From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc,news.groups
Subject: RFD soc.religion.mormon -- to moderate or not
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:17:23 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Utah State University

Based upon the results of a straw poll conducted in
talk.religion.misc, I am issuing a Request For Discusion (RFD)
for the creation of a Mormon specific newsgroup.

Based upon the results of the straw poll, the newsgroup name
under discusion will be soc.religion.mormon.

The issue to be resolved is:

- Should soc.religion.mormon be moderated.

If it appears a consensus has been reached one way or another, by
11 February 1993, or sooner, then I will conduct another straw
poll to see if there is enough support to establish
soc.religion.mormon as it will be defined according to the
discusion to come.

This notice will be posted to:
soc.religion.christian
talk.religion.misc
and news.groups

Followups will be set to news.groups, and all items relating to
this discusion should be directed there.

To start things off, here are a few quotes from the straw poll
that, to me, seem relevant to the discusion.

Why moderate soc.religion.mormon?
---------------------------------
[LDS]
| I vote "yea", but only if it's moderated (a la  
| soc.religion.christian). I'd rather have a place where  
| honest-to-goodness discussions can go on, rather than a place for
| the endless (and counterproductive) arguments.
| 
| For the same reason soc.religion.christian is: to avoid endless  
| repetition of mindless attacks.  Endemic flames can still
| continue in talk.religion.misc.

[LDS]
| I would personally like to see a moderated group, but I think
| that is mostly the reason why the group was voted down the last
| time.  If we tried for an un-moderated group it might have a
| chance of passing and we could see how it went from there.  
|
| [Why or why not?] For the reason cited above.  If "outsiders"
| tried to venture into taboo territory such as the temple ceremony
| or garments, faithful members are not going to talk about these
| things anyway, and the subjects should die for lack of responses.
| If the flaming gets too bad with an un-moderated group, maybe we
| could try to change it AFTER it is established, which might be
| easier than trying to establish it moderated from the beginning. 
| Once we get our foot in the door maybe we could keep it there

[LDS]
| YES!!!!! If such a newsgroup is not moderated, then I will vote
| against its creation.
| 
| There are some *very* *specific* areas in Mormonism which cannot
| be discussed publically among Mormons: the details about the
| endowment ceremony. I do not mind discussing "high level" details
| about the temple, its meaning, or the endowment, BUT I will not
| comment on specific wording from the endowment ceremony, nor will
| I reveal any of the information which I have covenanted NOT TO
| REVEAL.
|
| However, there have been plenty of examples, in the past, where
| Anti-Mormons have no qualms about posting specific items from the
| endowment ceremony.  During the last attempt to create a Mormon
| newsgroup, the argument was that if they wanted to post specifics
| about the endowment ceremony, then they were welcome to do it in
| t.r.m.  The Anti-Mormon faction disagreed.  However, when the
| Mormon newsgroup failed to be created, the VERY FIRST THING that
| I observed in t.r.m were articles dealing with specific endowment
| issues.
|
| When objections were raised, the same individuals who voted
| against the creation of the Mormon newsgroup then turned around
| and said that LDS had said that posting endowment details should
| be restricted to t.r.m.  Based on this behavior, I would say that
| the Anti-Mormon faction has shown:
|
| 1- They will not honor our beliefs.
| 2- They have implicitely accepted the argument (based on their
|    recent behavior) that specific endowment issues should be
|    restricted to t.r.m.


Why not moderate soc.religion.mormon?
-------------------------------------
[LDS]
| I would personally like to see a moderated group, but I think
| that is mostly the reason why the group was voted down the last
| time.  If we tried for an un-moderated group it might have a
| chance of passing and we could see how it went from there.  
|
| [Why or why not?] For the reason cited above.  If "outsiders"
| tried to venture into taboo territory such as the temple ceremony
| or garments, faithful members are not going to talk about these
| things anyway, and the subjects should die for lack of responses.
| If the flaming gets too bad with an un-moderated group, maybe we
| could try to change it AFTER it is established, which might be
| easier than trying to establish it moderated from the beginning. 
| Once we get our foot in the door maybe we could keep it there.

[Baptist] No, unless the moderator will stop only posts for
flames and/or repetition.  Censoring subject matter is not
appropriate.

[Evangelical/Conservative] A better flow of ideas and comments
come from non-moderated groups.

[LDS] The Anti-Mormons would feel restricted with moderation.  I
don't think they could handle moderation. :-)

[Christian] If it was moderated, it would be to the point of not
allowing posts that are critical of the LDS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu