How do we make sure everyone is heard?

[UnluckyStuntman]

I think you're doing great, too, Marduk.

I often shy away from these types of debates because I, like Katya mentioned, find them to be too combative. When topics turn that way, I don't think it's a good environment for dialogue, and I also feel as though I've been attacked personally in the past, and to me it's just not worth it. These conversations seem to get too personal too fast, with lots of harsh rhetoric that would make someone sound idiotic or apostate if they responded. I get leery of responding for this reason.

Then, of course, it does feel like a waste of time, because there are people on both sides who seem to make barely any concessions. When I've gotten involved in the past, I've felt like I was beating my head against a rock without being heard. I'm sure I wasn't hearing, either, at least at times.

And then there's a third one: I'm not sure about where I fit into this community. I wouldn't mention this except that I am aware of at least seven other people whose pseudonyms you would recognize who face similar issues. I've been pretty open about my religious/whatever goings-on, but others haven't, so they may struggle even more than I do to participate in the way they would otherwise, partially because of how this forum can sometimes treat those who disagree. I understand that this is a forum based on a publication by BYU students for BYU students which brings with it religious/cultural assumptions (which is the primary reason why I retired from the Board back in the day) and I don't want to overpower that space, but sometimes the environment on this forum discourages participation from all of its readers.

I would like to ditto everything that TBS said.

I would also like to add that I avoid participating in discussions where someone is likely to use scripture and/or church materials to validate their argument. The singleton thread is a perfect example - people can argue all day about feminism and what it means and how it is expressed, but as soon as The Proclamation is brought in, that's the end of the discussion for me. The Proclamation (and other LDS documents) may mean nothing to me, but they hold great value to a majority of readers here - so how can we have a mature dialogue when we are each arguing from a totally separate paradigm? I don't want to be made into some kind of godless bad guy, so I just stay out of it.

[thebigcheese]

On that note, I just remembered something that happened in my Psychology of Gender class a few summers ago. There was one girl in the class who would regularly quote the apostles and refer to the Proclamation in class discussions. When she was referring to those things, she would quote them in much the same way that a scientist would quote a list of facts. Eventually, the teacher stepped in and said that we shouldn't state our opinions in that way. Instead, we should say things like, "According to my interpretation of this..." or "According to my belief in this..."

She protested because we're at BYU, for crying out loud! We shouldn't need to say things like that! But here's the thing -- there could be non-members in the class, there could be people who don't always agree with the apostles, there could be people who interpret those quotes differently. By using those quotes in that way, we are assuming that everyone else believes EXACTLY the same way we do. We are assuming that everyone else has the same level of faith in the doctrine and the apostles. Which is almost never the case. You will find a broad spectrum of belief, even within the church. So to argue that "this is the only way that x-issue should be interpreted" will generally come across as hostile, even self-righteous.

[TheBlackSheep]

Exactly. I love the way you put that.

And, as a result, the conversation either turns nasty or people are intimidated into not sharing further, neither of which is desirable.

[UnluckyStuntman]

We are assuming that everyone else has the same level of faith in the doctrine and the apostles. Which is almost never the case. You will find a broad spectrum of belief, even within the church. So to argue that "this is the only way that x-issue should be interpreted" will generally come across as hostile, even self-righteous.

well said, thebigcheese.

[Craig Jessop]

How did she react to that, thebigcheese?

[thebigcheese]

It was pretty obvious that she had some behind-the-scenes discussions with the teacher, so I don't really know all of the details. But I think she pretty much hated him after that. She felt like she was being singled out. The teacher didn't mean to do that, but she came across far more forcefully than anyone else in the class.

[thebigcheese]

So...let's learn from that. Since it was mostly one person, perhaps it could have been better handled as a private discussion and not mentioned in class at all. In the context of this forum, maybe the mods can send a private message to anyone who debates too aggressively? (Or maybe they already do that. I don't know.)

