would be off-topic. (If you don't believe me, go try to
tour the temple in Salt Lake City. They won't let you in.) Note
also there is a difference between blasphemy and criticism. I don't
have the RFD in front of me, but I would assume that you would be
at liberty to criticize both the moderation policy and the secrecy
of temple ceremonies, if done so politely and in moderation.
So, it's not a restriction of free speech, really. If you are
hell-bent (;-) on LDS blasphemy, you can do it in alt.religion.mormon,
which will still be operational for just such a purpose. It's
simply off-topic in the proposed group.
: > Moderators shall be nominated by either a majority of
: > the existing Moderation Panel, or by a petition
: > consisting of five participants of the newsgroup.
: There is no mention about when moderator terms expire. Do they ever
: expire? I will vote against this proposal because there is not limit
: to how long a moderator can be a moderator.
There isn't a limit in *most* proposals. That's perfectly normal.
Moderators are moderators until they aren't.
: Also, the proposal says that moderators religious affiliation will be
: a matter of public record. On the Usenet, you can't tell a person's
: gender, let alone their religious affiliation. I will also vote against
: this proposal for administrative reasons. It cannot be administered
: as proposed. It is just not possible to assure anyone that the moderators
: have a mixture of religious beliefs.
Well, but it's certainly possible to try. Don't you even think the
effort is worthwhile?
Scott Marquardt
Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>Scott Marquardt wrote:
>>
>> Peggy Rogers wrote:
>>
>> > Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
>> > detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>> > postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>> > be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>> > of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>> > open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
>>
>>
>> If the material quoted refers to the faith of a contributor, it should be
>> fair game. Thus, the former ceremony depicting a mainstream Christian
>> pastor and his folly, ought to be fair game.
>>
>> Since that has been dropped from the ceremony, its status should be no
>> different than the original Book of Commandments, which Mormons do not
>> believe is scripture for today. The dropped ceremony is not "ceremony
>> for today."
>
>However, the LDS take on the temple ceremony is not parallel. The
>temple ceremony regardless of what variation or form it may take is
>viewed as stated above sacred and not for open discussion. Just
>because the former versions of the ceremony are no longer used does
>not diminish their sacredness in the eyes of the LDS.
Not to get into a battle up here over stuff more suited to arm, but I don't
think the grounds of ruling the _former_ ceremony out of bounds (at least, the
part that's germane to my objection) can be based on what's "sacred," since the
ceremony itself is considered by many to lampoon sacred things such as the
Trinity and most certainly the Westminster Confessions.
One would have to rule out criticism of those who critique the ceremony by
indirection as well, since the ceremony can be seen as simply a ritual critique
of Christendom. It all boils down to a big circular problem, where both sides
aver that the sacred is being tinkered with.
My take is that the offending part of the ceremony should be fair game, just as
the Christendom it takes issue with is, in the ceremony itself, fair game. Of
course if my objection is not ensconced in the final edict, this is not to say
that I would be a major party-pooper! The ceremonial issues do not bear on my
own chief interests in discussing Mormonism.
Cordially,
Scott Marquardt
s...@wwa.com (RTF-enabled)
http://miso.wwa.com/~sam/ Please echo a response to email as well. Thanks.
Eugenia Horne
In article <4oau25$2...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
Guy R. Briggs <gbr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>| bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S. Bumgarner) wrote:
>| >
>|
>| [SNIP]
>| > > Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact
>| > > of LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but
>| > > is not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
>|
>| be of interest to anyone, plus -- there may be Mormons, or even
>| Ohioans, anywhere, who might well be interested.
>|
> If the discussions always centered around the relationship between
>church and state, it would be fine. All to often, however, the
>discussion in alt.religion.mormon (a.r.m.) centers around "If Mormons
>believe [A] then how come Utah has such a high rate of [A']?"
Actually, living in an area dominated by the LDS Church,
I was rather surprised by just how very much the religious
affects the "secular" on a day-to-day basis.
It's officially denied, but I have seen concrete examples
where the theological ideals of the Church HAVE abridged the
commonly accepted constitutional ideals of the U.S.
Silly things like the civil rights, freedom of speech,
the right to privacy, etc.
> Which is bad enough, but gets worse when critics of the Mormon Church
>(CsOTMC) start misquoting the statistics!
>
> It has led to the use of something a.r.m. affectionately refers to as
>"Bowie's Inequality Constant," i.e. "Utah != Mormon." If you were to
>peek in on a.r.m. today, for example, you can learn how bad potholes are
>in Utah roads! Surely, this would be off-topic in soc.religion.mormon
>and of little use to anyone outside the state.
It's not necessarily off-topic.
I can think of lots of reasons why it might BE on-topic.
> IMHO, it's what proponents of the new group wish to avoid.
Personally, if I see the vote call for a moderated group
as currently defined, I'm voting "no".
There are lots of areas that SHOULD be discussed but
simply AREN'T due to intolerance (on both sides), a
reluctance for the LDS Church to be a little more open,
fear of retaliation, and other things that have little
to do with the LDS theology itself, but the atmosphere
that surrounds it.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ernst has walzed at one or two Court balls and I have eaten macaroni,
neither of them feats that would justify a triumphal procession."
- Prince Albert
piranha
In article <8329687...@uunet.uu.net>,
Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>
>soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Moderated)
good name choice, in my eyes (do i win a cookie if i bet that
you had considerable grief with this during the pre-RFD stage?)
i'm especially glad to see you didn't try to squeeze into
soc.religion.christian.* -- that would likely cause a lot
of controversy. i'm glad to see the designation "mormon",
which is commonly much better known than "LDS" is acceptable
to most of the target population; soc.religion.lds would be
much more cryptic to the casual namespace cruiser.
> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
uh oh. personally i don't like this sort of thing at all.
if i was about to participate in this group, i'd make a lot
of noise about it. luckily for you, i'm not about to. i
do wish people would reconsider such policies, because it's
beyond me how one can have an open discussion if certain
things are taboo.
> Two moderators must agree to reject an article. If an article
> is rejected, the moderators will provide a comment back to
> the original poster.
you might be causing significant delay here, because this
implies that all moderators have to vote on each article
in question. not having read alt.religion.mormon, i have
no idea how many such articles there would be.
>[P5] The Moderation Panel will consist of at least three and no
>greater than seven moderators. At least 33% shall be members of the
>Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt
>Lake City (LDS). At least 25% shall not be members of the LDS church.
>The religious affiliation of moderators shall be public information.
well done.
>[P6] Two System Administrators, a principal administrator and a
>backup, shall be appointed by the Moderation Panel by a majority vote
>of the Panel. A moderator cannot act as System Administrator and vice
>versa. The role of the System Administrator shall be to ensure that
>the moderation host and Automoderator are operating according to the
>policy set forth by the Moderation Panel.
i like this too. much better IMO than having a moderator
be the system admin; putting in effect all the power into
one hand.
my compliments on a generally well-written RFD.
-alix
Scott Marquardt
Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:
>I must confess feeling rather torn about the naming issue (in both aspects:
>*.mormon vs. *.lds and s.r.m vs. s.r.c.m). To begin with, I do recognize
>that it is likely that some people will oppose the proposal if the
>newsgroup is placed in the *.christian.* hierarchy. But that is where it
>properly belongs. We also need to recognize that it the proposal passes,
>this is a name we may be stuck with for a long time. That being the case, I
>have my doubts about whether we should opt for an inappropriate placement
>in the hierarchy simply for the sake of expediency. On the other hand, I
>think Peggy Rogers does have a good point in saying that it could be seen
>as an issue of pride vs. humility, placing too much emphasis on
>externalities. There is also something to be said for brevity in newsgroup
>names, but usenet is so large now, that I think appropriate classification
>is especially important.
I'm missing something here -- it belongs in the s.r.c. hierarchy but "I have my
doubts about whether we should opt for an inappropriate placement in the
hierarchy simply for the sake of expediency?" Could you explain what you mean?
It's no secret that many non-LDS consider the CoJCoLDS to be distinctly
non-Christian, and I think there might be an irony afoot. My opinion is that
putting it in s.r.c would draw great attention to that issue, and make it a
major matter of discussion. That is, the name of the NG would itself sustain
interest in the question of whether Mormonism is Christian at all. That's OK,
but I just thought it bears mention.
<snip>
>Perhaps a little background is appropriate here (I apologize if I stray too
>far into faith issues here), so that non-LDS can better understand why many
>people see this as such a significant issue. We are sometimes referred to
>as "Mormons" because of the name of one of our four books of scripture
>(which are The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and
>The Pearl of Great Price). We believe that The Book of Mormon is a record
>of several peoples that anciently lived on the American continent. One of
>the prophets in The Book of Mormon was named Mormon. He also played the
>role of the principle redactor of the text. That is, he took several
>independent records, summarized them, and consolidated them into a single
>work. Thus the name. It is important to realize, though, that Mormon is but
>one of many prophets. Many LDS dislike being called Mormon for essentially
>the same reason that any Christian might object to being called members of
>the "Church of Paul".
Though the church seems to have embraced the nomenclature in its PR--though
often in parentheses! That seems to be a concession to popular idiom rather than
an indication of positive approval, I grant.
I'd vote for s.r.m. Mormons have always been able to take themselves lightly,
and indeed have appropriated an early term of derision ("Mormon") and stood it
on its head, IMO. It preserves a distinctiveness due an organization that claims
to stand in a unique position with respect to the balance of Christendom. Though
I frequently use the epithet "LDS" to refer to individual Mormons, ;-) for the
NG the term "Mormon" seems mot juste.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
>|yl...@simile.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) writes:
<snip>
>| -- I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and people's right
>| to do what they wish spiritually. But, if it were named s.r.c.m or
>| something similar, I would come off the fence and vote against it
>| on namespace issues.
> This is a great example of those who are more interested in "word
>games" than serious discussion. Matthew doesn't even call himself a
>"fierce critic" yet he would move to veto based on the name only.
> One wonders where Matthew would put a new group discussing government
>issues -- government.socialism.america? government.communism.america?
>government.monarchy.america? Where is the logic in mis-classifying a
>group because it doesn't fit ones preconceived notions?
Guy, are we over here in n.g. now, begging questions and running into impasses?
Are you forgetting that LDS are coming to this issue with equally "preconceived"
notions? What we're trying to forge is something of an agreement of what's at
stake in order that everyone may vote according to their "preconceived notions."
Do I read you right, that you would prefer to disenfranchize at the outset those
whose preconceived notions are different than yours?
<snip>
>| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
>| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
>| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
>would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
>amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
>so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
>word "Christian."
That's rather an extreme way of characterizing it, don't you think? One might
just as well say that you're willing to risk a killing vote over mere
nomenclature, Guy. Another impasse?
> Like our forebearers a century and a half ago, driven from their
>homes in the dead of winter, we are now being told we are unwelcome
>under the classification where we rightly belong.
Which is begging a question which many who are participating in this seminal
discussion have not resolved to their satisfaction.
> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
>said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group, under
>the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh the
>benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
Agreed.
> After all, we haven't been posting for the last two years to
>alt.religion.christian.mormon!
Indeed!
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Guy R. Briggs wrote:
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>| bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S. Bumgarner) wrote:
> It has led to the use of something a.r.m. affectionately refers to as
>"Bowie's Inequality Constant," i.e. "Utah != Mormon." If you were to
>peek in on a.r.m. today, for example, you can learn how bad potholes are
>in Utah roads! Surely, this would be off-topic in soc.religion.mormon
>and of little use to anyone outside the state.
> IMHO, it's what proponents of the new group wish to avoid.
Guy's right about this, and I've never understood it (speaking nevertheless as a
critic of the church). The automoderator will have to throw up flags on the word
"pothole!" That's only a slight exaggeration, from what I've seen.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Raymond Bingham wrote:
>Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>> (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
>>> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
>>>would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
>>>amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
>>>so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
>>>word "Christian."
>>Well, for me, that "emotion" is based on the fact that a "Christian"
>>faith should be Christ-centered, and my research doesn't lead me to
>>believe that that's true of the LDS. As to my so-called Christianity,
>>I don't see the violation in questioning the closeness of our
>>two faiths.
>I think you have clearly demonstrated why, while it would be more accurate
>and more meaningful to the particepants of the group, will never have the
>newsgroup in the hierarchy we desire. This vocalization of your beliefs
>demonstrates pure ignorance, and unfortunately, you are not unique in your
>religious intollerance.
>For a religion called "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latterday Saints" it
>has taken more crap from so called experts of Christ, when truth be told
>they have no clue as to the center of LDS beliefs.
They don't need to, Raymond. It's sufficient for them to know that Mormonism
considers their faith to be the expression of unbridled apostasy. Any
restorationist sect runs afoul of the stalwarts of the status quo, regardless of
the merits of the Mormon faith. We're not here to discuss the LDS faith, we're
here to discuss a new NG where these very issues can be discussed.
