From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Result: Straw Poll for a Mormon Specific Newsgroup
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:17:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Here are the results of the straw poll for a Mormon specific
Newsgroup.  I'm assuming that everyone has has a chance to see
the poll by now and respond if they wish.

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

 Mormon    Moderated                              Religious
Newsgroup  Newsgroup  Newsgroup name                 Persuasion
---------  ---------  --------------                 ----------
Yes                   soc.religion.mormon /.lds      Baha'i
Yes                                                  Atheist
Yes              No   soc.religion.mormonism         Christian
Yes        Yes        soc.religion.mormon            Ex-Mormon pagan/pantheist
Yes        Yes        soc.religion.mormon            LDS
Yes              No   talk.religion.mormon           LDS
Yes              No   talk.religion.mormonism        Protestant
Yes        Yes        soc.religion.mormon            LDS
     No                                              Roman Catholic
Yes                   soc.religion.mormon            Baha'i
[Yes]            No 
     No                                              Recovering Catholic
Yes        Yes        soc.religion.mormon            Mormon (LDS)
Yes              No   talk.religion.lds              Loose-cannon Baptist
Yes              No   talk.religion.mormon           Evangelical/Conservative
Yes        Yes        soc.religion.christian.mormon  LDS
Yes              No   talk.religion.mormon /.lds     Pagan Atheist
Yes        Yes        [soc. /talk.religion.mormon]   LDS


Comments Received:

Why a Mormon Specific Newsgroup
-------------------------------

[Baha'i] There appears to be enough discussion to warrent it.

[Atheist] Yes, because I'd like to learn something about the
point of view of Mormons, even though I'm not one.

[Christian] The level of posts and responses indicate that there
are people that read trm for the LDS posts alone, and that
volume seems to be sufficient for a new group...

[Ex-Mormon pagan/pantheist] There's enough volume for it, I
think, and I read most Mormon-relative posts, and it's a subject
I enjoy discussing and reading about.

[LDS] It would save time paging through all of the rest of the
responses.

[LDS] Just to get most of it in one place and since it seems to
recur every once  and a while anyway. (it=Mormon "discussions")

[Baha'i] Because of the level of interest in such dialog (or
attacks as the case may be.)

[LDS] As a place for serious discussion of issues in LDS
theology, history, etc.
 
[Mormon]
> 1- The number of articles on Mormonism on t.r.m is extremely
>    high.  During the October - November 1992 debate, up to 
>    45% of the posted t.r.m articles deal with Mormonism.
>
> 2- Four years ago, discussion on Mormonism would crop up only
>    about twice a year.  In the last 12 months, discussions on
>    Mormonism have been *almost* continual.  Under normal
>    circumstances, a seperate discussion group would have been
>    immediately created.  IMHO, the only thing that has prevented
>    a moderated group from being created has been the Anti-Mormon
>    fear that creation of such a group would legitimize Mormonism.
>
> 3- The volume of traffic on t.r.m on Mormonism far exceeds the
>    volume that existed for groups that have since been created.

[Baptist] Only if LDS discussions can be routed there.
"It's better to have a racoon inside your tent pissing out than
outside your tent pissing in." -- Ernie DeNardof

[Evangelical/Conservative] There seems to be enough traffic to
support it...

[LDS] I am more interested in LDS-related discussions.  These are
usually the only threads I read anyway. 

[Pagan Atheist] ANY newsgroup is a good newsgroup

[LDS] YES!!!   YES!!!   A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!! I get tired of
wading through talk.religion.misc to find Mormon related posts
only to find that they are usually untruths, half-truths,
put-downs or flames.  People in the other groups only want to put
us down, not have a meaningful discussion.  We NEED one of our
own, and we deserve one as much as any of the other religious
groups do!!


Why Not a Mormon Specific Newsgroup
-----------------------------------

[Roman Catholic] I only get to read a few of the articles about
mormonism at this point due to time restrains; if they were split
into another group, I wouldn't see them at all. (I'm reading too
many different groups as it is..) And it might mean less
intelligent contributions to t.r.m., as some of the people into
Mormon issues might leave the group.  t.r.m., as some of the
people into Mormon issues might leave the group. 

[Recovering Catholic] I am always happy to learn more about
Mormonism.  The more I learn, the goofier it looks.  I would
probably not read a Mormon specific, however.


Why a Moderated Newsgroup
-------------------------

[Ex-Mormon pagan/pantheist] Yes, but by a moderate.  To keep
stupidity to a minimum, but by a moderate because I personally
have a great many heretical views that I'd rather not have
censored.  

[LDS] Yes, we need to try to somehow control the overkill of
Anthony Rose and Kermit Tensmeyer who continuously post comments
which to me at least do not seem to be serious discussion.  Let
them say what they have to say, but the continued repetition gets
tiresome and doesn't contribute to any learning.

[LDS] No. or just loosely.  The Anti-Mormons would feel restricted
with moderation.  I don't think they could handle moderation. :-)

[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.

[Mormon]
> 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.

[LDS] Just to keep discussions from getting out of hand, prevent
misquoting, misrepresentation of doctrines, etc.
    
[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.


Why Not a Moderated Newsgroup
-----------------------------

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

[Protestant] No, it should not be moderated, but if it is; better
than just trm

[Baha'i] I'll leave that to others.  But then again, it probably
should to keep all the more hateful and mean-sprited postings of
those not really interested in discussion but only interested in
attacks.

[??] I don't mind a group, but would vote against any such group
that doesn't allow discussion of some aspects of the religion
it's ostensibly designed to discuss. (in this case, the temple
ceremonies).

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

[Evangelical/Conservative] No...talk.religion.mormon seems like a
good idea...  A better flow of ideas and comments come from
non-moderated groups.

[Pagan Atheist] Hell No.  Moderated newsgroups bite.


Reason For Newsgroup Name
-------------------------

[Ex-Mormon pagan/pantheist] {soc.religion.mormon} Well, if it's
moderated then it will presumably be a soc.religion group, and
otherwise a talk.religion group.  From there, I don't give two
beans.  I'll vote for it regardless.

[LDS] {talk.religion.mormon} Most people have an easier time
relating to that then talk.religion.LDS which would get us alot
of drugies.

[Baha'i] I would think soc.religion.mormon (or .LDS) or 
soc.religion.christianity.mormon.  Although you'll probably get
the same type of flak for the last one that the Ahmadi Muslims
got trying to get their group voted on under the
soc.religion.islam hierarchy.

[LDS] I'd prefer soc.religion.lds or soc.religion.mormon. 

[Mormon] I don't really care about the hierarchy. I would prefer:
soc.religion.mormon

[Baptist] `talk.religion.lds' makes sense.

[Evangelical/Conservative] talk.religion.mormon (fits the
hierarchy, just as talk.religion.bahai, etc)

[Pagan Atheist] talk.religion.mormon or talk.religion.lds 
not to mention:  alt.flame.mormon

[LDS] I don't really care as long as it is a hierarchy that my
site receives.  We get alt but we don't get bit, we get most of
the others.  I think "Mormon" should be in the name somewhere. 
Whether "Christian" is there or not doesn't matter to me if it
will help to get the group passed.  I don't care whether other's
think we are Christians or not, WE know what we are!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism