OK…I suck at taking “vacations.”
Just wanted to let you all know that “A View From the Foyer” has been reborn!!!
Check it out here: https://www.thefoyer.org/
Whoever killed the old forum…shame on you! At least turn it over to someone else!!! (my uninformed 2 cents)
If I’m missing something, please let me know.
I was looking at the old VFTF trying to figure out the story on why it died. Anyone know?
Hey Kirk!!!!
It’s back up now….so you should be able to get the history there now.
Omc! (that’s “Oh my crap”)
I just spent too much time browsing the new site and I guess I won’t be welcome there. I found it a bit crude for my tastes anyway.
Isn’t it nice to know that they are willing to violate their own morals to welcome you there, John? Way to go. A man for all seasons!
It’s all about building bridges. :)
Cliffy,
Not sure what you mean by “violate their own morals” by letting John post at the Foyer. John does not preach at or castigate the disaffected Mormons and ex-Mormons who post at the Foyer, so hed is welcome, as you would be if you were to show similar restraint. The Foyer lets anyone post, but does not permit preaching or harassment from “true-believing Mormons.” There are other discussion boards where debate between faithful Mormons and disaffected, post-, or anti-Mormons is allowed and even encouraged. FAIR and Mormon Discussion are two that come to mind. The purpose of the Foyer is to give those who have doubts about the LDS church or who are no longer members of the church but have been affected by their past membership (or the continuing membership of family members) a place to discuss their issues with the church. Most of the people at the Foyer find RfM to be a little too strident and most at the Foyer would liek to see a more elevated level of discourse than what is found at RfM. At the same time, many at the Foyer find the NOM board’s rules a little too restrictive (no venting or profanity at NOM), so the Foyer provides a middle ground between RfM and NOM.
OT: I think it unfortunate that ldsblogs removed John’s site simply because he had the audacity to mention the Foyer on his site.
I am glad that the Foyer survived this most recent transition. I also think that it is important for anyone interested in Mormonism to know about their options on the internet.
Although I am a non-believer and no longer a Mormon, I still refer people to the FAIR articles (not board) as part of a balanced approach to studying church history topics. Once you have heard all the arguments and examined the original sources or transcripts for one’s self, the stronger and more informed your conclusions become. I, of course, also recommend much other reading that supports views contrary to the views held by FAIR as part of a balanced view.
I do not like that the bloggernacle temporarily removed John’s blog simply because he mentioned the Foyer. There is nothing wrong with making people aware of what else is out there. No reader needs to go visit the site if they don’t want to so there is no risk of getting exposed to something they don’t want to see. I never knew the DAMU existed until after I had left the church then someone told me about it.
The Foyer closing and then opening is NEWS about the internet Mormon world, which John has an interest in, so it is more than appropriate for his blog. And its mention should not be threatening to the Bloggernacle faithful.
Well, you will notice that DMI put up a link to the new foyer site which is displayed prominantly on the aggrigator. The difference is, and you may feel that it is regretable, that Dave gave some background instead of just an advertisement. It is not that we are trying to hide information, but the MA gets alot of visitors from the uninitiated and we don’t want to steer them to contant that they were not expecting. The foyer, as Dave at DMI mentioned, is frequently antagonistic and crude. That’s all really.
And just so my position is clear–I respect MA and their desire/need to moderate. It would have been nice to have been told before I was dropped, but I know you guys are super busy, so I understand.
I do hope to be reinstated, however…
:)
I’d like to bear my testimony that the new restored Foyer is the true Foyer of God in these latter days. . .
Me thinks there are many in the bloggernacle fearful of a complete open discourse.
J. Stapley, with all due respect, so what if someone finds the Foyer by “accident”? I personally find it a bit crude myself so I only pop in and read out of curiosity now and again, but ultimately I think you should allow adults to explore and decide on their own online.
Like I always like to say the 14th Article of Faith should read, “We believe in free agency so long as it is used in orthodox mainstream ways”.
The truth will emerge triumphant.
Me thinks you did not understand my comment.
but ultimately I think you should allow adults to explore and decide on their own online.
I agree! In fact, I found a new-fangled technology that helps people do just that on the Web; they are calling it “search” technology and several “search engine” sites apparently already exist. (You should see some of the wacky names these “search engine” companies are using! “Google”, “Yahoo!”; where do they come up with this stuff?!)
The truth will emerge triumphant.
Indeed.
J. Stapley,
I assume from the satirically patronizing tone of your response you found my argument offensive. Accept my apologies.
I would, however, like to extend this discussion and fully understand your position on moderation.
Though I am only a very minor participator in the realm known as the bloggernacle, I am intimately familiar with the necessity and application of moderation in order to preserve decorum in public discourse. It is, unfortunately, a necessary evil. The problem lies with what is actually moderation and what is not. ‘Moderation’ is all too often the deceptive label (and rationalization) given to censorship or suppression of ideas that are uncomfortable (sometimes called offensive, though not all offensive communication is this sort). No one openly concedes the action of censorship and intellectual suppression, and yet our society is sadly rampant with it. Only ‘moderation’ exists.
The difference between true moderation and intellectual suppression is simple. Moderation is blind to philosophy and ideaology focusing only on the merits of decorum itself. Intellectual suppression focus’ on the ideas and philosophies.
Your rationale for suppressing MS was this, “It is not that we are trying to hide information, but the MA gets alot of visitors from the uninitiated and we don’t want to steer them to contant that they were not expecting”.
The Foyer is often crude, and is therefore not my cup of tea. But often legitimate arguments and ideas are raised there. But your reasoning had nothing to do with decorum, it was due to the “content”. Unpopular ideas. Ideas that might make someone uncomfortable. Ideas that might challenge the status quo. There have been many ideas that have personally made me uncomfortable at the Foyer, which is why I return now and again. I also want to understand and develop true empathy and understanding of those in the DAMU, even though I may personally disagree.
Our world, our nation and sadly our Church is moving in the direction of partitioning tribes. Conservatives view liberals as sympathizers of terrorists. Liberals view conservatives as half witted rednecks blinded by patriotic propaganda. Ex-Mormons and others view TBMS as blind robots. This is all truly tragic. Would’t we all be a little better of by rubbing shoulder and ideas with those with whom we don’t agree and see eye to eye?
I cannot even begin to tell you of all the ideas at MS I disagree with, and even ideas that make me uncomfortable. DOZENS OF THEM! It’s crazy. But the purpose and goal of this site is truly noble- to build bridges of understanding. It’s not a debate board, not here to convince you to change your mind, just here to help people understand each other.
I find it contemptable and disgusting that those running aggregators would exclude and suppress based upon content. Shameful. It is nothing more than an indirect attempt to influence and control the content on participating sites.
It is my hope that the Bloggernacle eventually migrates to a slash-dot type of aggregation where the individual is empowered to make the decision about what is and is not worthwhile rather than a small group of unelected unaccountable individuals.
Don’t take this personal. It’s a much more broad problem than this incident, MS, the bloggernacle.
We say we embrace all truth. But sometimes, all of us, myself included, aren’t willing to let our concept, or those with whom we are likeminded, of the truth be challenged.
May the Bloggernacle grow in both pluralism and decorum and may the use of the pernicious tool known as ‘moderation’ be as limited as possible.
Sincerely,
J.,
I confused your statement with Geoff’s. Yours was not patronzing, but Geoff’s was.
Please explain your concept of moderation.