>The point is, if we want a moderated newsgroup in the Big 8 Mormons are
>required to sacrifice their dignity and verily the CORE of what they believe
>in, because of the big bullies on the net.
Well that's what votes are for. One might just as well say "Well, we who
disagree are to be controverted just 'cause a minority is offended?" One would
be ill-advised to say that though, since I'm quite sure the Mormon voting block
would not be unsubstantial.
>While I don't think this is fair, I also, realistically don't think there is
>anything we can do about it.
>Furthermore, I would ask the opponent whether they would partecipate in EITHER
>proposed newsgroup, or is this just a cry of sour grapes?
How does that even matter?
>>As to your other points, I support your logical and 1st amendment
>>rights to have a moderated group as good common sense. But, you
>>know, I would vote against soc.religion.christian.white-power too.
>>:-)
>Thankyou for equating us with "white-power" movements. This is kind
>of you. It demonstrates how high we rank in your mind. Is it any
>wonder you would oppose this suggestion?
He's not equating you with them. He's comparing the logic, not the terms nor the
predications. He's simply saying that just as he does not consider white-power
claims to Christian identity (no pun iintended) to be appropriate, he does not
consider Mormon claims to be appropriate. He's only showing how simply because a
group _claims_ to be Christian, that does not entail that one must accede to
that claim.
>>> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
>>>said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group, under
>>>the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh the
>>>benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
>>I think this is a wise course. I hope that you are not offended by
>>my words, or at least that you are not offended by my bringing to
>>light views that you might find offensive. I thought that it would
>>be more honest to let you know of my doubts (and perhaps the doubts
>>of others) in a more constructive way than voting against s.r.c.m.
>I find it offensive that a religion that has a large number of Usenet
>partecipants must forego the core of their religion because of bigotry.
And likewise, why should many Usenet participants who disagree that Mormonism is
Christian forego _their_ beliefs because of what they might see as equally
bigoted claims--that Mormonism is the zenith of Christian faith in the world
today, restoring authentic Christianity to an apostate world? I'm not arguing
that that _is_ a claim that verges on bigotry, I well-understand that it's not,
per se. But your rashness in attributing bigotry to Matthew does not cast you as
any less bigoted, Raymond, since his convictions arise from, perhaps, a faith
whose character (whether apostate or authentic) simply isn't at issue _this
side_ of the creation of the N.G.
Perhaps we ought to have a "soc.religion.restorationist" classification, and
then we could have a "soc.religion.restorationist.cojcolds" group!
Someone's going to walk away from some kind of vote very dissatisfied. That's
undeniable, it seems to me.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>Peggy Rogers wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>While I am in full support of the need for a moderated big-8 newsgroup
>for the LDS religion, and agree fully that the highly-trafficked alt.
>group and multiple listserves show definite interest, I am concerned
>about the accuracy of the group name.
>I am of the opinion that opponents of this church will latch use the
>fact that the group is not included in the soc.religion.christian.*
>hierarchy to claim that the church is not Christian.
I think it's unlikely that much polemical value would derive from the name of
the group, especially if the group name (s.r.m.) has wide support among LDS.
Craig, I think you'd get a lot _more_ opposition from those non-LDS who are
already quite convinced on the matter, and would see your own preference as
begging one of the questions which is at issue for such people. The Mormon claim
to be the zenith of Christian faith in the world today is not news to opponents
of the church. IMO, anyone who would argue against the CoJCoLDS being a
Christian church on the basis of the name of a NG, would be volatile enough that
"s.r.c.m." would be even more inflammatory.
>While I recognize that s.r.quaker and s.r.unitarian-univ are equally
>misplaced, and that numerous persons might try to squelch the group
>were the name to be s.r.c.mormon, I am currently opposed to this group
>appearing under any name other than s.r.c.mormon.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
<snip good point about a.r.m. being a complementary forum where varied matters
may be debated/flamed>
> The problem with alt.religion.mormon (aside from the 150-200 posts
>per day) is the combative nature of many of the posts. Many potential
>contributors are put off by the "freewheeling" nature of a.r.m. and are
>thus effectively censored.
> One of the stated goals of s.r.m is "open, considerate discussion"
>which is currently impossible on a.r.m. and, IMHO, the best reason for
>the new, moderated group.
Naah! You and I have had several cordial exchanges over there, Guy! But say, I
wonder what will happen to arm once s.r.* opens up? I should think it will go
the way of the dinosaurs, wouldn't you? Won't it be something [more] of a
wasteland? Would you venture a prognostication?
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>Keith Rogers wrote:
>> mgil...@halcyon.com (Michael Gillman) writes:
>> >Would this group...
>> >include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
>> >not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
>> Yes, discussion of the Reorganized Church would be welcome. Thank you
>> for pointing out the omission.
>A prominent web list of restoration churches
><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/restore/restoration.html>
>includes 43 different organizations beyond the LDS and RLDS churches.
>One might ask if this group will all accept discussions of these
>offshoots of the LDS and RLDS churches.
>If this is the case, the argument must be made against s.r.mormon,
>on the basis that many of these religions do _not_ espouse using the
>appelation Mormon for their members. Foremost among these groups,
>incidentally, is of course the RLDS.
This is an excellent point I hadn't thought of. Is "LDS" suited to at least the
major groups? Needless to say, an identification based on the common origin of
these groups is not likely (s.r.smithism, with a perverse nod to Charles ;-)
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Raymond Bingham wrote:
>Those who are skeptical to the volatile nature of ARM needs only go to
>the group and discover the depths of ignorance we have the privelage to
>suffer... :)
We Trinitarians can vouch for that. <duck>
;D
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Randall P Devol wrote:
>Peggy Rogers wrote:
>Also, the proposal says that moderators religious affiliation will be
>a matter of public record. On the Usenet, you can't tell a person's
>gender, let alone their religious affiliation. I will also vote against
>this proposal for administrative reasons. It cannot be administered
>as proposed. It is just not possible to assure anyone that the moderators
>have a mixture of religious beliefs.
Fortunately though, we don't live "on Usenet!" The moderators' public record of
religious affiliation could be validated. Such accountabilty would be fairly
simple to administrate, I should think.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Natalie Overstreet wrote:
>Randall P Devol wrote:
>It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for LDSers
>only, and not for public dissemination.
But a _formerly_ used portion of the ceremony was a lampoon of orthodox
Christian beliefs, explicitly mocking (on some people's view; I for one don't
have especially thin skin) the Westminster Confessions, for example.
Should _that_ be ruled out of bounds?
>To quote extensively from those
>ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy.
And to lampoon the Westminster Confessions where they touch on theological
issues of great moment is equally so. The fact that the Westminster confessions
are not "secret" is not at issue. The LDS temple ceremonies are not in the least
secret, either. That LDS would prefer them to be is clear, and that ought to be
respected. But that the church once lampooned Christian beliefs in the ceremony
seems like a matter that, IMO, should not be ruled out a priori--especially
since that portion of the ceremony is no longer in use by the church.
>Since the group is intended primarily
>as a "fellowship" forum for LDSers (right?),
No:
<quote>
[P1] This group, soc.religion.mormon, will provide a forum for open,
courteous discussion of issues pertaining to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).
[P2] Acceptable topics include, but are not limited to, the
following: church practices and policies, sharing "how-to" ideas for
implementation of church programs, philosophical discussions involving
Mormon doctrine, Latter-day Saint scriptures, lifestyle issues, church
history, Mormon culture.
</quote>
The "Rationale" included the observation that aside from LDS, "many others are
interested in the religion, either from intellectual curiosity or a cultural
perspective," and that while CMC among LDS will be well served by a "more
broadly propagated Big 8 newsgroup," such a group "will also provide the Usenet
community with a readily-available point of contact for information about the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Furthermore, "to encourage equal
access for all points of view, non-LDS participants are mandated as part of the
Moderation Panel."
Fellowship would be a subset, but not the raison d'etre.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Helge Nareid
In article <4oi1qc$a...@jobe.shell.portal.com>,
Randall P Devol <ran...@shell.portal.com> wrote:
>Peggy Rogers wrote:
>
>> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
>> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
>
>community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
>like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
>proposal on philosofical grounds.
I agree. I have no desire to restrict the civilized discussion of
LDS and their religious beliefs, nor do I have any particular
desire to participate in the discussion - I normally abstain from
voting on religious newsgroups. But the quotation from the charter
looks to me like censorship based on religious dogma, something
which I find objectionable, regardless of which religion or
ideology is involved. I would have no objection to an
unmoderated group, however.
--
Helge Nareid - Nordmann i utlendighet
Optical Engineering Lab., RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-01, Japan
E-mail: nar...@optsun.riken.go.jp
WWW: http://optsun.riken.go.jp/nareid.html
Guy R. Briggs
da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
| gbr...@primenet.com (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
|> da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
|>| referred to as a Christian faith. Similar to the way that the
|>| American governmental system has become so weighed down that
|>| "democracy" no longer describes it, LDS is filled with so much that
|>| is unrelated (or antithetical, IMHO) to Christ's life and ministry
|>| that the name "Christian" hardly seems applicable.
|
|>| to do what they wish spiritually. But, if it were named s.r.c.m or
|>| something similar, I would come off the fence and vote against it
|>| on namespace issues.
|
|> This is a great example of those who are more interested in "word
|> games" than serious discussion. Matthew doesn't even call himself a
|> "fierce critic" yet he would move to veto based on the name only.
|
| discussion of the Latter Day Saints in news.groups, because it's
| off-topic. Second, I see a difference between freedom to practice
| a faith and questioning "word games". Let's say for instance that
| a Satanist troll wanted to establish soc.religion.christian.satanism
| on the grounds that he worships the "Christian Satan". Does he have
| a point? Of course I'm not associating LDS with Satanism. But there
| is a long list of beliefs that LDS holds that is not shared by any
| "other" Christian faith, and you know that list as well as I do.
|
porpoise , I get queasy when they are referred to "mammals". Similar to
unrelated (or antimammiliar, IMHO) to other fur-bearing, legged animals
that the name "mammal" hardly seems applicable.
I mean, let's face it - porpoises don't have legs _or_ fur so how
could they possibly consider themselves to be mammals? And platypi - for
crying out loud, they _lay eggs_!! I say if it walks like a duck, quacks
like a duck and tastes good with plum sauce, it probably _is_ a duck.
|
|>| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
|>| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
|>| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
|>|
|> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
|> would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
|> amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
|> so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
|> word "Christian."
|
| Well, for me, that "emotion" is based on the fact that a "Christian"
| faith should be Christ-centered, and my research doesn't lead me to
| believe that that's true of the LDS. As to my so-called Christianity,
| I don't see the violation in questioning the closeness of our
| two faiths.
|
| As to your other points, I support your logical and 1st amendment
| rights to have a moderated group as good common sense. But, you
| know, I would vote against soc.religion.christian.white-power too.
| :-)
|
I would vote against rattlesnakes and scorpions as "mammals" as well.
|
|> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
|> said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group,
|> under the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh
|> the benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
|
| I think this is a wise course. I hope that you are not offended by
| my words, or at least that you are not offended by my bringing to
| light views that you might find offensive. I thought that it would
| be more honest to let you know of my doubts (and perhaps the doubts
| of others) in a more constructive way than voting against s.r.c.m.
|
No offense taken! Clearly, the issue is controversial and recently
amended naming conventions suggest that we should go with a third-level
name rather than the fourth level name.
But I hope that my "over the left" attempt at animal classification
shows how silly this whole issue is.
Guy R. Briggs
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
| gbr...@primenet.com (Guy R. Briggs wrote:
|> da...@PPD.Kodak.COM (Matthew Daly) wrote:
|>| yl...@simile.cc.columbia.edu (Yeechang Lee) writes:
|
|<snip>
|
|>| to do what they wish spiritually. But, if it were named s.r.c.m or
|>| something similar, I would come off the fence and vote against it
|>| on namespace issues.
|
|> This is a great example of those who are more interested in "word
|> games" than serious discussion. Matthew doesn't even call himself a
|> "fierce critic" yet he would move to veto based on the name only.
|
|> government issues -- government.socialism.america? government.
|> in mis-classifying a group because it doesn't fit ones preconceived
|> notions?
|
| Guy, are we over here in n.g. now, begging questions and running into
| impasses?
|
to do is make a point about the problems with the name while staying
away from LDS doctrines (which I feel are inappropriate in this forum).
Matthew (and others) have stated that they would come "off the fence"
to vote against the ng if it was presented as s.r.c.m. (fourth level
name) but as s.r.m. (at the third level) it's just fine.
