Please read this thread

[No Swansong]

My friends of the Seventh Day Adventist board:
I have been a moderator for a short time here now and feel moved to make this thread. Let me begin again by thanking all who have warmly welcomed me and who have shared information about Adventism. I very much appreciate your kindness and your helpfulness.

However, it is very clear to me that among the several congregational areas that I have had the pleasure of modding SDA is one of the most contentious. I am asking that we work together to change that. I have no desire to squelch communication, and I realize that there are serious differences here that are very important to those who participate in these threads.

I am only just now beginning to have an understanding of the differences between traditionalist and progressive Seventh Day Adventists. Regardless of my level of understanding of Adventism however, I understand the processes of communication very well. My goal here is to facilitate your communication with each other. On this forum we have some very specific problems which the mod team intends to address. It is our hope to address these problems with a servant’s attitude.

CF Rule 2.1 is the No Flaming Rule. It states:

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

In my opinion this rule is the one most violated on this forum. (Probably because its scope is very large) In some cases it seems it is intentionally breeched in others it seems not. Surely we can find a respectful manner in which to disagree. Inflammatory language needs to be avoided as do implications that others are not Christians or even Adventists. Telling others to leave, or that they are not welcome here, is also a violation of CF rules.

CF Rule 1.4 States:

1.4 Congregational Areas

You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group.

I have had a great deal of experience with this rule on several congregational fora. This is an important rule on CF as its purpose is to help provide the “safe havens” that the congregational fora are supposed to be. I realize that it is very tempting for former members to debate with those whom they have engaged in the past, and to help defend those still in the congregations who are like minded. However this is not permitted. While fellowship posts are welcomed and appreciated and questions are encouraged, debate by non-Adventists will not be allowed and we will do our best to end it. Some here do not carry the Seventh Day Adventist icon and I and the others on the team are still learning who is, and who is not, an Adventist. There are other fora set aside for non-Adventists to engage Adventists in debate if that is their desire. I would like to encourage non-Adventists to utilize those fora. One is found here another here.


CF Rule 2.6 States:

2.6 Accusations of Rules Violations Prohibited

You will not accuse other members of violating these Rules in the discussion forums. Please use the report feature instead.

This rule is also violated on these threads occasionally. Please report violations instead of making accusations in the threads. These accusations almost always lead to additional flames and accusations. This type of escalation leads to harsh words and feelings towards our brothers and sisters.

Please understand my purpose for bringing these issues to your attention is an honest desire to assist the board to communicate more effectively and to help you, my brothers and sisters to have that “safe haven” that the congregational areas are supposed to be.

The purpose of this thread however is not only to bring these issues to your attention and to let you know that the mod team intends to address them, but also to ask you for your input. I very much would like to know how you feel we can de-escalate the obvious tension on this board.

 

[Ptilinopus]

Thank-you jtbdad, for your intervention. I am fairly new on CF, but although I initially entered with the intention of discussing beliefs and concepts in this board, I have almost given up on it. I hope some order can be brought to it. Again and again I have been frustrated when a thread that started out a calm discussion degenerated into flame war.

It appears to me that almost invariably the board is hijacked by the more extreme positions within our church. An observer could be forgiven for thinking that the majority of Adventists are of one extreme or the other. Calling them Progressive (or Liberal) on the one hand and Traditional (or worse) on the other is not useful, because those on either of the extreme ends of the continuum appear to consider all nearer the centre as of the other extreme - a picture which does much less than justice to us.

I suspect that the fact that only a few Adventists frequent this board ( out of the 200 or so members registered on CF) is indicative that the majority have simply given up in disgust - as I have been tempted to do.

Whatever you and others can do as a moderator to clean this up will be most welcome as far as I am concerned. What is going on is simply not of the spirit of Christ, and has become a disgrace both to His name, and to the Church I love. And I do not believe that it represents the attitude of the majority of members.

 

[Mankin]

Thanks, jtbdad. I have made a thread about this problem before.

 

[tall73]

JtbDad,

Another area that has been used for debate when including formers is the more out of the way sub-forum of GT, Denomination Specific Theology. Then you can limit it to the groups you want to discuss with. It is out of the way so that it doesn't clog up GT (and having moderated there, GT gets VERY clogged up). It is intended for denominational debate. If you follow the link you will see a number of Adventists topics there.

