Hi, since we're talking about changing Mormonthink, I have one tangential suggestion.

Please, please make sure that there no polemic tone in any of the posts. When I first started investigating Mormonism's truth claims, I trusted Mormonthink because they seemed honest, straitforward, and especially non-angry, unlike the piles of FARMS and FAIR papers I'd been digesting. It was a breath of fresh air. Had they seemed angry or emotional in any way, I would have run the other way.

Tom, thank you for stepping in! I appreciate what you are doing! However, when I read some of your first posts, I did feel like they were a little angry in tone (of course, I completely understand why- I'm angry, too).

Just a thought! Thank you again!

Yes, that is one of the items we have been discussing. The plan is at some point, read through and edit out anything like that. If you notice something specific you can email me and I will forward it to the appropriate people.

You are absolutely correct and MT are trying very hard to comply, unlike the Mormon apologists..

I need to differentiate between my role at MT and as an individual. As managing editor of MT, I am only interested in objectively discussing the issues. We try to present the facts as stated by the church and its critics, with an objective conclusion.

In my capacity as an individual, I post on RFM, PostMormon and another site the RFM administrators will not allow me to mention. Any posts I make on these boards, while still keeping to provable facts, may seem polemic to some. For this I apologise but will not change. These sites are for recovery and support, not to 'sugar coat' for sensitive types. MT, however, is aimed to appeal to active Mormons as well as doubters and exmos. Indeed all who are interested in the truth about Mormonism, for you cannot get it from the church itself nor its apologists. Therefore the topics on MT are discussed in a non polemic way. (Although the original Greek meaning of polemic was countering untruth with truth, which is exactly what we do and should not apologise for it. However, modern usage of the word carries connotations of 'warlike' etc.)

Incidentally, it has always amused me that someone like Elder Holland can pound the pulpit, raise his voice, cry, demean those who do not agree with him, lie through his teeth and be considered 'spiritual'. Yet, if the likes of I raise my voice or tone, we are considered 'angry exmormons' and lacking the spirit. I would rather tell the truth and be thought of as 'without the spirit' than lie and be considered 'spiritual'.

Tom

That's because you don't have the spirit of [the father of] lies inside you...

Tom, I think you and many others on this board and other LDS associated bords, have a great command of the language and use it well to communicate your points. Thankgoodness we have good communicators in these groups!

>
> Tom, thank you for stepping in! I appreciate what
> you are doing! However, when I read some of your
> first posts, I did feel like they were a little
> angry in tone (of course, I completely understand
> why- I'm angry, too).
>

I agree with this. I saw this when I was there recently too. Although I am also angry and understand the tone and think it's justified, I think for anyone investigating, it's off-putting.