This is tantamount to saying that the platypus is "not _really_ a
mammal" because it lays eggs - ignoring the fact that the established
definition for mammal _only_ specifies mammary glands (though they may
also mention warm-blooded, air-breathing and vertebrate.)
|
| Are you forgetting that LDS are coming to this issue with equally
| "preconceived" notions? What we're trying to forge is something of an
| agreement of what's at stake in order that everyone may vote according
| to their "preconceived notions."
|
| Do I read you right, that you would prefer to disenfranchize at the
| outset those whose preconceived notions are different than yours?
|
How 'bout a neutral third party? Webster, Funk, Wagnall or Oxford -
your choice. How is "Christian" defined? My guess is that any and all of
them talk about a belief in Christ - with no further qualification.
|
|>| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
|>| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
|>| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
|
|> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
|> would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
|> amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
|> so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
|> word "Christian."
|
| That's rather an extreme way of characterizing it, don't you think?
| One might just as well say that you're willing to risk a killing vote
| over mere nomenclature, Guy. Another impasse?
|
High impasses call for extreme measures! (:
|
|> Like our forebearers a century and a half ago, driven from their
|> homes in the dead of winter, we are now being told we are unwelcome
|> under the classification where we rightly belong.
|
| Which is begging a question which many who are participating in this
| seminal discussion have not resolved to their satisfaction.
|
So let's get s.r.m. going and we'll talk about it some more.
|
|> Well, so be it! "A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet,"
|> said the Bard. I think the benefits of having a moderated group,
|> under the umberella of the "Big-8 Hierarchy" would have far outweigh
|> the benefit of being grouped with the rest of the Christian world.
|
| Agreed.
|
|> After all, we haven't been posting for the last two years to
|> alt.religion.christian.mormon!
|
| Indeed!
Best Regards,
Loren Davis
On 28 May 1996, Matthew Daly wrote:
> [...] I'm afraid that I would have to verify that your fears are founded.
> While I am not a "fierce critic" of the LDS, I get queasy when it is
> referred to as a Christian faith. Similar to the way that the American
> governmental system has become so weighed down that "democracy" no
> longer describes it, LDS is filled with so much that is unrelated
> (or antithetical, IMHO) to Christ's life and ministry that the name
> "Christian" hardly seems applicable.
>
> This is not an attack on your faith -- I am a firm believer in the
> First Amendment and people's right to do what they wish spiritually.
> But, if it were named s.r.c.m or something similar, I would come off
> the fence and vote against it on namespace issues. [...]
>
> -Matthew Daly
Since I am not a member of the LDS Church, nor even a Christian, the
name of this newsgroup does not greatly concern me, and, as I have no plans
to read it if it passes, I will not vote on the proposal. However, I did
feel strongly enough that "talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah" violated
namespace to post and say, just like Matthew Daly has regarding "soc.
religion.christian.mormon", that I would vote against it because of its
name; fairness therefore requires me to put on the record some reason
for not sallying forth to defend "soc.religion.christian.*" from the
infidel horde.
As Mr. Daly doesn't tell us either why the United States once was a
"democracy" and now isn't or which doctrines of the LDS Church he con-
siders "unrelated" or "antithetical" to kosher Christianity, I can only
guess at his definitions of each. In both cases, I would suggest that the
reader remember what those words literally mean: whatever changes this
century has made to America's form of government which Mr. Daly feels are
more significant than Women's Suffrage, Desegregation, the direct elec-
tion of senators, the introduction of ballot measures into most states, or
the Supreme Court's decision that the First Amendment, in which he so firmly
believes, could no longer be freely ignored by every state, the United
States is governed by officials whom the people elect, and is therefore
a democracy. Similarly, whatever differences there may be between his
religion and that of this RFD's proponents, the LDS Church worships
Christ as the Messiah, and is therefore "Christian" in at least the most
literal sense.
Even though Mr. Daly does not say so explicitly, he appears to think
that his own denomination more closely follows the example of "Christ's life
and ministry" than the LDS Church does. Of this I am skeptical. One must
remember that, during Jesus' lifetime, Christianity was a fundamentalist
Jewish sect which had only a small number of members, no hierarchy
except that between Jesus and his closest disciples, no saints, and no
fixed places of worship, celebrated the Jewish holidays and the Sabbath
on Saturdays, added no festivals of its own to the year, and was far
more concerned with the actions of individuals, particularly in regard
to wealth and poverty, than with laws, governments, or the workings of
society. I suspect that Mr. Daly might agree that all Christian congreg-
ations today are very different from this early Church, and that many of
their differences are necessary two thousand years later.
At any rate, since all useful definitions of Christianity must include
movements which existed primarily to make money for their founders, move-
ments which have endorsed murder or terrorism, movements which have crea-
ted insular societies governed on religious principles, movements which
do not actively proselytize, movements which have exerted great political
influence on the larger societies around them, movements which have held
that the pursuit of wealth is an important goal of human life and that
prosperity is a sign of God's favor, movements which have claimed divine
endorsement of democracy and religious tolerance, and movements which
have made into dogma beliefs demonstrably contrary to reality, all
doctrines either "unrelated" or even "antithetical" to those of Jesus, I
must wonder why, despite its avowal of Christ, the LDS Church is not to
be considered "Christian", which is to say, what the standard of
comparison should be and how much uniqueness should be allowed.
Best wishes,
Loren Davis.
Matthew Daly
Loren,
Please forgive me for trimming out your excellent post. I know that
I could get around rn's restrictions on replies by changing the >'s to
:'s, but that would defeat the purpose. If I quote you out of context,
it isn't out of malice. :-)
Loren Davis <dav...@whitman.edu> writes:
>
>[...] However, I did
>feel strongly enough that "talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah" violated
>namespace to post and say, just like Matthew Daly has regarding "soc.
>religion.christian.mormon", that I would vote against it because of its
>name; fairness therefore requires me to put on the record some reason
>for not sallying forth to defend "soc.religion.christian.*" from the
>infidel horde.
Well, I can hardly expect you to defend every controversial namespace
encroachment. You were offended by trj.j-m, so you stated your
objections. But if you aren't offended by the possibility of srcm,
I cannot and would not expect you fight that battle.
> As Mr. Daly doesn't tell us either why the United States once was a
>"democracy" and now isn't or which doctrines of the LDS Church he con-
>siders "unrelated" or "antithetical" to kosher Christianity, I can only
>guess at his definitions of each. In both cases, I would suggest that the
>reader remember what those words literally mean: whatever changes this
>century has made to America's form of government which Mr. Daly feels are
>more significant than Women's Suffrage, Desegregation, the direct elec-
>tion of senators, the introduction of ballot measures into most states, or
>the Supreme Court's decision that the First Amendment, in which he so firmly
>believes, could no longer be freely ignored by every state, the United
>States is governed by officials whom the people elect, and is therefore
>a democracy.
That was me trying to keep my messages short. I guess I should aim
for verbose, as long as you all promise to read my messages to the
end! :-)
What I was trying to say (as wouldn't be clear to anyone outside
the US) is that the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to avoid a
"majority rule" system of government, which is what democracy is.
The three branches of government, checks and balances, and other
facets of American government were established to protect minority
views. I would recomend "The Federalist Papers" for more on the
subject of protecting ourselves from the tyranny of majority views.
Perhaps you would agree that if majority rule were all we
had to go by, women's sufferage and desegregation would be much less
successful than they were.
> Similarly, whatever differences there may be between his religion
>and that of this RFD's proponents, the LDS Church worships Christ as
>the Messiah, and is therefore "Christian" in at least the most
> literal sense.
Without going too far down that road, I think a similar "literal
sense" claim was made for talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah.
I couldn't and won't argue that claim. If it happened to be that
you objected to that name out of a broader interest in "protecting"
the sanctity of the name "jewish" from ideas that you considered
to be non-Jewish, then you know what I'm feeling. I don't think
it's possible to have these debates without such emotional
involvement.
> Even though Mr. Daly does not say so explicitly, he appears to think
>that his own denomination more closely follows the example of "Christ's life
>and ministry" than the LDS Church does. Of this I am skeptical. [...]
>I suspect that Mr. Daly might agree that all Christian congreg-
>ations today are very different from this early Church, and that many of
>their differences are necessary two thousand years later.
I cannot claim to be an expert on LDS history and theology. As an
outsider of that faith, there is only so much that I can know. I
am told by people who's views I trust that the LDS does not consider
the divinity of Christ to be central to their theology. There are
passages that I have read from the Book of Mormon that I frankly
consider to be completely antithetical to Christ's message. Although
my site does not receive alt.religion.mormon, you can probably find
all the points I could make and more over there.
Let me wrap up with a few more caveats. :-) I am, of course, not
bringing up concrete points. This is more out of interest in
keeping this discussion on the issue of namespace instead of on
the issue of debating LDS theology. (I think that this thread
is much easier to read and more pleasant because of it, don't
you?) Because of this limitation, I'm not particularly vying
toward recruiting people to "my side" on the debate. Rather,
I would like to point out that this is a Controversial Namespace
Issue (TM), and the vote on an LDS newsgroup would much more
accurately reflect interest in readership if it had a third-
level name instead of fourth-level.
-Matthew Daly
And, of course, I am not speaking for my employer.
Raymond Bingham
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
> uh oh. personally i don't like this sort of thing at all.
> if i was about to participate in this group, i'd make a lot
> of noise about it. luckily for you, i'm not about to. i
> do wish people would reconsider such policies, because it's
> beyond me how one can have an open discussion if certain
> things are taboo.
I think your concerns are unfounded. Firstly there are a number of
websites that have this information posted, against our own desires.
In addition it is destructive and disrespectful to the members of
the LDS church. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, because
we have known the opposite in alt.religion.mormon. In this newsgroup
anything goes. Point being that there already exists a newsgroup in
which one can vent and post anything the distractors want. We would
like a forum that encourages religious respect and tollerance.
I have a large number of friends that will not particepate in ARM
because of the disrespectful/irreverent nature of something which is
inherently reverent and personal. By having the assurance that people
will not be caustically disrespectful, I am optimistic we will
increase the readership of the group... It really is a different type
of group than ARM. We don't want another ARM. Perhaps what you state
is the desire to create another group soc.religion.mormon.anythinggoes?
Finally, I think any reference to such quoted materials, such as
temple ceremonies could be placed in FAQs. There are plenty of
ways to get the information if you want it, but we would rather not
have it posted to our group.
>> Two moderators must agree to reject an article. If an article
>> is rejected, the moderators will provide a comment back to
>> the original poster.
> you might be causing significant delay here, because this
> implies that all moderators have to vote on each article
> in question. not having read alt.religion.mormon, i have
> no idea how many such articles there would be.
Keep in mind this only applies to articles that are rejected. I think
it will work well, once people get the hang of it. And I think it will
be helpful with those who feel they are being run out of the group on
a rail... :) There are some critics that engage in trolling on a regular
basis who will cry "censorship" without this clause.
(Of course, I doubt they would vote for the creation of this group
no matter HOW we worded the RFD... so perhaps your point is this... :)
> my compliments on a generally well-written RFD.
We hope that this group will be a model for how to obtain moderation for
some of the more potentially volatile subject matters on the net. If
we make the automation and moderation committee work without any major
snags, I think it will benefit the entire net.community in this regard.
Raymond Bingham
Natalie Overstreet (nat...@col.hp.com) wrote:
>Randall P Devol (ran...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
>: Peggy Rogers wrote:
>: > Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
>: > detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>: > postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>: > be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>: > of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>: > open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
>: So cordial discussions of ceremonies are not possible within the LDS
>: community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
>: like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
>: proposal on philosofical grounds.
>It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for LDSers
>only, and not for public dissemination. To quote extensively from those
>ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy. Since the group is intended primarily
>as a "fellowship" forum for LDSers (right?), blasphemy against the
>LDS beliefs would be off-topic. (If you don't believe me, go try to
>tour the temple in Salt Lake City. They won't let you in.) Note
>also there is a difference between blasphemy and criticism. I don't
>have the RFD in front of me, but I would assume that you would be
>at liberty to criticize both the moderation policy and the secrecy
>of temple ceremonies, if done so politely and in moderation.
Note, the LDS temple ceremonies are NOT for all LDS either. WE do not
discuss this anywhere except within the temple. It is sacred. I wish
I could make this more clear, but there are few things in this world that
are still held in high esteem and with sanctity.
Truth be known, we would that all men and women came to know the fullness
of the temple ceremonies in the right spirit, but news is not the proper
place for this type of discussion. It will offend a large number of the
proponents to the group and will reduce readership. With a forum which
is free of such potential derision, we invite more members of the LDS church
to provide input without being offended and leaving.
As was noted before, if you absolutely must, there is alt.religion.mormon for
an anything goes forum. It is full of trolls and flames. Before casting
judgement on our decision please GO to the group and read it for a few days.
I honestly exhort you to try and sort out what is and is not mormon belief.
There are hundreds of voices all claiming to know what Mormons believe, and
a large number of them are lies and stories told them by those who seek to
raise walls of intollerance.
The materials we object to are readily available on the web and via ftp.
If you really need them you can track them down. We would rather not
continually reopen this can of worms. It is not fair to readers of the group
who want to get value from the newsgroup.
Furthermore, on alt.religion.mormon, we get large number of materials
(in particular antimormon material) which are downloaded from a friendly
neighborhood website, specializing in this, and they get reposted to the
group incessantly. I cannot overemphasize this is a serious distraction.
The arguments have been attended to a number of times. We get no
forward progress.
Before you think we are being extreme or "unconstitutional" please consider
the precedent group we have all had to endure. That of alt.religion.mormon.
We don't propose to eliminate ARM, just provide a forum for respectful
discussion of mormon ideas. It would benefit the entire net, not just the
LDS. Because at this time, this is not happening.
Matthew Daly
ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:
>Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>
>I think you have clearly demonstrated why, while it would be more accurate
>and more meaningful to the particepants of the group, will never have the
>newsgroup in the hierarchy we desire. This vocalization of your beliefs
>demonstrates pure ignorance, and unfortunately, you are not unique in your
>religious intollerance.
Enough.
I understand that news.groups is a flame-filled place, but I think
that you're more interested in a fight than a discussion. While
I disagree with the points that you have made, I would not stoop
to calling you ignorant. Particlarly in a discussion where we
are discussing religions, I think it's important to be civil. With
that in mind, your reply to this will be the last word in this
discussion.
>For a religion called "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latterday Saints" it
>has taken more crap from so called experts of Christ, when truth be told
>they have no clue as to the center of LDS beliefs.
How do you feel about Christian Science? Do we lump them in with the
United Church of Christ just because they make reference to the same
person? For myself, I say no. Is Christian Science more of a Christian
faith than Lutheranism because the former mentions Christ and the latter
mentions some human guy who isn't even a saint? I think that you have
to look much more deeply than the name of a religion to see what they
believe in.
>The point is, if we want a moderated newsgroup in the Big 8 Mormons are
>required to sacrifice their dignity and verily the CORE of what they believe
>in, because of the big bullies on the net.
I don't see who is stopping you from having a moderated newsgroup in
the Big 8. Tell you what. If my provider offers soc.religion.mormon,
I'll read it for a while. On those grounds, I consider myself qualified
to vote YES on srm, and I will do so gladly.
>Furthermore, I would ask the opponent whether they would partecipate in EITHER
>proposed newsgroup, or is this just a cry of sour grapes?
I'm uncertain about how relevant either newsgroup would be to my
life, but I'm willing to give it a try to find out more about
these core beliefs that you mention. I also fear that, if
a heirarchy got set up under soc.religion.christian, that the
inevitable call for soc.religion.christian.misc would come up,
a ng name upon which I would take even greater umbrage.
And it seems to me that the majority of RFD's being discussed
in news.groups have to defend their namespace. That, traffic,
and moderation considerations are the three major issues when
creating an ng. To say that an outsider questioning namespace
is "sour grapes" (in effect, that only insiders can participate
in choosing the name of an ng) is both ill-advised and not
done in any other RFD.
>>As to your other points, I support your logical and 1st amendment
>>rights to have a moderated group as good common sense. But, you
>>know, I would vote against soc.religion.christian.white-power too.
>>:-)
>
>Thankyou for equating us with "white-power" movements. This is kind
>of you. It demonstrates how high we rank in your mind. Is it any
>wonder you would oppose this suggestion?
My goodness, I didn't have a sense that I was coming across as this
antagonistic. I put in a quick caveat earlier in my post when I
mentioned Satanism that it wasn't meant out of a sense to equate
Satanism with LDS. I figured it would seem pretty pedantic to
put in the same warning again, but I guess I should have stuck with
my first instinct. I also figured that white-power would be pretty
firmly entrenched in people's minds as the pristine example of
a ng whose name was deemed ill-chosen by many. My apologies for
upsetting you ... I'll refrain from glib comments when responding
to your posts now and in any future discussions.
-Matthew Daly
The views expressed in this post are those of the poster, not his
employer.
Raymond Bingham
>>It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for LDSers
>>only, and not for public dissemination.
>But a _formerly_ used portion of the ceremony was a lampoon of orthodox
>Christian beliefs, explicitly mocking (on some people's view; I for one don't
>have especially thin skin) the Westminster Confessions, for example.
>Should _that_ be ruled out of bounds?
>>To quote extensively from those
>>ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy.
>And to lampoon the Westminster Confessions where they touch on theological
>issues of great moment is equally so. The fact that the Westminster confessions
>are not "secret" is not at issue. The LDS temple ceremonies are not in the least
>secret, either. That LDS would prefer them to be is clear, and that ought to be
>respected. But that the church once lampooned Christian beliefs in the ceremony
>seems like a matter that, IMO, should not be ruled out a priori--especially
>since that portion of the ceremony is no longer in use by the church.
Do you not understand the difference between "secret" and "sacred"?
The ceremonies are sacred, and therefore will not get openly discussed.
The fact that you think you can get an "open" dialogue is ridiculous since
you will get no input from the active LDS members!! They will not comment
on it because it is sacred, and want to keep it that way. The only type
of discussion you can get is a slanted one, and we would like to keep those
type of discussions in alt.religion.mormon.
So my question is... Do you honestly think this is a fair thing to have
in the group? By discussing it you will by definition of the subject matter
NOT be getting the whole truth!
>>Since the group is intended primarily
>>as a "fellowship" forum for LDSers (right?),
>No:
Agreed. It is not a fellowship group only.
(one group at a time... ;)
Scott has been a good example of how one can (for the most part, both on
my reactions to his and his own reactions to mine... :) openly discuss
contentions with the LDS church without being a distraction or disrespectful.
Occasionally these boundaries have been pushed to the likings of perhaps some
who would moderate, but truth be known, I think most rational posts of
objections that go to ARM would make it to SRM without a second thought.
We are quite aware of the fact that there are misconceptions about our
religion. To ignore these would be detrimental to us as well... The point
is that there should be a framework of mutual respect, which all partecipants
can count on. If that framework isn't there, we have ARM.
Keith Rogers
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) writes:
>Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>>Keith Rogers wrote:
>>> mgil...@halcyon.com (Michael Gillman) writes:
>
>>> >Would this group...
>>> >include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
>>> >not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
>>> Yes, discussion of the Reorganized Church would be welcome. Thank you
>>> for pointing out the omission.
>>If this is the case, the argument must be made against s.r.mormon,
>>on the basis that many of these religions do _not_ espouse using the
>>appelation Mormon for their members. Foremost among these groups,
>>incidentally, is of course the RLDS.
>This is an excellent point I hadn't thought of. Is "LDS" suited to at least the
>major groups? Needless to say, an identification based on the common origin of
>these groups is not likely (s.r.smithism, with a perverse nod to Charles ;-)
We've decided pretty firmly that ".lds" won't do in the name of the newsgroup
for reasons of clarity. The newsgroup will be devoted mainly to the discussion
of the Utah-based CoJCoLDS, which is frequently refered to as "Mormon." Since
there is no other specific forum for discussions of other "restoration" churches,
those discussions will be welcome in s.r.m., both on doctrinal and historical
grounds. I don't see that as a reason, though, to add yet more complications to
the naming controversy.
--
| " For when two beings who are not friends
Peggy Rogers | are near each other, there is no meeting,
kro...@xmission.com | and when friends are apart, there is
| no separation." Simone Weil
Raymond Bingham
Scott Marquardt (s...@wwa.com) wrote:
>Raymond Bingham wrote:
>>Matthew Daly (da...@PPD.Kodak.COM) wrote:
>>> (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
>>The point is, if we want a moderated newsgroup in the Big 8 Mormons are
>>required to sacrifice their dignity and verily the CORE of what they believe
>>in, because of the big bullies on the net.
>Well that's what votes are for. One might just as well say "Well, we who
>disagree are to be controverted just 'cause a minority is offended?" One would
>be ill-advised to say that though, since I'm quite sure the Mormon voting block
>would not be unsubstantial.
I wouldn't expect the issue that is commonly discussed and rediscussed to
make much of a dent in the net, but I have always been of the opinion that the
net.community were a bit more enlightened than the general population.
Therefore I would seek a more accurate naming strategy.
Personally if this is the only problem with the group, leave it be as
soc.religion.mormon, and in the FAQ to the group we can explain why the
decision was made. I just have this nagging little voice saying, "But it
is wrong!" For the imposition of such a restriction rings wrong to me...
But then, like you say, I am one of those evil mormons, who doesn't really
know who they worship. ;)
>>Furthermore, I would ask the opponent whether they would partecipate in EITHER
>>proposed newsgroup, or is this just a cry of sour grapes?
>How does that even matter?
The point is that there is MORE THAN ENOUGH demand for the creation of
this newsgroup. If the only reason it is not created because of the bigotry
of people who don't respect our freedom to a framework of discussion, I would
consider this an ethically questionable motivation to vote against it.
The creation of soc.religion.mormon will benefit Usenet. I would hate to
think that people would vote against it because some preacher told them
"mormons are bad".
[snip of rest]
I apologize to Matthew for calling him a bigot. Scott is right, typically
the one calling the other bigot is also a bigot. (See the gay debate in ARM
for more details on this issue... :) It is my battleworn nature in ARM, please
forgive me...
I would mention that on the surface, Matthew appears to be misinformed if
he believes our core beliefs do not center on Christ and his Gospel.
Thanks for the call, Scott... I love you MAN! :)
Raymond Bingham
>>Peggy Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
>>> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>>> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>>> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>>> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>>> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
>>
>>So cordial discussions of ceremonies are not possible within the LDS
>>community? (I am obviously not one of the "in" crowd.) A restriction
>>like this crosses the "free speech" line. I will vote against this
>>proposal on philosofical grounds.
>I agree. I have no desire to restrict the civilized discussion of
>LDS and their religious beliefs, nor do I have any particular
>desire to participate in the discussion - I normally abstain from
>voting on religious newsgroups. But the quotation from the charter
>looks to me like censorship based on religious dogma, something
>which I find objectionable, regardless of which religion or
>ideology is involved. I would have no objection to an
>unmoderated group, however.
Helga,
The problem is that this is a moot point. If you seek to open a discussion
as such, members of the group will be offended and leave. It is like
having a group which is so cluttered with spam and other noise that no one
can discuss the issues that are of import to them.
Do you want to create a group where the slant of readers is toward antimormon
literature and argumentative critics? I don't. We already have this!
Please before casting judgement go to alt.religion.mormon. We don't get the
chance to discuss our beliefs openly and thus we are censored by the caustic
nature of the group. There is no orderly discussion because of the chaotic
nature of the group. Consider what would happen if you pulled out all the
stoplights in your city. There is a potential for deadlock. This is what has
happened in alt.religion.mormon. There is no accumulation of knowlege because
people don't listen, they just react!
The temple ceremonies are sacred. If one posts their commentaries on it
the only people who will discuss any type of the details in the ceremony are
by definition NOT respecting the ceremony. Therefore the discussion from the
offset is SLANTED and wasted communications! The fact is that active LDS
members who are living their temple covenants will not discuss the internals
of the ceremony. Therefore you are left without a critical group of
partecipants.
If you wish to discuss this, there are other places and other ways, but we
do not feel it would be constructive and conducive to higher learning to
include that in our group. Is this so wrong? I hope you will reconsider
your position out of respect and tolerance for our own rights of free religion.
I wish I could discuss this more, but truth be told, the majority of our
population doesn't hold anything sacred. I would liken it to some serious
breach of sanctity to some other religion, but I doubt it would make a
difference to people who have no empathy for what it means to hold something
sacred.
The point is, if we remove the line we will only be reducing partecipation in
the group. It is not like those that post objections will be censored. They
can post to ARM, if they feel a need to violate our reverences.
Raymond Bingham
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote:
>wReam!! Fancy seeing you here! :)
Hi Eagle!
>Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> writes:
>> I must agree that I think it would be more accurate to place the LDS
>> newsgroup under the christian hierarchy. But since there are already
>> exceptions to the rule, I don't think it is a big deal. I would rather
>> see the proposal pass than fight over name changes.
>Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on one's perspective, I think
>you're right on the nose here. As I recommended to the proponents before
>this group was proposed, I think the name should be soc.religion.mormon.
>This group clearly falls under the "controversial naming rules of thumb";
>there is an ongoing argument over the correct classification of the
>religion, and therefore the group should be placed in the neutral
>third-level hierarchy, just like soc.religion.quaker and
>soc.religion.unitarian-univ.
I agree with your point of view. I think it is unfair and I don't like
the idea, but I agree with the fact that we seriously cripple our chances
should we choose to change the name to such a hierarchy.
Ho hum... This isn't new to me. :)
Scott Marquardt
>|<snip>
Not like that even a little bit, Guy. The taxonomies of such critters are
accepted, even if the original designations were in dispute. What's at issue
here for some is whether this Mormon "bat" is a "bird."
<sorry, couldn't help myself ;>
See how our respective views differ so much? We can each say "it's like..."
because we already have settled conclusions on the matter. _In view of that_,
it's begging the question of whose conclusions are "right" for us to bicker this
way. Mormonism's status as truly Christian is simply not a foregone conclusion
for all those who are parties to this matter. That's a _fact_--whether or not
they're wrong--and we're not going to settle the rightness or wrongness of the
matter here, that's fer sher. We need to deal with the facts of who's involved
in this, not the rightness of their perspectives.
We need a via media or a tertium quid, methinks (don't drink too much in one
sitting, though ;-) .
>| Are you forgetting that LDS are coming to this issue with equally
>| "preconceived" notions? What we're trying to forge is something of an
>| agreement of what's at stake in order that everyone may vote according
>| to their "preconceived notions."
>| Do I read you right, that you would prefer to disenfranchize at the
>| outset those whose preconceived notions are different than yours?
> How 'bout a neutral third party? Webster, Funk, Wagnall or Oxford -
>your choice. How is "Christian" defined? My guess is that any and all of
>them talk about a belief in Christ - with no further qualification.
This neutral third party (having checked a couple) would permit us to include
even atheists in the definition, oddly enough. Furthermore, my dictionary's
definition of "Mormon" is inclusive of all your splinter groups. I'll agree that
resort to the dictionary might be helpful, but in this case the lack of
discriminating signification seems as much a problem as a help, IMO.
>|>| The question you have to ask yourself is whether you feel that
>|>| you have so much support for the group that you can weather the
>|>| additional "no" votes if you were to go for s.r.c.m.
>|> Sadly I feel this is accurate - many critics of the Mormon faith
>|> would set aside the logic of having the new group, set aside 1st
>|> amendment rights, set aside _common sense_, even set aside their
>|> so-called Christianity - to vote based on the emotion loaded into the
>|> word "Christian."
>| That's rather an extreme way of characterizing it, don't you think?
>| One might just as well say that you're willing to risk a killing vote
>| over mere nomenclature, Guy. Another impasse?
> High impasses call for extreme measures! (:
<laugh>
Yeah...
;D
<snip>
> So let's get s.r.m. going and we'll talk about it some more.
I'm sure we will! ;D
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Loren Davis wrote:
<snip>
> At any rate, since all useful definitions of Christianity must include
>movements which existed primarily to make money for their founders, move-
>ments which have endorsed murder or terrorism, movements which have crea-
>ted insular societies governed on religious principles, movements which
>do not actively proselytize, movements which have exerted great political
>influence on the larger societies around them, movements which have held
>that the pursuit of wealth is an important goal of human life and that
>prosperity is a sign of God's favor, movements which have claimed divine
>endorsement of democracy and religious tolerance, and movements which
>have made into dogma beliefs demonstrably contrary to reality, all
>doctrines either "unrelated" or even "antithetical" to those of Jesus, I
>must wonder why, despite its avowal of Christ, the LDS Church is not to
>be considered "Christian", which is to say, what the standard of
>comparison should be and how much uniqueness should be allowed.
The issue is chiefly a metaphysical one. The semantic issues relating to the
distinction between Mormonism and all other widely held Christian ontologies are
absolutely horrendous. Nothing quite like it rears its head among Protestants or
Eastern and Western Catholics.
This isn't the place to debate that. But let's take a worst case scenario and
consider whether the issue is one of linguistic hegemony of the majority.
Any comments along _those_ lines?
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Karen Lofstrom
Raymond Bingham (ra...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: As was noted before, if you absolutely must, there is
: alt.religion.mormon for an anything goes forum. It is full of
: trolls and flames.
[snip]
: We don't propose to eliminate ARM, just provide a forum for respectful
: discussion of mormon ideas. It would benefit the entire net, not just the
: LDS. Because at this time, this is not happening.
It has gradually became clear to me that the intent of
soc.religion.mormon is not to provide an open forum for discussion,
but a fellowship group for LDS. The insistence on excluding any
discussion of temple ceremonies and the demand that discussion be
"respectful" indicate that this moderated group is to be a safe space
for Mormons who are tired of dealing with critics (some of whom are
evidently quite persistent and rude).
I'm not opposed to such a safe space; there are precedents, such as
soc.motss. However, it would be better if the RFD were rewritten to
explicitly state that this is to be a fellowship group and if
talk.religion.mormon were to proposed as a companion group. Saying
that critics can use alt.religion.mormon is not enough. Alt groups
don't get the same propagation as Big 8 groups.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bool bool bool! It makes me laugh just to "trink" about it.
-- Eric Scheirer
Jan Isley
According to Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net>:
>
>It has gradually became clear to me that the intent of
>soc.religion.mormon is not to provide an open forum for discussion,
>but a fellowship group for LDS. The insistence on excluding any
>discussion of temple ceremonies and the demand that discussion be
>"respectful" indicate that this moderated group is to be a safe space
>for Mormons who are tired of dealing with critics (some of whom are
>evidently quite persistent and rude).
It is difficult to dismiss criticism of a charter for a "religion"
newsgroup that excludes topics that are clearly germane to that
religious practice. Most people think that the keeping of secrets
and the Usenet model of communication are mutually exclusive concepts.
However, if that is what enough people want to talk about, I think
they have the right to do so. Perhaps soc.culture.mormon (moderated)
may be a more appropriate name though.
Gregory J. Woodhouse
The reason for wanting to exclude discussion of the text of the temple
endowment has little to do with avoiding criticism. Notice that no one has
proposed that controversial topics be avoided, only that the discussion
remain respectful. The temple ceremony is special in that it is a
religious duty not to repeat certain things outside the temple. The best
analogy I can think of is the Divine Name in the context of Judaism. How
would you feel about a moderated Jewish newswgroup with a charter that
required that the Name never be written out in full? It is not a matter of
secrecy, it is a matter of religious duty and the sacred character of
certain language.
---
Gregory Woodhouse g...@wnetc.com
home page: http://www.wnetc.com/
resource page: http://www.wnetc.com/resource/
Karen Lofstrom
Gregory J. Woodhouse (g...@wnetc.com) wrote:
: The reason for wanting to exclude discussion of the text of the temple
: endowment has little to do with avoiding criticism. Notice that no one has
: proposed that controversial topics be avoided, only that the discussion
: remain respectful.
IMHO, telling critics of LDS doctrines that they can't talk about
temple ceremonies is the same thing as the Church of Scientology
telling critics that they can't quote the CoS secret scriptures. You
can't have real free speech when one side gets to declare certain
topics off-limits.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have your group; I think you should
-- as long as it's named and described properly, and as long as
there's a companion group somewhere in the Big 8, where people CAN
raise topics that make devout LDS uncomfortable.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support the Hawaiian-Welsh Cultural Exchange Program
Bringing vowels and consonants to those in need
Russ Allbery
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> writes:
> However, if that is what enough people want to talk about, I think they
> have the right to do so. Perhaps soc.culture.mormon (moderated) may be
> a more appropriate name though.
Ack! No, no, please not another soc.culture.jewish. It's a religion. It
belongs in soc.religion.*.
I expect any soc.religion.* group, given that they're all moderated, to be
biased in favor of the religion the group was created to discuss. I think
that's normal. Constant debate over religions is nearly pointless and
interferes with those people who have no desire to argue but just want to
talk about their beliefs with other people who feel roughly the same way.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a good use for soc.religion.*.
If the people who want to criticize the Mormon religion or otherwise
discuss topics which aren't allowed on soc.religion.mormon, they can
certainly propose talk.religion.mormon. I don't think it's the
responsibility of the Mormons to propose a group dedicated to criticizing
their religion.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Raymond Bingham
Jan Isley (j...@bagend.atl.ga.us) wrote:
>According to Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net>:
>>
>>It has gradually became clear to me that the intent of
>>soc.religion.mormon is not to provide an open forum for discussion,
>>but a fellowship group for LDS. The insistence on excluding any
>>discussion of temple ceremonies and the demand that discussion be
>>"respectful" indicate that this moderated group is to be a safe space
>>for Mormons who are tired of dealing with critics (some of whom are
>>evidently quite persistent and rude).
>It is difficult to dismiss criticism of a charter for a "religion"
>newsgroup that excludes topics that are clearly germane to that
>religious practice. Most people think that the keeping of secrets
>and the Usenet model of communication are mutually exclusive concepts.
>However, if that is what enough people want to talk about, I think
>they have the right to do so. Perhaps soc.culture.mormon (moderated)
>may be a more appropriate name though.
What is the purpose of moderation? If it is to encourage a more informed
reader base then this criteria of moderation is effective.
Active members of the LDS church will not discuss these issues. It is
disrespectful and offensive that this wish not be respected. Since we would
like to establish the newsgroup as a place that is beneficial for all members
of the church as well as those genuinely interested in discussion of the
church. It would be seriously distracting to permit a breach of protocols
established among a large number of partecipants in the group. Half the
group (at least) would cease to partecipant.
My point is that you will NOT get an open discussion whether it is permissible
or not. All it will serve is to destroy the group's reader base. This would
unbalance the group and be selfdestructive to its purpose.
Members of the LDS church will not partecipate in the discussion, except to
protest it. I don't understand the process of moderation, but I would think
that if there were something offended a large number of members in the
group, that you would seek to moderate it out of the group so that a larger
number of posters can partecipate. We feel we have a legitimate reason to
justify this case of moderation.
As I have stated, we would like this to be a place for any member of the
church. If I were a parent and thought that the temple ceremony would be
posted to the group I would not want my children to read the group, because in
my belief systems this would be disrespectful. Furthermore there is a place
for this type of discussion, and it is not on the internet.
I wish this concept could be explained in terms all could understand. It
is like if you were given a chance at a very nice job interview, only the
person who was going to hire you told you to tell him where he would meet
for the interview. Would you choose to interview in a subway tunnel? Or in
a fancy restaurant or some place of dignity?
The temple is a place of holy worship. Not all members of the LDS church
are permitted in the temple. Only those of a certain level of membership
are permitted therein, and it is a continual journey that we maintain that
status. The temple is a place of silent meditation and dedication. We
believe that God has asked us to keep these things sacred. We would rather
not take these things into the subway of humanity.
I don't expect you to understand this. Most people don't have a place of
repose where they can go and know peace. We do, and it cannot be appreciated
in any random type of location, picked apart by wannabe philosophers. The
LDS church is a blend of feeling and intellect. The internet tends to
approach all things from the intellect point of view. Don't put up
boundaries that would restrict the freedom of feeling. By permitting
the debasing of sacred materials a boundary is placed in the freedom that
many partecipants of the newsgroup can enjoy.
Jason Roberts
How about soc.religion.mormon.brighamite?
--
JASON ROBERTS
UA MAU KE EA O KA AINA I KA PONO
-Kamehameha III, Feb 25, 1843
Raymond Bingham
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) wrote:
>If the people who want to criticize the Mormon religion or otherwise
>discuss topics which aren't allowed on soc.religion.mormon, they can
>certainly propose talk.religion.mormon. I don't think it's the
>responsibility of the Mormons to propose a group dedicated to criticizing
>their religion.
Pardon this pun but "AMEN!" :)
Mark Crego
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>Perhaps we ought to have a "soc.religion.restorationist" classification, and
>then we could have a "soc.religion.restorationist.cojcolds" group!
Let's see...I cannot imagine a scenario where I would understand what
"cojcolds" means. Does it mean "catching colds from drinking orange
juice?"
David originally argued for a soc.religion.restorationist...
heirarchy, which I opposed because:
1. It's just getting too long,
2. Most potential participants wouldn't recognize the title
(including me),
3. "Mormon" is, at least, recognizable, and
4. If the non-CoJCoLDS "restorationist" religions want their
group separate from mormonism, then they are free to form
one as well; after all, the soc.religion.restorationist...
would require the same.
I'm not saying we came up with the perfect scheme, and we certainly
did not have unanimous vote among the proponents and moderators
of the group. We came up with a solution, and voted it by majority
(5-1).
>Someone's going to walk away from some kind of vote very dissatisfied. That's
>undeniable, it seems to me.
Most likely, but what is to stop those from not being satisfied from
creating their own newsgroup? If the RLDS want to have a separate
group, I would certainly vote "Yes", although they are more then
welcome to participate in s.r.m.
The current group is alt.religion.MORMON, yet it stops no-one from
participating, even the occasional RLDS or fundamentalist LDS group.
-mark crego, proponent, soc.religion.mormon.