[Marduk]

I've done some in the context of private messages. I've also let some come through the boards more organically. There's a school of thought that says praise in public, chastise in private, but I don't think such a dichotomy is necessarily the best course of action. A little bit of public chastisement can, in theory, be more effective for both the individual and the group at large. It has been my judgment to make, and I don't mind making it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I've always chosen the appropriate method.

As far as using prophetic and apostolic quotes as authoritative, the main problem I have with that is that it is generally open to much more interpretation than we would think. We often hear a quote and think, "yeah! That makes sense!" and hear someone else bring it up in a different context and think "woah, they totally got it wrong." But that's the beautiful thing about this religion; it encourages individual thought and reaching one's own understanding of what the gospel means.

I would also caution against saying that such statements mean nothing. Even if one does not believe they are authoritative, they still hold sway with a lot of people and both define and shape a portion of human perspective. I don't think the pope's comments come from God, but I'm always interested in what he has to say, as many DO believe he speaks for God, and that shapes the way that they act and see the world.

Anyway, that's what I think. Hopefully I wasn't too offensive.

[Dragon Lady]

I think the problem with you chastising in public, at least for me, would be that I'd see it as Marduk disagreeing, not as a mod saying, "Stop it, folks!"

[thebigcheese]

Let's start a debate about how to moderate our debates!

Heh heh, just kidding. It's a delicate line to tread, and I don't claim to know all the answers either. If anything, I'm just bouncing ideas off you guys. I mean, as a moderator, you can be super restrictive, super lenient, or somewhere in the middle. We're probably not going to satisfy everyone, so just do your best.

[Marduk]

I think the problem with you chastising in public, at least for me, would be that I'd see it as Marduk disagreeing, not as a mod saying, "Stop it, folks!"

If you recall, I did this when Vorpal accused Cognoscente of being abusive. I suppose it is up for debate whether or not that came across as authoritative.

[melbabi]

I would also caution against saying that such statements mean nothing. Even if one does not believe they are authoritative, they still hold sway with a lot of people and both define and shape a portion of human perspective.

Umm... I believe you are referencing Unlucky Stuntman in this but US said...

The Proclamation (and other LDS documents) may mean nothing to me, but they hold great value to a majority of readers here

US was very specific in saying it meant nothing to her but to others it means a lot. Sorry to be a stickler on this, but I believe healthy communication is key and it involves trying to accurately understand what others are saying.

Keeping on topic... ish, Marduk how did you become a moderator? Did someone ask you or you volunteered? Also, after it was decided you would be a moderator, what were you told/what did you say, your duties/responsibilities would be? I think that for me to assess my thoughts on the current topic, it will be vital for me to know that. Thanks!

[vorpal blade]

I'm sure we can make arrangements. I look forward to it. (Drats, now I'll have to brush up. I haven't played seriously in years.)

I know what you mean. I haven't played seriously for thirty years.

[Marduk]

Yes, clarity is key, so let me try again.

US (don't know how I feel about that acronym, by the way) said that for her, it means nothing, and I was saying that it shouldn't mean nothing, even if one does not take it as authoritative. Let's say, for example, someone came in and said "in the Holy Qur'an, the prophet Muhammad said..." I would ask them about it, how they interpreted it, and how it led to what they believed. Also, even though it has been a long time since I read the Qur'an, I might even suggest other verses that might allow for it to be interpreted differently. This pulls into a larger feeling from individuals who have no particular religious affiliation, when dealing with those who do, that they might say "my religion believes X." as the end of the discussion, because how can you argue with someone's religious beliefs? And I'm saying it ought not to, since as TBC astutely pointed out, no two people have the same perspective even on a religion they share, EVEN one as dogmatized as the LDS church. The key to having a 'mature dialogue' is each person acknowledging and trying to understand the perspective of the other person, since ANY discussion will be between two people who do not share all schemas.

