One Chance for a Clean Start

[nrajeff]

I have decided to give this place a last chance. I admit that I could have been nicer in some of my posts. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and I am offering everyone a chance to join me in promising to not mock anyone in this forum.
That means refraining from mocking a person because of his or her religion, and because of his or her typing idiosyncrasies.
Anyone willing to join me in this experiment is invited to reply in this thread.

[One Bad Pig]

I think that your admission does not go nearly far enough - and your opening sentence implies that it's all our fault anyway. The experiment, furthermore, is meaningless, because I have yet to see anyone mocked in this forum because of his or her religion or typing idiosyncrasies. But I'm willing to continue not mocking people for anything except patently running away from questions they can't answer.

[Darth Executor]

I promise to continue to mock people in this forum. Also, who are you?

[Sparko]

I have decided to give this place a last chance. I admit that I could have been nicer in some of my posts. I am willing to let bygones be bygones and I am offering everyone a chance to join me in promising to not mock anyone in this forum.
That means refraining from mocking a person because of his or her religion, and because of his or her typing idiosyncrasies.
Anyone willing to join me in this experiment is invited to reply in this thread.

How magnanimous of you to give us another chance.

[JB]

Jeff, I agree with OBP that the approach of your offer here doesn't seem to set quite the right tone for moving into civility and honesty. (I mean, to get technical, you ask people to avoid mockery on certain grounds, but say nothing about insults - but I presume you would mean to include those as well.) I do appreciate the initial step of acknowledging that you have not always been the model of niceness in your posting here; I think that statement isn't quite strong enough, but it is at least a start. I'd like to quote the suggestion I made elsewhere, since it seems wholly pertinent here:

So in reply to Jeff's statement on that matter, here is the challenge I extend to him: offer an apology for past unkindnesses, including his behavior in this thread (particularly to ke7ejx), and resolve to be entirely civil, forthright, charitable, and non-antagonistic from here on out, and to correct his fellow Latter-day Saints when they stray from the same path. Model for us all – LDS and non-LDS, participants and observers – what a good dialogue partner should be, including in terms of honestly addressing questions and opposing cases without excessive defensiveness or dialogic gymnastics (what CP notes as the 'kabuki dance'). In turn, if Jeff accepts that challenge, I will more than happily make the very same pledge, encourage the others to follow suit, and vigorously defend Jeff if anyone treats him untowardly while he keeps that pledge. If it's really a civil place of reasonable, honest dialogue that Jeff wants here, then here's his ticket.

Would you consider accepting this more holistic 'experiment'? Note that, while the obligations are certainly higher, the benefits are likewise higher due to the equal obligations on your dialogue partners.

To facilitate this, I've drafted a sample covenant/pledge for my proposal, as follows:

I, the undersigned, hereby do apologize and repent of any and all past and present unwarranted incivility, mockery, derision, cruelty, and/or dishonesty on my part toward other participants here, and in particular those who are now willing to similarly pledge the same by affirming this selfsame pledge. I henceforth resolve to model, to the best of my capacity and in good faith, what it means to be a good interreligious dialogue partner. Toward at least those who will commit to this pledge, I will with gladness conduct myself as follows: I pledge to be civil and respectful toward both dissenting persons and the beliefs they hold. I will not mock, I will not deride, I will not antagonize; but instead I will strive to be charitable to all, as the grace of God supplies my strength so to do. I pledge to not shy away from difficult questions, nor to substitute alternative questions of my own making without offering a justification for my grounds in so going. I will be forthright in stating what I believe, without regard for whether the idea is mainstream or fringe. I will concern myself more with the content of an idea and the strength of an argument than with the authority or lack thereof of the source in which I find it, save where the latter is the issue under question. I pledge to offer sound arguments for the positions I espouse, to the best of my ability. I pledge to value reason, study, faith, and the work of the Spirit of God. I pledge to admit when I lack a clear answer, without needing to feel any undue defensiveness or shame therein. I will not be defensive, I will not be unreasonable, I will not be excessively partisan, I will not be unloving or ungracious I commit myself to embodying intellectual curiosity and openness, expressing a desire to learn all I can about both my own beliefs and the history of my faith as well as the same about those of my dialogue partners. I will not place group cohesion above theological correctness, reasonability, morality, or good manners, but will speak the truth in love in all things, defending and critiquing where needed without regard for party boundaries. And I pledge to encourage all participants to affirm the contents of this pledge, to gently rebuke those who spurn their pledges and guide them into greater fidelity to the principles set forth herein, and to defend all those – again, without regard to party affiliation – who are treated in a manner inconsistent with the principles underlying this pledge.