Please duplicate cc your responses to my email at mcr...@interserv.com
Mark Crego
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>> One of the stated goals of s.r.m is "open, considerate discussion"
>>which is currently impossible on a.r.m. and, IMHO, the best reason for
>>the new, moderated group.
>Naah! You and I have had several cordial exchanges over there, Guy! But say, I
>wonder what will happen to arm once s.r.* opens up? I should think it will go
>the way of the dinosaurs, wouldn't you? Won't it be something [more] of a
>wasteland? Would you venture a prognostication?
The driving purpose of forming soc.religion.mormon is to allow a very
active forum the reliability of distribution offered by the "Big 8"
newsgroup heirarchies and to prevent the most egregious of posting
problems: spamming, vulgarity/obscenity, and gratuitous, off-topic
discussions.
Since the moderation policy will primarily be automoderation, I
seriously doubt that flamewars will be entirely avoided, and I'm
sure that there will be much information that the CoJCoLDS would
prefer not to discuss. Moreover automoderation should allow for
rapid turnaround of the posts.
Given the above backdrop, I doubt that there would be much of a
purpose in a.r.m.
-mark crego, proponent, soc.religion.mormon.
Please cc your responses to my email at mcr...@interserv.com
>Cordially.
>Scott Marquardt
Mark Crego
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>Robert Craig Harman wrote:
>>Keith Rogers wrote:
>>> mgil...@halcyon.com (Michael Gillman) writes:
>>> >Would this group...
>>> >include discussion of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints? If
>>> >not then I think that this should be made clear in the charter.
>>> Yes, discussion of the Reorganized Church would be welcome. Thank you
>>> for pointing out the omission.
>>A prominent web list of restoration churches
>><http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/restore/restoration.html>
>>includes 43 different organizations beyond the LDS and RLDS churches.
>>One might ask if this group will all accept discussions of these
>>offshoots of the LDS and RLDS churches.
The "43" number is not an accurate representation of *active*
so-called restorationist churches. By David's own admission, the
majority are not contactable by any direct means.
In the year+ that I have participated in a.r.m, I have seen but
two or three of these churches even remotely represented.
As for whether "this group will accept discussions of the offshoots,"
a.r.m certainly does quite openly, in ways that would completely pass
automoderation.
>>If this is the case, the argument must be made against s.r.mormon,
>>on the basis that many of these religions do _not_ espouse using the
>>appelation Mormon for their members. Foremost among these groups,
>>incidentally, is of course the RLDS.
Heck, the "Mormons" don't particularly like the label either, but
grudgingly accept it.
>This is an excellent point I hadn't thought of. Is "LDS" suited to at least the
>major groups? Needless to say, an identification based on the common origin of
>these groups is not likely (s.r.smithism, with a perverse nod to Charles ;-)
;-)
The idea was to make the label as recognizable as possible. I think
most of the group would have *preferred* .LDS, and for a long time
that was our internal representation; but votes are votes and we
ended up with a majority for .mormon.
Mark Crego
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>: We don't propose to eliminate ARM, just provide a forum for respectful
>: discussion of mormon ideas. It would benefit the entire net, not just the
>: LDS. Because at this time, this is not happening.
>It has gradually became clear to me that the intent of
>soc.religion.mormon is not to provide an open forum for discussion,
>but a fellowship group for LDS. The insistence on excluding any
>discussion of temple ceremonies and the demand that discussion be
>"respectful" indicate that this moderated group is to be a safe space
>for Mormons who are tired of dealing with critics (some of whom are
>evidently quite persistent and rude).
The purpose is not fellowship for LDS, but rather a forum for
reasoned, even extremely critical, discussion of the theology
of mormonism.
Discussion of temple ceremonies is not prohibited, only direct
quotations therefrom in the form of "detailed discussion". Let's
look at the RFD:
>> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
>> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
>> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
>> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
>> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
>> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
An active, temple-attending mormon cannot, in good faith, participate
in a discussion including quotations of temple material. By point of
fact, a quotation of temple material simply excludes all active LDS.
Is this the desire of the usenet community?
>I'm not opposed to such a safe space; there are precedents, such as
>soc.motss. However, it would be better if the RFD were rewritten to
>explicitly state that this is to be a fellowship group and if
>talk.religion.mormon were to proposed as a companion group.
You miss the point. soc.religion.mormon is NOT, repeat NOT, a
fellowship group, Raymond Bingham's desires notwithstanding. We
simply have tried to create a framework for reasoned discussion of
issues relating to LDS theology, even quite critical discussion,
without explicitly excluding the majority of practicing LDS.
I repeat: If temple quotations are posted to a given group, an
active, temple-attending LDS, cannot participate. It is analogous
to posting the pronunciation of the name of God openly to a
set of orthodox jews.
>Saying
>that critics can use alt.religion.mormon is not enough. Alt groups
>don't get the same propagation as Big 8 groups.
The critics can, and should, use soc.religion.mormon. The vast
majority of experienced critics to mormonism know that temple
quotations simply end discussion, and in the past year on alt.r.m,
very few times have they been posted. When they have, however,
the forum's postings distinctly change character: active LDS no
longer participate, a flamewar ensues, and it takes about a
month for the forum to recover.
-mark crego, proponent, soc.religion.mormon
please cc: responses to mcr...@interserv.com
Mark Crego
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> wrote:
>It is difficult to dismiss criticism of a charter for a "religion"
>newsgroup that excludes topics that are clearly germane to that
>religious practice. Most people think that the keeping of secrets
>and the Usenet model of communication are mutually exclusive concepts.
We are not excluding any topic germaine to the LDS religious practice.
We are only saying that a quotation of the temple endowment material,
which is readily available elsewhere on the 'net, will not be posted
to the forum. The reason is quite simple: by posting the endowment
material, active, temple-attending LDS cannot participate in the
discussion because they have agreed not to discuss it outside of
the temple.
Hence, posting of temple material excludes active LDS, and thus
stops a balanced discussion.
We do not take a position that the endowment is secret.
We do take a position that the endowment is sacred, and thus, in
the same manner that an orthodox jew would not include in discussion
the name of God, we would not participate in a discussion that
_quotes_ temple material.
>However, if that is what enough people want to talk about, I think
>they have the right to do so. Perhaps soc.culture.mormon (moderated)
>may be a more appropriate name though.
soc.religion.mormon is not intended to be a "culture" group, but
rather, a reasoned--even critical--discussion of mormonism. We have
simply tried to ensure that the maximum number of participants,
particularly those who live by the principles of mormonism, CAN
participate.
Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
In article <4olbuq$l...@lal.interserv.net>, mcr...@interserv.com (Mark
Crego) wrote:
> Discussion of temple ceremonies is not prohibited, only direct
> quotations therefrom in the form of "detailed discussion". Let's
> look at the RFD:
>
> >> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
> >> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
> >> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
> >> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
> >> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
If discussion is to be permitted, and the subject of temple ceremonies is
not considered out of bounds, then I think the RFD needs to be more
specific on this point. Clearly, it is one with an enormous emotional
charge, and disagreements and ambiguity over what is and is not allowed
have the potential to blow discussion out of the water.
Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
"detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
--
"The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come
will transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source.
Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it."
- U.S. Senator James Exon
Jan Isley
According to Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu>:
>Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us> writes:
>
>> However, if that is what enough people want to talk about, I think they
>> have the right to do so. Perhaps soc.culture.mormon (moderated) may be
>> a more appropriate name though.
>
>belongs in soc.religion.*.
Pfft! It was a reply to the observation made by some that perhaps
what was being described (in different words) was a cultural phenomenon
instead of a religious one. Being Buddhist, knowing how many cultures
my religion got filtered through to get to the US, I am very aware of
the problem many people have in separating culture from religion. I
am also aware that it is a distinction with a difference. I am not
advocating for or against this proposal. (especially since there is a
high probability that I may be taking the vote) I am simply pointing
out what might be in interesting newsgroup to consider.
>I expect any soc.religion.* group, given that they're all moderated, to be
>biased in favor of the religion the group was created to discuss. I think
>that's normal. Constant debate over religions is nearly pointless and
>interferes with those people who have no desire to argue but just want to
>talk about their beliefs with other people who feel roughly the same way.
>As far as I'm concerned, that's a good use for soc.religion.*.
>
>If the people who want to criticize the Mormon religion or otherwise
>discuss topics which aren't allowed on soc.religion.mormon, they can
>certainly propose talk.religion.mormon. I don't think it's the
>responsibility of the Mormons to propose a group dedicated to criticizing
>their religion.
Russ, you win the 'preaching to the choir' award of the month. :)
For those who do not know, there were lots of good people behind me
and the proposal, but I was the 'proponent' for soc.culture.tibet,
at a time when there were no moderated soc.culture newsgroups.
Intense pressure was put on me to add talk.politics.tibet on the
ballot with it. I gave in to that pressure and I will regret as
long as I live. The notion of providing a newsgroup for people who
think that a million dead Tibetans is a good start was and remains
the subject of many a sleepless night. You know the rest of the
story. The screaming bigots won, Usenet lost. Tibetans continue
to lose... and die.
I am not suggesting that anyone propose any newsgroup other than
exactly what they want. I just want them to carefully consider
what it is that they do want.
Jim Riley
In article <4ociuk$m...@xmission.xmission.com> Keith Rogers wrote:
>Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.com> writes:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group soc.religion.mormon
>>
>>Newsgroup line:
>>soc.religion.mormon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
>>(Moderated)
>
>I'll say first of all I'm rather relieved to find that the strongest
>objections to this RFD so far have focused on its name. I'm not
>surprised by this at all, since the question of naming was the one
>discussed most often and most fruitlessly in the planning stages. We
>considered possibilities ranging from "soc.religion.lds" (which was
>judged by mentors we consulted as being too cryptic for readers not
>familiar with the church) to "soc.religion.restoration.mormon,"
>trying to put the religion in a historical context. I certainly
>understand and sympathize with the opinions of those who want to see
>.christian. in the title, in spite of the inevitable objections and
>conflicts that this would bring. And it's entirely possible that we'll
>ultimately decide to go with the name soc.religion.christian.mormon.
>I'm open to persuasion on this point.
>
>Let me just suggest two ideas in favor of the present name. If we
>keep the name of the newsgroup shorter, then there is room on the
>newsgroup line for the whole, correct name of the church. That would
>not be the case with s.r.c.m. In addition, I see the shorter title as
>a manifestation of humility--a way of saying, "If you want to see what
>we believe, come and read about it," rather than, "Look! We are _so_
>Christians! It says so right there in our newsgroup name!"
There are currently no 4th level sectarian newsgroups in
soc.religion.* so it is not clear that you are being excluded from
any hierarchy that others are permitted to participate in. In
addition, many people would demand that a s.r.christian.mormon
also require the renaming of s.r.christian to s.r.christian.misc to
indicate that the preferred organization of s.r.christian.* is on
a sectarian basis, to improve system performance, and to help users
with certain readers/techniques find the lower level groups.
One possible alternative would be: soc.religion.lds-mormon which will
catch those searching for LDS. Something similar was done in the
recent creation of a group for Girl Scouts/Girl Guides
--
Jim Riley
Gregory J. Woodhouse
On Thu, 30 May 1996, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
> If discussion is to be permitted, and the subject of temple ceremonies is
> not considered out of bounds, then I think the RFD needs to be more
> specific on this point. Clearly, it is one with an enormous emotional
> charge, and disagreements and ambiguity over what is and is not allowed
> have the potential to blow discussion out of the water.
>
Well, I wouldn't want to see this section of the RFD get too complicated,
but you are right that the potential for misunderstanding exists. The
discussion here in news.groups is a case in point.
> Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
> "detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
> ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
> would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
I am not part of the committee that wrote the RFD, and cannot speak for
them, but it does seem reasonable to me to substitute "detailed
description" for "detailed discussion". I would rather not see a note to
the effect that discussion of the temple cermonies is othertwise
acceptable. The only reason is that it would give undue prominence to one
particular subject and it would raise the question of why other appropriate
subjects are not listed explicitly.
David Tannen
From nat...@col.hp.com (Natalie Overstreet)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.mormon moderated
Date: 29 May 1996 20:59:04 GMT
>It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for
>LDSers only, and not for public dissemination.
Members of the LDS want to make a newsgroup (a public forum) to
discuss LDS issues. That means they want to join the Usenet
community, which IMO means they had better be prepared to play
by this communities standards. IMO that means that everything
that goes on in the LDS (theology, ceremonies, politics, etc)
should be available for discussion. The only purpose of the
moderation should be to limit the length of the discussion and
eliminate personal attacks and obvious flame bait.
>To quote extensively from those ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy.
>Since the group is intended primarily as a "fellowship" forum for
>LDSers (right?), blasphemy against the LDS beliefs would be
>off-topic.