As to your question, essentially I had been around the forums for a few months, a discussion got particularly heated, and I helped to calm down the associated parties. One of the admins approached me (does that still work? Even if it is a private message?) and said, "you handled that well, we appreciate it, we had been freaking out about what to do, and you came in and solved the problem. How'd you like to be a moderator?" I assented, and was told, in essence, to "keep things under control, and keep things from getting too far off topic." For the most part, I've been allowed autonomy in acting as I see fit, given those two very generous directives.

[melbabi]

Marduk, I'm confused. Earlier you said,

I don't think the pope's comments come from God, but I'm always interested in what he has to say, as many DO believe he speaks for God, and that shapes the way that they act and see the world.

But then when US said (essentially) that she doesn't believe in what the prophets say, you said that it should.

for her, it means nothing, and I was saying that it shouldn't mean nothing, even if one does not take it as authoritative.

Am I understanding you correctly?? Because these two statements seem to contradict each other, you say you don't think the pope's comments come from God but when US made a similar comment earlier, you cautioned her against it?? Maybe I've misunderstood so could you please elaborate?

Also, that's interesting about how you became a moderator. I'm wondering if you've ever thought of establishing guidelines for our dialogues on this forum. Or do you even think that would be useful? My thought process behind that is that I took a dialogue class and we established dialogue rules that we read each time we started a class (yes, it got to be redundant) and it was helpful. It was a good reminder that we are all working together to try to better understand our own and others' viewpoints in an appropriate manner where everyone feels respected and knows that their opinions matters. I hope that those are the same goals in this forum as well.

[Unit of Energy]

What marduk is saying is not contradictory at all. He doesn't believe that the Pope speaks for God, but he does believe that there are things to be gained from what the Pope says. By extension his next quote you have he is saying that even if you don't believe that our prophets or the proclamation are authoritative there is something that can be gained from it.

[Marduk]

Right, and I'm also saying it should not be "the end of the discussion." One ought to feel comfortable discussing things regarding faith even when one believes differently than you, or if one has no particular faith at all. I'm used to discussing my beliefs with atheists, buddhists, catholics, etc. And when one follows a faith fairly (pardon the pun) religiously, it is going to color all other aspects of their life. So I think NOT bringing it up, discussing it, analyzing it, etc. would be counter-productive.

As far as codified guidelines for the forum, I've shyed away from anything so formal, simply because that can scare away people even more than some hostility in an environment like this, and in my opinion, it hasn't been needed. What I percieve would be potential violations of any codified rules are actually few and far between (then again, I've got a thick skin. I'm used to discussing things with philosophy students, who have much less self control in that respect than anyone here. So sometimes it confuses me when individuals are scared away. Actual snippet from a discussion we had: "Only an idiot would think that. The idea that.... is just moronic, and anyone who believes that should be eliminated from the gene pool." Compared to that, this forum is very tame.)

[wired]

Actual snippet from a discussion we had: "Only an idiot would think that. The idea that.... is just moronic, and anyone who believes that should be eliminated from the gene pool." Compared to that, this forum is very tame.)

Someone had said something bad about Jimmer, right?

[thebigcheese]

I'm used to discussing things with philosophy students, who have much less self control in that respect than anyone here.

I hate discussing anything with philosophy students.

[UnluckyStuntman]

Right, and I'm also saying it should not be "the end of the discussion." One ought to feel comfortable discussing things regarding faith even when one believes differently than you, or if one has no particular faith at all. I'm used to discussing my beliefs with atheists, buddhists, catholics, etc. And when one follows a faith fairly (pardon the pun) religiously, it is going to color all other aspects of their life. So I think NOT bringing it up, discussing it, analyzing it, etc. would be counter-productive.

Just to be clear, Marduk, what I meant by reaching the end of the discussion is that feeling that TBS expressed, where sometimes the conversations here can be like talking to a brick wall - usually something to the effect of, "well, I think X and I am supported by A, B, and C, and since C is a scripture, I am unwilling to consider your point of view."

It is not that I am uncomfortable exploring other belief systems, but that I don't feel that my agnosticism is well received or respected by some participants here (no, I'm not talking about you, Marduk)

Does that make sense?