A suggestion that was made previously was to move contentious topics to DST.

Just a heads up as I don't think the theology mods would want these kind of things in GT if they can help it.

 

[No Swansong]

Tall thank you for the heads up. I thought I had made that one of the links but it turns out I linked to GT instead.

To the rest of you thank you for your support and suggestions. It is very appreciated.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Tall that seems like a good idea.

jtbdad how about we have a discussion/debate area on this sub forum and let the main page be used for fellowship/fun/ministery. not debate. that would be really helpful

I also have to disagree with Ptilinopus the lables do help. the clairfy who is what. I believe that the problem stems from a certian mindset in the SDA chruch. That we are the "true chruch" and therefore are never wrong. we ha a "true prophet" and she is never wrong, that is a very dangerous postion it is all or nothing. there are some who are not convinced about every point of doctrine but agree witht he "general" view of the SDA chruch, Sabbath, state of the Dead,the Advent Second coming, the historist method of interpation. they want to ask question and should be allowed to. There is nothing wrong with challenging your faith, an little exersice in intellectual streching neve hurt any one.

 

[No Swansong]

Icedragon101;
As I understand it the subfora were designed specifically to disallow debate. (Admittedly I could be mistaken) These subfora were designed as an area for fellowship and discussion amongst each subset. Additionally I do not believe that we have authority to make the main forum a non-debate area. I would however like to take the opportunity since you brought it up to encourage those who wish to avoid debate to use the subfora.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing wrong with asking questions (as long as they are not baiting or debate in disguise) or in stretching our intellect. However noone should be forced to do so. In other words no one should be forced into debate. (I am not implying that you or anyone else does so I am only addressing this as a hypothetical)

 

[tall73]

I realize you do not have the authority personally. However, it would be a great thing to have those congregational fora so that those who wish could have separate fellowship and debate areas.

That would be less divisive than putting people into two camps.

What if the two camps want to fellowship together with the assurance that debate will not be allowed?

As it is we segregate.


Please propose this to the powers that be. I believe it has been proposed before. I know it has because I proposed it in the CR and was probably not the first or last. But we are not the only congregational area with troubles (though we are sure pushing for top honors )

Consider the Anglican forum. Is there not division between those who hold to a continuum of views on how much to emphasize the protestant or catholic elements?

Would dividing into camps help? Rather it might be helpful to isolate the debating threads.

DST is a good spot to move things to. But you know as well as I do that transfers between teams are a far greater hassle than intra-team. You have to get permission, get it cleaned up, etc. Last I checked there was not even an official protocol. And since people CAN debate in the congregational areas it is not really justified to move them to DST. But if there were a designated area then this would not be a problem. A debating thread would just be moved.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Jtbdad, I am very thankful that you are making such an effort to not only understand our beliefs but also to help us clean up this forum.

I've seen a lot of people come and go, and I've seen new people get insulted about their very first posts...resulting in them never coming back here.

One of the main problems with any message board is that you can't really "read" someone's tone, and when you're disagreeing with someone it's easy to imagine that they're using a hostile one.

I read an interesting article a couple of years ago about how message boards are a lot like road rage, and how easy it is to imagine the person driving the car in front of you isn't really a person at all. It's a dangerous mindset, but one that can be very easy to fall into.

I think we all need to always be aware that there is another living soul sitting at their computer in each discussion that we get into.

It's also really easy to get caught up in a "they insulted me, I'll insult them back" mindset, which I've been very guilty of myself.

I'm seeing very dear friends leave this forum, and it really does hurt me to see it. I have formed some great friendships here, although most of them are just through e-mail now because they won't come back here.

I would really love to see this forum change, and I would really like to be able to tell people in my REAL congregation about this place. Through all the bickering, I really have learned a lot from my fellow Adventists.

I just hate to see any of us taking our eye off the big picture. We are not each other's enemies. We have a much bigger enemy to deal with.

I will sincerely do my part to help clean up the thread, and I'll start with apologizing to anyone that I've offended. I really do not feel good when I leave a discussion that has gone around in circles and not resulted in any kind of praise for God.

I feel like we're on a treadmill and not making any progress.

At one point there was a rule that we had to have an Adventist icon in order to debate here. I don't know what happened to that rule.