There are plenty of topics that many Christians consider blasphemy
that are discussed openly in s.r.c. IMO I would hope that the LDS
and its members could stand up to the same level of open discussion.
>Note also there is a difference between blasphemy and criticism.
Not in some people's (or organization's) opinion.
>I don't have the RFD in front of me, but I would assume that you
>would be at liberty to criticize both the moderation policy and
>the secrecy of temple ceremonies, if done so politely and in
>moderation.
Personally I would suggest reformating the charter to be more open.
Take a look at src and src.bible-study charters. They are open
enough to allow all kinds of critics space to speak on the topic
of Christianity and the Bible.
Again, I would urge those who want s.r.m to reconsider the charter
to make it more open. If you want to have a family discussion then
I would suggest an email list that is moderated.
---
David Tannen (tan...@dudley.geg.mot.com)
Motorola, Scottsdale (602) 675-1074 m/s H1119
Member of TCCCS/Iris, TeamAda, and TeamOS/2
Christian Acronyms: B.I.B.L.E.=Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth
Scott Marquardt
news.groups
Raymond Bingham wrote:
>Scott Marquardt (s...@wwa.com) wrote:
>>Natalie Overstreet wrote:
>>>It is the belief of LDSers that the temple ceremonies are for LDSers
>>>only, and not for public dissemination.
>>But a _formerly_ used portion of the ceremony was a lampoon of orthodox
>>Christian beliefs, explicitly mocking (on some people's view; I for one don't
>>have especially thin skin) the Westminster Confessions, for example.
>>Should _that_ be ruled out of bounds?
>>>To quote extensively from those
>>>ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy.
>>And to lampoon the Westminster Confessions where they touch on theological
>>issues of great moment is equally so. The fact that the Westminster confessions
>>are not "secret" is not at issue. The LDS temple ceremonies are not in the least
>>secret, either. That LDS would prefer them to be is clear, and that ought to be
>>respected. But that the church once lampooned Christian beliefs in the ceremony
>>seems like a matter that, IMO, should not be ruled out a priori--especially
>>since that portion of the ceremony is no longer in use by the church.
>Do you not understand the difference between "secret" and "sacred"?
>The ceremonies are sacred, and therefore will not get openly discussed.
I can imagine now that a.r.m. will become the equivalent of "outside," as in
"Hey buddy, you wanna step outside?" I consent that the ceremony in toto--the
present ceremony--might best be considered off-limits. But I think if Mormons
considered it a sacred obligation to lampoon traditional Christian belief in
their inner sanctum prior to that part of the ceremony prudently being axed,
then it's within the rights of those whose faith was lampooned to urge an
engagement on the propriety of sacred lampoons, should they so desire. And I
think the moderated context would offer the greatest hope of true understanding
between concerned parties, which, though not mentioned in the charter, seems to
at least support the interests that _were_ mentioned.
>The fact that you think you can get an "open" dialogue is ridiculous since
>you will get no input from the active LDS members!! They will not comment
>on it because it is sacred, and want to keep it that way.
You get no comments from LDS on critics' objections to the ceremony at a.r.m.,
then? Come now, you know better. It's been a while, but it happens. But just
last week, our Mormon friend Michael T. Griffith (a respectable fellow if ever
there was one) posted a huge piece on the ceremonies, though of course he did
not quote them. I found one remark of his odd, though:
Anti-Mormons have yet to explain the impressive parallels
between the LDS endowment ceremony and the early Christian rite
of initiation. The early church's initiation rite provides
evidence for the divine origin of the LDS temple endowment.
What interests me about this is that Mr. Griffith takes "anti-Mormons" to task
for not having provided explanations which would necessarily involve discussion
of the ceremony, even while Mormons insist that such discussion is off-limits!
One wonders _for whom_ "the early church's initiation rite provides evidence,"
if only Mormons (who need no evidence) are privy to the temple endowment. Mr.
Griffith, for one, seems to presuppose some form of discussion. What better
place than s.r.m?
Again though, for my part, I'd gladly abide by--and vote in support of--a ban on
quoting the _present_ ceremony.
>The only type of discussion you can get is a slanted one, and we would like to keep those
>type of discussions in alt.religion.mormon.
I don't understand why it _must_ be slanted. I don't know what you mean by
suggesting the impossibility of anything but a "slanted" discussion.
>So my question is... Do you honestly think this is a fair thing to have
>in the group? By discussing it you will by definition of the subject matter
>NOT be getting the whole truth!
I suggest (seriously) that we get Mr. Griffith's take on this. I'll CC him.
<snip charitable remarks>
>Occasionally these boundaries have been pushed to the likings of perhaps some
>who would moderate, but truth be known, I think most rational posts of
>objections that go to ARM would make it to SRM without a second thought.
>We are quite aware of the fact that there are misconceptions about our
>religion. To ignore these would be detrimental to us as well... The point
>is that there should be a framework of mutual respect, which all partecipants
>can count on. If that framework isn't there, we have ARM.
Yup.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
>But then, like you say, I am one of those evil mormons, who doesn't really
>know who they worship. ;)
I've never--not once--even hinted that I thought Mormons were "evil," Guy.
>Thanks for the call, Scott... I love you MAN! :)
Doesn't sound like too evil a feller there...
;D
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:
>The reason for wanting to exclude discussion of the text of the temple
>endowment has little to do with avoiding criticism. Notice that no one has
>proposed that controversial topics be avoided, only that the discussion
>religious duty not to repeat certain things outside the temple. The best
>analogy I can think of is the Divine Name in the context of Judaism. How
>would you feel about a moderated Jewish newswgroup with a charter that
>required that the Name never be written out in full?
Well...
How would you feel if you knew that a portion (now prudently excised) of a
religion's sacred practice lampooned a constitutional document of _your_ church?
That's how some Presbyterians (et al.) might well feel about the [former] Mormon
ceremonial lampooning of chapter 2, paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession.
And then how would you feel if, upon pointing out the impropriety of considering
such a parody to be "sacred," you were told that you should be ashamed of
yourself for discussing it openly?
_That_ portion of the [former] ceremony should be fair game, since that portion
of the ceremony considered Presbyterian faith to be fair game. In fact, since
what the ceremony parodied was an issue striking at the core of Presbyterian
theology proper (the nature of God), it appears that your church once considered
it sacred to blaspheme the God of Presbyterians (et al.), if lampooning might
be considered tantamount to blasphemy.
I agree that this _could_ be inflammatory. But hopefully this forum will not
attract those who could not exercise self-control in discussing these things
reasonably.
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt
Jim Riley wrote:
>One possible alternative would be: soc.religion.lds-mormon which will
>catch those searching for LDS. Something similar was done in the
>recent creation of a group for Girl Scouts/Girl Guides
YO! Good idea! Anyone else for considering s.r.l-m?
Cordially.
Scott Marquardt
Loren Davis
On 30 May 1996, Matthew Daly wrote:
> Loren,
> Please forgive me for trimming out your excellent post. I know that
> I could get around rn's restrictions on replies by changing the >'s to
> :'s, but that would defeat the purpose. If I quote you out of context,
> it isn't out of malice. :-)
I don't mind; my post was pretty long. I'll have to do the same thing
myself.
>
> Loren Davis <dav...@whitman.edu> writes:
> >
> >[...] However, I did
> >feel strongly enough that "talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah" violated
> >namespace to post and say, just like Matthew Daly has regarding "soc.
> >religion.christian.mormon", that I would vote against it because of its
> >name; fairness therefore requires me to put on the record some reason
> >for not sallying forth to defend "soc.religion.christian.*" from the
> >infidel horde.
>
> Well, I can hardly expect you to defend every controversial namespace
> encroachment. [...]
That's a relief; I could hardly do it if I wanted to. I'm just going
through a rationalistic phase where I'd like all of my beliefs to be
consistent, so I'd be grateful if you'd put up with a little puffery
from me until I'm over it. Thanks.
>
> > As Mr. Daly doesn't tell us either why the United States once was a
> >"democracy" and now isn't or which doctrines of the LDS Church he con-
> >siders "unrelated" or "antithetical" to kosher Christianity, I can only
> >guess at his definitions of each. In both cases, I would suggest that the
> >reader remember what those words literally mean: [...] the United States
> >is governed by officials whom the people elect, and is therefore
> >a democracy.
>
> That was me trying to keep my messages short. I guess I should aim
> for verbose, as long as you all promise to read my messages to the
> end! :-)
Whatever suits you. I'm mostly a lurker, and have written fewer than a
half-dozen posts to Usenet in the last year, so I hoped that I could get
away with being a little bit too talkative.
>
> What I was trying to say [...] is that the Founding Fathers went to great
> lengths to avoid a "majority rule" system of government, which is what
> democracy is. The three branches of government, checks and balances,
> and other facets of American government were established to protect
> minority views. I would recomend "The Federalist Papers" for more on the
> subject of protecting ourselves from the tyranny of majority views.
>
> Perhaps you would agree that if majority rule were all we had to go by,
> women's sufferage [sic] and desegregation [Both were mentioned above but
> snipped.] would be much less successful than they were.
Now I think I understand better what you meant. I agree with you
about Desegregation, less so about Women's Suffrage, but that's for
some other thread some other time and place. My point remains valid: a
democracy with safeguards against strict majoritarianism is still a democracy,
albeit less fully than another which lacks them, so long as its
governing policy is determined by free and open elections. An equally
simple test for whether any given religion is "Christian" for the
purposes of indexation in a hierarchical tree would be useful here if
one could be determined.
Interestingly, your point intersects with another comment by Scott
Marquardt in this thread (also on May 30) about the "linguistic hegemony of
the majority." If I might quickly reply to him, even though I feel that,
ideally, all namespace issues would be resolved on a fair and logical
basis, I see little harm in sacrificing strict accuracy or pride to minimize
controversy. After all, very few groups' names have great practical
importance. The proponent of trjj-m apparently reached the same
conclusion, renamed his proposal, and probably saved it.
>
> > Similarly, whatever differences there may be between his religion
> >and that of this RFD's proponents, the LDS Church worships Christ as
> >the Messiah, and is therefore "Christian" in at least the most
> > literal sense.
>
> Without going too far down that road, I think a similar "literal
> sense" claim was made for talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah.
> I couldn't and won't argue that claim. If it happened to be that
> you objected to that name out of a broader interest in "protecting"
> the sanctity of the name "jewish" from ideas that you considered
> to be non-Jewish, then you know what I'm feeling. I don't think
> it's possible to have these debates without such emotional
> involvement.
That claim was made, and, unlike several other participants in that
debate, I accepted it to some degree. My response was that, whether or not
Messianic Jews might be Jewish, because they worship Christ as the Messiah
they are also Christians, and the movement would be better classified under
Christianity than Judaism, just as a group discussing Jewish physicists
would not be best named "sci.jewish.physicists" even though all of its
subjects would undeniably be Jewish. I hope that I have not contradicted
myself so far.
Your wish to maintain the sanctity of Christ's name is both valid and
commendable. Perhaps in part because my only interest in this issue is
academic, my working definition of his religion chooses to err on the
side of inclusiveness.
>
> > Even though Mr. Daly does not say so explicitly, he appears to think
> >that his own denomination more closely follows the example of "Christ's life
> >and ministry" than the LDS Church does. Of this I am skeptical. [...]
> >I suspect that Mr. Daly might agree that all Christian congreg-
> >ations today are very different from this early Church, and that many of
> >their differences are necessary two thousand years later.
>
> I cannot claim to be an expert on LDS history and theology. As an
> outsider of that faith, there is only so much that I can know. I
> am told by people who's views I trust that the LDS does not consider
> the divinity of Christ to be central to their theology. There are
> passages that I have read from the Book of Mormon that I frankly
> consider to be completely antithetical to Christ's message. Although
> my site does not receive alt.religion.mormon, you can probably find
> all the points I could make and more over there.
>
> Let me wrap up with a few more caveats. :-) I am, of course, not
> bringing up concrete points. This is more out of interest in
> keeping this discussion on the issue of namespace instead of on
> the issue of debating LDS theology. (I think that this thread
> is much easier to read and more pleasant because of it, don't
> you?) Because of this limitation, I'm not particularly vying
> toward recruiting people to "my side" on the debate. Rather,
> I would like to point out that this is a Controversial Namespace
> Issue (TM), and the vote on an LDS newsgroup would much more
> accurately reflect interest in readership if it had a third-
> level name instead of fourth-level.
>
> -Matthew Daly
> And, of course, I am not speaking for my employer.
It would be more accurate to say that a fourth-level hierarchy would
reflect the interest of most of the readership, and a third-level
hierarchy that of the rest, as well as that of a number of non-readers
whom the other name makes uneasy. I don't think anyone would be happy if
this argument stopped the newsgroup from being created at all.