I am more than willing to sign onto everything I just drafted, and I have faith that numerous others here would do the same, but we recognize that to do so would be a handicap if our dialogue partners do not share the same spirit.

[Brown Cat]

One thing that concerns me is how a person's intent doesn't always show itself in text. For example, a tough question could be posed without any anger present, but could be seen as such by someone who is predisposed to look for such hostility (and I'm NOT referring specifically to you, Jeff).

When this happens ring the bell because the rumble is about to start again. (BTW, I wrote the preceding sentence with a sense of wry amusement, lest any misunderstand .)

The threads that prompted this one also reminded me of Romans 12:14, where Paul says "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse." Peter also wrote that Jesus was reviled, he didn't respond in kind (1 Peter 2:23). And this theme is repeated in several other places in the Bible. That is a really, really tough thing to do because it calls for a spiritual response rather than a natural one. As for me, that's the ideal I strive for even though I have failed miserably on a number of occasions. So I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, I agree with OBP that the approach of your offer here doesn't seem to set quite the right tone for moving into civility and honesty. (I mean, to get technical, you ask people to avoid mockery on certain grounds, but say nothing about insults - but I presume you would mean to include those as well.).....

Thanks for offering a substantive response. And yes, of course I want this place to be free of insults. I found your "counter-proposal" impressive in both its sweeping scope and its ambitiousness. I don't know that anyone here can abide by every one of its clauses from the outset, but I think it a laudable goal for us to strive to someday achieve in perfection. Like Jesus' commandment to be perfect, something to commit to working toward.

Would there be a problem if, to start with, the pledge just be a simpler "I won't mock or insult others" ?

[JB]

Thanks for offering a substantive response. And yes, of course I want this place to be free of insults. I found your "counter-proposal" impressive in both its sweeping scope and its ambitiousness. I don't know that anyone here can abide by every one of its clauses from the outset, but I think it a laudable goal for us to strive to someday achieve in perfection. Like Jesus' commandment to be perfect, something to commit to working toward.

Would there be a problem if, to start with, the pledge just be a simpler "I won't mock or insult others" ?

Thank you, Jeff. I think that would be at least a start - though I would also urge the addition of apologies. I think all of us could stand to offer some, wouldn't you agree? And I would also recommend at least an addition of a pledge to aspire to the principles I outlined in the fuller pledge. I think that allows for the growth over time you're looking for, but also keeps us focused and on the right track. What do you think of that? Maybe something like, "I will avoid mocking or insulting others; I will try to be a good, honest, friendly dialogue partner; I'll aspire to embody the principles in the fuller pledge; I'll try to encourage others to do the same; and I'll try to gently correct those who don't." A bit longer, but also simple enough while touching all the main bases.

Actually, in the pledge I outlined, I tried to build in some flex room to account for none of us being able to always live up to it perfectly, especially at first - hence uses of "strive [...] as the grace of God supplies my strength so to do", "to the best of my ability", "to the best of my capacity and in good faith", etc. But I can also see how many of the affirmations were stated fairly absolutely.

Perhaps I might add, is there anything in particular in the original pledge that you think you'd have a difficult time keeping at the present time? Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe you've got it in you now already to live up to at least the bulk of what it says, given a hospitable environment.

[Cow Poke]

A huge problem I see is that I have often said things totally kidding, but as Brown Cat mentioned, lack of facial expression, tone of voice and body posture leave things totally open to interpretation.

For example, I was TOTALLY kidding when Jeff called us "ANTS" (a typo on his part, to be sure) but it struck me as funny, because of the implication of us being insignificant little pests. Jeff, apparently, got royally hacked about that. I mis-type, too, and sometimes it can be quite embarrassing. I'm assuming this might be what was intended by the typing idiosyncracises.

As for toning things down, I have tried on a NUMBER of occasions, but there doesn't seem to be any "credit" for that --- NOTE, however, that Jeff DID acknowledge when I told him I had really tried to tone it down since before Christmas. It seems, during that time, that Jeff simply intensified his attacks on me "not answering" a question that I very sincerely and openly answered in another thread, but kept getting hounded over.

Another problem I see is that there's no (practical) way to know if somebody is "ribbing in good fun", or "mocking".

I don't seem to have any problem communicating with MM or 141.... I'll be interested to see where this goes.

[nrajeff]

One thing that concerns me is how a person's intent doesn't always show itself in text. For example, a tough question could be posed without any anger present, but could be seen as such by someone who is predisposed to look for such hostility (and I'm NOT referring specifically to you, Jeff).

When this happens ring the bell because the rumble is about to start again. (BTW, I wrote the preceding sentence with a sense of wry amusement, lest any misunderstand .)