I'll think of ways that might help in here, and I know others are too. It would be really nice to have a "safe haven" for sure.

One quick question...in the subfora that we have set up for Traditional and Progressive, there is to be absolutely NO debate in those, right?

God's many blessings to you and thanks again for helping us help ourselves!

~Lainie

 

[Sophia7]

Icedragon101;
As I understand it the subfora were designed specifically to disallow debate. (Admittedly I could be mistaken) These subfora were designed as an area for fellowship and discussion amongst each subset. Additionally I do not believe that we have authority to make the main forum a non-debate area. I would however like to take the opportunity since you brought it up to encourage those who wish to avoid debate to use the subfora.

This has always been my understanding as well.

 

[No Swansong]

I realize you do not have the authority personally. However, it would be a great thing to have those congregational fora so that those who wish could have separate fellowship and debate areas.

Actually I think this is a good idea and I know there has been some discussion of it in the past. Assume for a moment that your suggestion here is not approved how would you like the alternative of thread originators being permitted to designate their specific thread as debate or fellowship?

That would be less divisive than putting people into two camps.

What if the two camps want to fellowship together with the assurance that debate will not be allowed?

As it is we segregate.

I agree that this happens but right at the moment it seems like the best but admittedly imperfect solution.

Please propose this to the powers that be. I believe it has been proposed before. I know it has because I proposed it in the CR and was probably not the first or last. But we are not the only congregational area with troubles (though we are sure pushing for top honors )

I thought I had read this idea before Certainly I can bring it up but you realize I would not be permitted to share specificis about any specific discussion on CR here.

Consider the Anglican forum. Is there not division between those who hold to a continuum of views on how much to emphasize the protestant or catholic elements?

Indeed and that is not the only division.

Would dividing into camps help? Rather it might be helpful to isolate the debating threads.

Actually I was one of the most vocal advocates for a conservative subforum on STR.

DST is a good spot to move things to. But you know as well as I do that transfers between teams are a far greater hassle than intra-team. You have to get permission, get it cleaned up, etc. Last I checked there was not even an official protocol. And since people CAN debate in the congregational areas it is not really justified to move them to DST. But if there were a designated area then this would not be a problem. A debating thread would just be moved.

And keeping it in-house so to speak usually seems to be preferred. My concern about moving threads is primarily directed towards non-member debate.

 

[Sophia7]

I realize you do not have the authority personally. However, it would be a great thing to have those congregational fora so that those who wish could have separate fellowship and debate areas.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to propose the creation of a separate fellowship subforum, in addition to the current subforums, where everyone could participate but with no debating allowed. The main forum could still be open for debate and teaching, which is how it is in other congregational areas. As far as I know, none of them limit discussion in the main area to fellowship, nor would I be in favor of doing so.

I'm pretty sure this idea (or at least something similar) has been proposed before, and there's no guarantee that the suggestion will be taken. The mods don't have the authority to create subforums and divide forums.

 

[tall73]

Actually I think this is a good idea and I know there has been some discussion of it in the past. Assume for a moment that your suggestion here is not approved how would you like the alternative of thread originators being permitted to designate their specific thread as debate or fellowship?

I have been in forums where that was done. It worked fine (not on CF).

We could just put a [no-debate] tag. or a [debate] tag.

 

[Sophia7]

Assume for a moment that your suggestion here is not approved how would you like the alternative of thread originators being permitted to designate their specific thread as debate or fellowship?

This could be a good idea, too, but it could cause confusion for some people if the SDA forum were the only one to use such a system.

 

[smooze]

this is why i left the SDA adventists where traditionalist like hymns and draconian type sermons. Where a progressive upbeat church well the traditionalist avoid it like the plague. Well im content to worship the Seventh day HOLY Sabbath the LORD set out for me. I wish people would get along. Im reminded of 2 brothers who tried to find favor with their father to the point of murder now thats sad. Jesus loves all sinners unconditionally AMEN

 

[smooze]

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner "who repents" than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

 

[smooze]

we should welcome each other like children and play with and respect others . ok I know children fight but the next day their best friends again. I say have debates on theology but in principle to how you "actually" lead your life NOT the way your pastor dictates thats the true strenght and resolve to spread the word more easily basing it on WWJC do LOL/.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Jonathan, that picture brought tears to my eyes. Wow.