You were completely right not to start an argument over LDS doctrine,
and I hope that nothing that has been said in this thread will cause it
to degenerate the way that "Re: RFD: talk.religion.jewish.jesus-messiah"
did. Such an argument would, of course, not belong in news.groups. I
think that everyone so far has stayed on-topic.
One disadvantage of politely avoiding such emotional topics, however,
is that statements can be made and, never clarified, cause misunder-
standings. I was curious what you meant when you said that the LDS Church
espoused doctrines "unrelated" or "antithetical" to "the life and
ministry of Christ". Not discussing LDS doctrine, unfortunately, prevents
either of us from providing any justification for our opinions.
The issue of names is, right now, moot anyway. Assuming that the
proposal does get changed to "soc.religion.christian.mormon", I would
hope that you reconsider your pledge to vote against it. For now, if you
would like to be more specific about your reservations without raising
anyone's temper, feel free to e-mail me; I would not reprint anything
you said without your permission.
Best wishes,
Loren Davis.
Blain Nelson
gbr...@primenet.com (Guy R. Briggs) writes:
I agree with Guy on all of this except for:
> Like our forebearers a century and a half ago, driven from their
>homes in the dead of winter, we are now being told we are unwelcome
>under the classification where we rightly belong.
Oh, for heaven's sake, give the persecution complex a rest. Nobody's
going to be harmed one iota by s.r.m as opposed to s.r.c.m. There is no
"right" involved in using .christian. in the middle of a group name, and
there is absolutely nothing in this that compares to the legitimate
suffering, pain and death that happened 150 years ago, unless you are
claiming that this issue, like the driving out of the saints, had more to
do with politics than it did with religion.
>Best Regards,
>| Guy R. Briggs
Blain "I also get annoyed when people liken trivial things to the
Holocaust" Nelson
--
Wanted: Blain Nelson aka "bla...@az.com" aka "bla...@aol.com"
aka "Rahab the Tyrant" aka "anon...@anon.twwells.com"
Subject is considered armed and legged. Persecutors will be violated.
Finger for PGP key. Homepage: http://www.az.com/~blainn
Randy Clapper
In article <jaed-30059...@jaed.vip.best.com>, ja...@best.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) writes:
|> In article <4olbuq$l...@lal.interserv.net>, mcr...@interserv.com (Mark
|> Crego) wrote:
|> > Discussion of temple ceremonies is not prohibited, only direct
|> > quotations therefrom in the form of "detailed discussion". Let's
|> > look at the RFD:
|> >
|> > >> Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
|> > >> detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
|> > >> postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
|> > >> be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
|> > >> of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
|> > >> open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum.
|>
|> not considered out of bounds, then I think the RFD needs to be more
|> specific on this point. Clearly, it is one with an enormous emotional
|> charge, and disagreements and ambiguity over what is and is not allowed
|> have the potential to blow discussion out of the water.
Personally, as an LDS (Mormon) member, if the charter were changed to
allow specific discussion of the sacred temple ceremonies, I would give
a "no" vote, when the CFV commenced. As it now stands (imperfect that it
may be), I would cast a "yes" vote during the CFV.
Randy Clapper
Matthew Daly
ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:
>
>I apologize to Matthew for calling him a bigot. Scott is right, typically
>the one calling the other bigot is also a bigot. (See the gay debate in ARM
>for more details on this issue... :) It is my battleworn nature in ARM,
>please forgive me...
Thanks! For my part, I've made my share of comments without sufficient
knowledge without reflecting on how hurtful they would sound to members
of the LDS community. I would also like to add that my views are not
necessarily shared by any of the denominations I have belonged to over
the years, or to any of my friends, and certainly not my employer!
>I would mention that on the surface, Matthew appears to be misinformed if
>he believes our core beliefs do not center on Christ and his Gospel.
So I've been told. If any personal good has come out of this, it's that
several people have offered to educate me on this issue. While I
continue to believe that we are dealing with a Controversial Namespace
Issue (TM), I would like to dispel any claim that I have the answers.
>Thanks for the call, Scott... I love you MAN! :)
Awww ... GROUP HUG!!! :-)
-Matthew
Keith Rogers
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) writes:
Yes, I like this possibility, too, Scott. Thanks, Jim! I was glad to
see a truly useful suggestion here. Now we need to find out (from
Russ Allerby or someone else who specializes in namespace) whether
the name soc.religion.lds-mormon would be acceptable as giving enough
information. Anyone?
--
| " For when two beings who are not friends
Peggy Rogers | are near each other, there is no meeting,
kro...@xmission.com | and when friends are apart, there is
| no separation." Simone Weil
Mark Crego
ja...@best.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) wrote:
>If discussion is to be permitted, and the subject of temple ceremonies is
>not considered out of bounds, then I think the RFD needs to be more
>specific on this point. Clearly, it is one with an enormous emotional
>charge, and disagreements and ambiguity over what is and is not allowed
>have the potential to blow discussion out of the water.
>Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
>"detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
>ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
>would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
I agree. I would support this idea to the other proponents and
moderators.
-mark crego, proponent, soc.religion.mormon
please cc response to mcr...@interserv.com
Mark Crego
lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom) wrote:
>IMHO, telling critics of LDS doctrines that they can't talk about
>temple ceremonies is the same thing as the Church of Scientology
>telling critics that they can't quote the CoS secret scriptures. You
>can't have real free speech when one side gets to declare certain
>topics off-limits.
The critics or anyone CAN talk about the temple ceremonies, and the
TOPIC of temple ceremonies is NOT off-limits. What we are saying is
the extensive quotation of the temple material, in which case the
poster will be asked to reference the material as it is posted
elsewhere on the 'net.
Specifically, ANY TOPIC RELATED TO MORMONISM, INCLUDING THE TEMPLE,
IS GERMAINE AND ENCOURAGED ON soc.religion.mormon. Is that clear
enough?
-mark.
Mark Crego
tan...@dudley.geg.mot.com (David Tannen) wrote:
>Members of the LDS want to make a newsgroup (a public forum) to
>discuss LDS issues. That means they want to join the Usenet
>community, which IMO means they had better be prepared to play
>by this communities standards. IMO that means that everything
>that goes on in the LDS (theology, ceremonies, politics, etc)
>should be available for discussion. The only purpose of the
>moderation should be to limit the length of the discussion and
>eliminate personal attacks and obvious flame bait.
Agreed in its entirety. Extensive quotes of temple material,
however, IS obvious flame bait, and terminates the discussion
on the part of LDS.
>>To quote extensively from those ceremonies is, to them, blasphemy.
>>Since the group is intended primarily as a "fellowship" forum for
>>LDSers (right?), blasphemy against the LDS beliefs would be
>>off-topic.
Soc.religion.mormon is NOT intended to be a "fellowship" forum
for LDSers. It is intended to provide a reasoned forum for
discussion of issues associated with mormonism. Blasphemy against
the LDS beliefs, per se., would not be "off-topic", but rather,
it is the idea that the quotation and detailed description of
the temple ceremony excludes the discussion of active, temple-
attending LDS.
Does the usenet community wish to exclude balanced participation
in a forum?
>There are plenty of topics that many Christians consider blasphemy
>that are discussed openly in s.r.c. IMO I would hope that the LDS
>and its members could stand up to the same level of open discussion.
Temple-attending LDS enter into a specific agreement not to quote
or provide specific description of the temple ceremony outside of the
temple. There is no equivalent parallel in mainstream christian
doctrine. We are only excluding the specific description and/or
quotation of the material: open discussion is certainly possible and
encouraged.
>Again, I would urge those who want s.r.m to reconsider the charter
>to make it more open. If you want to have a family discussion then
>I would suggest an email list that is moderated.
Please do not misunderstand the intent of this aspect of the
moderation policy. We are NOT excluding criticism of LDS beliefs.
We are NOT excluding discussion of the temple. We are NOT designing
a "fellowship" or "family discussion" forum. We ARE suggesting
a forum which allows for balanced participation by anyone interested
in LDS theology of any sort.
-mark crego, proponent soc.religion.mormon
Mark Crego
s...@wwa.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>I can imagine now that a.r.m. will become the equivalent of "outside," as in
>"Hey buddy, you wanna step outside?"
:-)
>I consent that the ceremony in toto--the present ceremony--might best
>be considered off-limits.
This is all we are really saying.
>But I think if Mormons considered it a sacred obligation to lampoon
>traditional Christian belief in their inner sanctum prior to that part
>of the ceremony prudently being axed, then it's within the rights of
>those whose faith was lampooned to urge an engagement on the propriety
>of sacred lampoons, should they so desire. And I think the moderated
>context would offer the greatest hope of true understanding between
>concerned parties, which, though not mentioned in the charter, seems to
>at least support the interests that _were_ mentioned.
Sounds good, not sure what you are saying, though.
Mark Crego
edc...@alfalfa.lerc.nasa.gov (Randy Clapper) wrote:
>Personally, as an LDS (Mormon) member, if the charter were changed to
>allow specific discussion of the sacred temple ceremonies, I would give
>a "no" vote, when the CFV commenced. As it now stands (imperfect that it
>may be), I would cast a "yes" vote during the CFV.
Would you agree to the rest of Jeanne DeVoto's post which stated:
>Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
>"detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
>ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
>would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
I think the above paragraph is a reasonable and acceptable compromise.
Do you? What about other LDS?
Randy Clapper
In article <4on3oa$o...@lal.interserv.net>, mcr...@interserv.com (Mark Crego) writes:
|> edc...@alfalfa.lerc.nasa.gov (Randy Clapper) wrote:
|>
|> >Personally, as an LDS (Mormon) member, if the charter were changed to
|> >allow specific discussion of the sacred temple ceremonies, I would give
|> >a "no" vote, when the CFV commenced. As it now stands (imperfect that it
|> >may be), I would cast a "yes" vote during the CFV.
|>
|> Would you agree to the rest of Jeanne DeVoto's post which stated:
|>
|> >Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
|> >"detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
|> >ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
|> >would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
Yes, if anything, I think that Jeanne's idea is even more specific. I just
have some reservations about how non-specific/detailed the temple discussions
will be allowed to run.
Randy Clapper
Daniel Hartung
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
[snip]
>"respectful" indicate that this moderated group is to be a safe space
>for Mormons who are tired of dealing with critics (some of whom are
>evidently quite persistent and rude).
>
>soc.motss. However, it would be better if the RFD were rewritten to
>explicitly state that this is to be a fellowship group and if
>that critics can use alt.religion.mormon is not enough. Alt groups
>don't get the same propagation as Big 8 groups.
I disagree. I don't see that there is any requirement that a
talk.* group accompany a proposal for a moderated group (although
it sometimes may be an excellent idea). Increasingly, new
groups on "controversial" topics such as religion and culture
will need to be moderated as a matter of course. That doesn't
mean every moderated group need an unmoderated companion.
--
Daniel A. Hartung | I will only fly the flag of a nation
dhar...@mcs.com | where it is legal to burn it.
http://www.mcs.net/~dhartung/ |
Daniel Hartung
Yeechang Lee <yl...@simile.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>However, I am not quite sanguine about the idea of giving up our claim
>that the LDS Church is a Christian faith. The claim that we are not
>is the surface rationale of many of our fiercest critics' charges, and
>I am concerned that the choice of newsgroup name will only add fuel to
>the fire. As seen above, it may also cost us LDS members' support.
I will note that as a non-Mormon Christian, I have no opposition
to the CoJCoLDS classifying itself as Christian. Goodness knows
there are plenty of Christian sects I don't agree with!
>On a separate note, I am somewhat surprised the ad hoc RFD committee
>never took a public straw poll in a.r.m. on the choice of names.
I feel this would have been wise.
Keith Rogers
mcr...@interserv.com (Mark Crego) writes:
>edc...@alfalfa.lerc.nasa.gov (Randy Clapper) wrote:
>
>>Personally, as an LDS (Mormon) member, if the charter were changed to
>>allow specific discussion of the sacred temple ceremonies, I would give
>>a "no" vote, when the CFV commenced. As it now stands (imperfect that it
>>may be), I would cast a "yes" vote during the CFV.
>
>Would you agree to the rest of Jeanne DeVoto's post which stated:
>
>>Even something as simple as substituting "detailed description" for
>>"detailed discussion", and an explicit note that discussion of temple
>>ceremonies is OK as long as they are not quoted or specifically described,
>>would help. (Would this be acceptable?)
>
>I think the above paragraph is a reasonable and acceptable compromise.
>Do you? What about other LDS?
>
>-mark crego, proponent soc.religion.mormon
>please cc response to mcr...@interserv.com
As the other proponent of this newsgroup, I agree with Mark on this one.
There are a great many things about the temple and what goes on there
that we _are_ prepared (and even anxious) to discuss. It is only the
exact words or "detailed descriptions" that we want to leave out of the
discussion.