Statement from Staff

[mkgal1]

So it's not so much topic that should be verboten (sp?? I'll get it right one of these days!), but the HOW of the discussion. My husband actually talks about this principle - one can have the right revelation but in the wrong spirit. That's why the Love Chapter says that we're just a clanging cymbol without love, even if we have all the sparkly stuff like doctrine and prophecy etc.

Yes....exactly. Recently, I have been watching debates between a man that's superintendent of the LDS seminary and a man that was raised LDS that's now a Christian. The debates began with a statement that this debate is not about one side "winning"....and that the two men are friends, with respect for one another. There is a way to respectfully disagree.....and it *is* with love.

 

[Athene]

The post that Dawn put up is one of respect and sincerity towards all of membership-- even those who were banned. Many of the Staffers (and I wouldn't be surprised if the members too saw this happening) saw that if you did not hold certain opinions or points of views, you would get insulted and not be welcomed in this area. We hate to see this happening any where at CF.

which opinions and points of view were not welcome here and would get you insulted and chased away? I'm struggling with this because I know who has been banned and they represent all sorts of opinions and points of view.

 

[mkgal1]

I am posting a statement from staff, and will leave the thread open today, only, in case people have questions. If it becomes a staff-bashing thread, we will close it.

Question: Do you really think that banning biblical subjects and culling the membership is good for a Christian forum?

Answer: *post deleted*

Well that clears that up. Now I'm confused as to the point of Dawn soliciting questions.

Me too. Staff response?

 

[JRSut1000]

Athene, usually the "S" related topics, but also when discussions turn into 'men are always vs women are always', these are discussions that raise red flags typically cuz they turn rude pretty quickly.

 

[Athene]

Athene, usually the "S" related topics, but also when discussions turn into 'men are always vs women are always', these are discussions that raise red flags typically cuz they turn rude pretty quickly.

then which particular side of the debate is being chased away? IAL and chaz were traditionalists, so were egals like me being chased away? But no, dallas and jane are egals .... see my confusion?

 

[mkgal1]

Athene, usually the "S" related topics, but also when discussions turn into 'men are always vs women are always', these are discussions that raise red flags typically cuz they turn rude pretty quickly.

But, there's two sides to those arguments.....right? That statement of AngelDove's reads (to me) that what was happening was that only one side could be heard and was welcomed.

 

[JRSut1000]

When it comes to "S", right now in this portion of the marriage section it isn't allowed. Maybe that will change maybe not, maybe it wouldnt have been an issue if rudeness didnt get in the way most times on some level.

Like I said, the HOW is more important but if the 'how' always becomes negative concerning certain topics, then I understand or at least emphathize with the mods on why they shut down those topics. I'd like the topics (all topics really!) to be back in motion, but it takes maturity. If we're gonna be immature about it, then why wouldnt the mods take those topics away?

Let me also say this, the mods are busy people. Do we want them to take the time to screen every single post when it's easier for them to just cut off 'hot button' topics that usually lead to infractions anways? Let's be considerate not only of each other in discussion, but also the mods.

 

[JRSut1000]

Usually there isnt an argument unless there's 2 sides present, lol. But concerning "S", right now it IS only the egalitarian side allowed in general marriage discussion. And I guess it does superfically take care of the '2 sides to an argument' thing.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Please understand that even among staff there may be disagreement. We may not every one of us agree with every action made, but we have to follow the rules ourselves, and enforce them as they are written.

As stated in the original post, the problem has not been what is said, but how it is said.

The following is my opinion as an individual and not to be taken as representative of the entire staff.

In my experience, bring up the topic of marital submission (it's OK to say the word!) in the mixed company forum, and it will always end up being a flamewar along gender lines, unless we can all work on ourselves to stop that from happening. If posting styles change--not the topic but the attitude--we may one day find that submission can be discussed in a civil manner, and rescind that restriction. Until then, if we can't talk about it without flaming each other, then let's cool off on talking about it. My husband and I have to do that ourselves; if a subject gets too heated, we just have to not bring that subject up until we can talk about it rationally.

 

[mkgal1]

Maybe an appropriate response would be to go with formal debate rules on those topics? Or....as Rom8 said.....for people that are on the fence, and want the perspectives of others (male and female)...there could be both a debate area (more like formal debate---no flaming---no suggestion that one group isn't following the Bible and ignoring Scripture---just civil tossing back point and counter points)......and a separate egalitarian and complementarian subforums. It seems that life is ordered around that foundation.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Maybe an appropriate response would be to go with formal debate rules on those topics? Or....as Rom8 said.....for people that are on the fence, and want the perspectives of others (male and female)...there could be both a debate area......and a separate egalitarian and complementarian subforums. It seems that life is ordered around that foundation.

Good idea! Taking it to the staff forum.