I think tagging each thread is a great idea.

I've been seeing some threads in the Messianic Judaism forum that say "[open]" and I just figured out what that meant. Open to all for debate. They have such a great forum in there and I rarely ever see any disagreements in there...definitely not of the caliber we have here, that's for sure.

 

[Sophia7]

At one point there was a rule that we had to have an Adventist icon in order to debate here. I don't know what happened to that rule.

That was never a CF rule. (The actual rule simply states that you have to be a member of a particular group to debate in a congregational area.) It was a congregation-specific guideline within the scope of Rule 1.4, which some mods followed early on in the SDA forum. The problem was that not all Adventists, even at the very beginning, used the SDA icon, so that guideline turned out to be impractical for our forum. However, the mods have consistently asked those who do not use an Adventist icon to clarify (by PM, not in public) their denominational affiliation if they were debating in the SDA forum and if it was not apparent by their posts. If someone identifies himself or herself as an Adventist in this way, that person is allowed to debate here. That is how I was taught to do things when I became a mod.

 

[No Swansong]

Jtbdad, I am very thankful that you are making such an effort to not only understand our beliefs but also to help us clean up this forum.

It has been an enjoyable experience for me. I have learned a great deal from more than a few members who have been very gracious in assisting me.

I've seen a lot of people come and go, and I've seen new people get insulted about their very first posts...resulting in them never coming back here.

That is indeed regretable.

One of the main problems with any message board is that you can't really "read" someone's tone, and when you're disagreeing with someone it's easy to imagine that they're using a hostile one.

You are absolutely correct. Sometimes as a mod I have to try to make a decision about someone's "intent" this is indeed very difficult to do.

I read an interesting article a couple of years ago about how message boards are a lot like road rage, and how easy it is to imagine the person driving the car in front of you isn't really a person at all. It's a dangerous mindset, but one that can be very easy to fall into.

I too have read this analogy. It is not a new problem A significant amount of Christ's teachings seem to me to address the fact that we are responsible for our behavior regardless of provocation. As a Christian of almost 30 years I can attest to the fact that it is sometimes very difficult to respond with the "soft answer that turneth away wrath."

I think we all need to always be aware that there is another living soul sitting at their computer in each discussion that we get into.

It's also really easy to get caught up in a "they insulted me, I'll insult them back" mindset, which I've been very guilty of myself.

As have I unfortunately.

I'm seeing very dear friends leave this forum, and it really does hurt me to see it. I have formed some great friendships here, although most of them are just through e-mail now because they won't come back here.

It is true however that the relationships that we form online often demonstrate all of the aspects of relationships we form offline.

I would really love to see this forum change, and I would really like to be able to tell people in my REAL congregation about this place. Through all the bickering, I really have learned a lot from my fellow Adventists.

I just hate to see any of us taking our eye off the big picture. We are not each other's enemies. We have a much bigger enemy to deal with.

I know I have learned a lot from the members here. I have never attended an SDA Church but I did work at an SDA facility. (Harding Hospital) Everyone I met there was gracious and charitable.

I will sincerely do my part to help clean up the thread, and I'll start with apologizing to anyone that I've offended. I really do not feel good when I leave a discussion that has gone around in circles and not resulted in any kind of praise for God.

I appreciate your commitment to helping make this forum what it could be. Please know you are not alone. I know several who have shared with me that they wish for the forum to be less confrontational. You have my word I will do what I can.

I feel like we're on a treadmill and not making any progress.

At one point there was a rule that we had to have an Adventist icon in order to debate here. I don't know what happened to that rule.

I will check on the rule.here. I know identification of members has been treated differently by different boards. I will look into the history of it here.

I'll think of ways that might help in here, and I know others are too. It would be really nice to have a "safe haven" for sure.

One quick question...in the subfora that we have set up for Traditional and Progressive, there is to be absolutely NO debate in those, right?

That is my understanding. Of course the definition of debate is somewhat fluid and ambiguous.

God's many blessings to you and thanks again for helping us help ourselves!

~Lainie

I appreciate your support. But please understand this isn't something that I can do. It is only something that we can all do together. Staff is here to serve the membership, and in my opinion should be as inobtrusive as possible. please feel free to contact me anytime.