The threads that prompted this one also reminded me of Romans 12:14, where Paul says "Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse." Peter also wrote that Jesus was reviled, he didn't respond in kind (1 Peter 2:23). And this theme is repeated in several other places in the Bible. That is a really, really tough thing to do because it calls for a spiritual response rather than a natural one. As for me, that's the ideal I strive for even though I have failed miserably on a number of occasions. So I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone.

Well said. I feel similarly. Thank you.

[Sparko]

another consideration...

We often bring up topics about LDS beliefs and history that we find unbelievable. Or we might make a claim that as far as Christians are concerned, LDS are not Christians. I have also made a thread or two stating that I believe that the LDS church was either started by a fraud, or perhaps even Satan. I think these are legitimate topics and are not personal attacks on Jeff or any other Mormon here. Would Jeff consider them to be legitimate topics or would he construe them as insults, mocking, or attacks?

[nrajeff]

Thank you, Jeff. I think that would be at least a start - though I would also urge the addition of apologies. I think all of us could stand to offer some, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree with that.

And I would also recommend at least an addition of a pledge to aspire to the principles I outlined in the fuller pledge. I think that allows for the growth over time you're looking for, but also keeps us focused and on the right track. What do you think of that?

Agreed. After all, the Boy Scout Oath talks about doing one's best to do one's duty, so promising to do one's best seems feasible and good.

Maybe something like, "I will avoid mocking or insulting others; I will try to be a good, honest, friendly dialogue partner; I'll aspire to embody the principles in the fuller pledge; I'll try to encourage others to do the same; and I'll try to gently correct those who don't." A bit longer, but also simple enough while touching all the main bases.

OK

Actually, in the pledge I outlined, I tried to build in some flex room to account for none of us being able to always live up to it perfectly, especially at first - hence uses of "strive [...] as the grace of God supplies my strength so to do", "to the best of my ability", "to the best of my capacity and in good faith", etc. But I can also see how many of the affirmations were stated fairly absolutely.
Perhaps I might add, is there anything in particular in the original pledge that you think you'd have a difficult time keeping at the present time?

Realizing that I am human, I don't see myself always acting in a way that all others will see as being in conformance. And as for "...I will with gladness conduct myself...." ---honestly, I can't see myself living up to that one.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe you've got it in you now already to live up to at least the bulk of what it says, given a hospitable environment

Oh, I think I am as able as anyone here. I just question how able any of us is to meet your admirably high goals at the present time. But if everyone manages to be somewhere between my "low"goals and your high ones, I have a lot of faith that this forum will be a much better place.

[nrajeff]

another consideration...

We often bring up topics about LDS beliefs and history that we find unbelievable. Or we might make a claim that I have also made a thread or two stating that I believe that the LDS church was either started by a fraud, or perhaps even Satan. I think these are legitimate topics and are not personal attacks on Jeff or any other Mormon here. Would Jeff consider them to be legitimate topics or would he construe them as insults, mocking, or attacks?

Good point. As soon as I see an assertion like "as far as Christians are concerned, LDS are not Christians" an alarm goes off that says "Someone is trying to speak for all Christians" and I want to point out an invalid premise, since there are Christians in existence who do not think that LDS aren't Christians. And then the comeback could be something like "Those people aren't real Christians if they don't believe, as I do, that LDS people are not Christian people." And then things continue to spiral further and further away from JB's sample covenant/pledge.

So maybe we should express such assertions as being our own personal opinion. That prevents the "You don't speak for all Christians" response from even being necessary.

[Sparko]

Good point. As soon as I see an assertion like "as far as Christians are concerned, LDS are not Christians" an alarm goes off that says "Someone is trying to speak for all Christians" and I want to point out an invalid premise, since there are Christians in existence who do not think that LDS aren't Christians. And then the comeback could be something like "Those people aren't real Christians if they don't believe, as I do, that LDS people are not Christian people." And then things continue to spiral further and further away from JB's sample covenant/pledge.

So maybe we should express such assertions as being our own personal opinion. That prevents the "You don't speak for all Christians" response from even being necessary.

when I say "Christians believe xyz" I am generally speaking of the orthodox Christian doctrines/teachings. So while not all Christians might believe that, or maybe not every one who claims to be Christians believes it, it is not necessary to point that out, since I am speaking of something that orthodox Christianity teaches.

[ke7ejx]

I have to say, I am really proud of Jeff right now. I thank you for doing this thread. I think it's an excellent idea to discuss these issues. I mentioned to JB that we should put up some sort of agreement for us to sign. Then we can really start to have fun.