 

[JRSut1000]

Sometimes I wish lay people could see into the staff forums. lol

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Sometimes I wish lay people could see into the staff forums. lol

Gulp.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Maybe an appropriate response would be to go with formal debate rules on those topics? Or....as Rom8 said.....for people that are on the fence, and want the perspectives of others (male and female)...there could be both a debate area (more like formal debate---no flaming---no suggestion that one group isn't following the Bible and ignoring Scripture---just civil tossing back point and counter points)......and a separate egalitarian and complementarian subforums. It seems that life is ordered around that foundation.

Yes! and honestly even though my views were not in the minority on the women's only side, for people who were in the minority, I can easily understand how they would feel like they can't be a part of the discussion. I don't think this was because anyone was disrespectful or anything, but if there aren't enough people with the same views, it makes it hard to feel apart of it. That's why I think that allowing both males and females to be apart of the discussions on submission, but with restrictions in place, would be better for everyone.

Sorry if I wasn't supposed to post this here. I don't really know where the place to post ideas is. If the mods want to move this post over there, that would be fine with me.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes! and honestly even though my views were not in the minority on the women's only side, for people who were in the minority, I can easily understand how they would feel like they can't be a part of the discussion. I don't think this was because anyone was disrespectful or anything, but if there aren't enough people with the same views, it makes it hard to feel apart of it. That's why I think that allowing both males and females to be apart of the discussions on submission, but with restrictions in place, would be better for everyone.

Sorry if I wasn't supposed to post this here. I don't really know where the place to post ideas is. If the mods want to move this post over there, that would be fine with me.

Exactly......because the division isn't based on gender....but, the distinction is between being of the egal or comp belief. There are men that believe in mutual submission, and there are women that believe in the complementarian model. To divide it up by gender.....you now still have the division within the genders, and people can feel excluded.

Another way this has been divided up as well is between "modern thinking" and "traditional thinking"......or "conservative"....and "traditional". Those aren't really true distinctions. The egalitarian model isn't liberal or modern.

 

[JRSut1000]

It is truly hard to put them into two strict categories, though I can see its probably the best way to do it. But some see the submission/complentatirian (wrecked that spelling) as more a continuum or scale than a 'versus'. But even so, I do find all views should be welcomed (even if not agreed upon) in order to make CF truly open to all believers.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I'll concede that the phrasing "along gender lines" was careless on my part. Thanks for clearing it up.

Also at the heart of the issue, I think, is hypersensitivity. No matter how gently it's worded, some egalitarians are going to hear "I believe wives should submit to their husbands" as "Woman, you're nothing but a baby machine, and you should be kept barefoot and pregnant at all times. God says so. Now, shut up and get back in the kitchen!" And, even though that attitude is not at all what was said, that attitude is what the misunderstanding egalitarian is going to respond to.

Similarly, a traditionalist can be just as misunderstanding, and take any form of advocacy of mutual submission to mean, "I am woman, hear me roar! Men are all pigs, and I'm not going to be satisfied until YOU submit to ME." Again not what was said, but what will be responded to.

 

[Athene]

It is truly hard to put them into two strict categories, though I can see its probably the best way to do it. But some see the submission/complentatirian (wrecked that spelling) as more a continuum or scale than a 'versus'. But even so, I do find all views should be welcomed (even if not agreed upon) in order to make CF truly open to all believers.

i'll drink to that

 

[Angeldove97]

which opinions and points of view were not welcome here and would get you insulted and chased away? I'm struggling with this because I know who has been banned and they represent all sorts of opinions and points of view.

There were major issues between men and women that kept being brought up (among other issues and topics)-- a member would post, another member would reply in a not-so-nice way and bring up past issues. Then the first member would either attack back causing a un-neccesary debate or would just leave the area for awhile.

[I'm saying this as a member who enjoys coming to this forum~ espeically as a newly wed] I've seen a few incidents of people blantantly disregarding these two rules in this forum:

Bickering:
Concentrate on the topic at hand. Do not rehash old issues.
When someone shares a personal experience, it's their experience and not open for judgment or any disparaging responses.
Don't jump to conclusions about what someone else means. Ask if you're unsure.
Be clear about what in the post is unclear to you. Do not misrepresent another member's opinions.

Derails: If you think your post response could derail a thread discussion, please start a new thread.

Like I mentioned above, certain people will come in, attack a member constantly until that member does not feel welcomed in sharing with the discussion.

and they represent all sorts of opinions and points of view.

They do represent all sorts of opinions and pov's, Athene, I completely agree with you, but some people (not the ones necessarily banned per say) just didn't understand how to let others have differing opinions or (at least) respond to differing opinions in a kind way (either by response or by spite reporting posts too). Maybe its just their posting style and they're not really trying to mean, but it hurts none the less.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Right which is why Mkgal's idea really was good. Strict debate rules for any debatable matters, but subforums for the specific emotional topic.

The problem with dividing those topics by gender was that in reality it wasn't a whole gender that fell along those lines, and consequently both men and women were marginalized because they were the minority for that gender.