Bunny Trails

[Sudsy]

They adopted a dress standard of no prints, which made membership transfers from more conservative (and not Beachy) churches much less likely. Pilgrim, Nationwide, etc. members express dissatisfaction at the idea of transferring to a church that doesn't allow prints. They also have some requirements around sleeve lengths that cause Beachys from more-conservative backgrounds to not desire to transfer there. To quote one person, "We would have gone to Hebron but we would have had to change our clothes."

So they deliberately adopted non-Biblical standards simply to prevent or discourage others from joining them? That doesn't sound particularly Christian.

Sudsy, this is the sort of comments (Kens) that are the reason why some of us may at times ask for replies only from conservatives. Because if we don't, the thread is as risk of derailing from the desired topic of discussion. And litigation begins over what is already a shared premise by conservatives, but is a point of contention between conservatives and liberals. And the hoped for conversation is effectively aborted.

Well, to me, it is a control issue that some 'conservatives' have been raised in where there is not much opportunity to challenge things and they have trouble with those who don't agree with them or question what they say. Imo, it is trying to manipulate an open forum to be closed to a specific group of Christians so they don't have to deal with Christians of another kind. An attempt to add rules beyond what the forum was built on.

There is another way that some avoid derailing and that is just ignoring the input of those who wander off topic. I have had this happen to me and my post is just ignored as far as responding to it and that is fine with me. I provided how I view the topic whether it is pertinent or not to others.

I think some 'conservatives' would like their own section in this forum where they could keep out the 'trouble makers'. What happened to that 'conservative forum' that was made so others would not interfere ? Did it fail ?

[RZehr]

So they deliberately adopted non-Biblical standards simply to prevent or discourage others from joining them? That doesn't sound particularly Christian.

Sudsy, this is the sort of comments (Kens) that are the reason why some of us may at times ask for replies only from conservatives. Because if we don't, the thread is as risk of derailing from the desired topic of discussion. And litigation begins over what is already a shared premise by conservatives, but is a point of contention between conservatives and liberals. And the hoped for conversation is effectively aborted.

Well, to me, it is a control issue that some 'conservatives' have been raised in where there is not much opportunity to challenge things and they have trouble with those who don't agree with them or question what they say. Imo, it is trying to manipulate an open forum to be closed to a specific group of Christians so they don't have to deal with Christians of another kind. An attempt to add rules beyond what the forum was built on.

There is nothing wrong or difficult with starting your own thread, is there? Really at the core is not so much excluding the people, as much as it is the ideas that they are prone to espouse and thus derail the focus of the topic. It's not that there is a lack of opportunity or interest on this forum to discuss whether not, as Ken asks, "non-Biblical standards" are or are not "Christian". But that particular thread isn't that place. That particular thread is for a different topic.
I understand the desire to ignore a specific or nuanced question if I believe it is based on a terrible foundation. I suppose I would naturally do the same thing, if someone posed a question asking whether or not it is okay to divorce and remarry more than twice. And asking whether or not a third time was over the line. My tendency would of course be to say that is missing the point, and the important question is if any divorce and remarriage is okay - never mind the third.
I suggest that the liberal members of the forum, should they desire to specifically discuss the righteousness and shortfalls of someone's third divorce and remarriage (for example), that they be free to ask the conservatives to stay out of the thread. That seems consistent to me.

There is another way that some avoid derailing and that is just ignoring the input of those who wander off topic. I have had this happen to me and my post is just ignored as far as responding to it and that is fine with me. I provided how I view the topic whether it is pertinent or not to others.

Could be a solution. Especially if the offender doesn't simply spam the thread.

I think some 'conservatives' would like their own section in this forum where they could keep out the 'trouble makers'. What happened to that 'conservative forum' that was made so others would not interfere ? Did it fail ?

I don't know if fail is the right word or not, but it would be accurate to say that it is used very little, with the most recent post currently being over a month old.

[Ken]

So they deliberately adopted non-Biblical standards simply to prevent or discourage others from joining them? That doesn't sound particularly Christian.

Sudsy, this is the sort of comments (Kens) that are the reason why some of us may at times ask for replies only from conservatives. Because if we don't, the thread is as risk of derailing from the desired topic of discussion. And litigation begins over what is already a shared premise by conservatives, but is a point of contention between conservatives and liberals. And the hoped for conversation is effectively aborted.

Well, to me, it is a control issue that some 'conservatives' have been raised in where there is not much opportunity to challenge things and they have trouble with those who don't agree with them or question what they say. Imo, it is trying to manipulate an open forum to be closed to a specific group of Christians so they don't have to deal with Christians of another kind. An attempt to add rules beyond what the forum was built on.

There is another way that some avoid derailing and that is just ignoring the input of those who wander off topic. I have had this happen to me and my post is just ignored as far as responding to it and that is fine with me. I provided how I view the topic whether it is pertinent or not to others.

I think some 'conservatives' would like their own section in this forum where they could keep out the 'trouble makers'. What happened to that 'conservative forum' that was made so others would not interfere ? Did it fail ?

I find it curious and inconsistent that Josh starts one thread about "transitional" Anabaptist churches that is entirely critical followed immediately by a second thread about non-transitional churches for which no criticism or questioning is tolerated.

That displays a lot of bias right there.

[temporal1]

RZehr:

Sudsy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 4:43 pm
I think some 'conservatives' would like their own section in this forum where they could keep out the 'trouble makers'. What happened to that 'conservative forum' that was made so others would not interfere ? Did it fail ?

I don't know if fail is the right word or not, but it would be accurate to say that it is used very little, with the most recent post currently being over a month old.

i did not participate in the private forum, i would not use the word, “fail.”
the point of this public forum is discussion, and reading! much of what happens via this forum is reading without posting.
from what i gather, this was always the case. i wasn’t comfortable sending conservatives off to the corner. this forum began with conservatives, and, the vast majority of new members are seeking conservative views, not readily found in the mainstream.

[if anything, my curiosity is about putting politics in a private forum.] no one arrives looking for politics!
either way, not my decision.

i prefer to use great caution when describing the forum’s original intention. MD was an interesting experiment initiated by CM teens, from the little i read on MD, they had no starting premise, no clear parameters, and they did not expect their experiment to last a calendar year.

MD was of conservative Mennonite teens stretching and exploring.

eventually, various members arrived with their own ideas about what the forum should be. some evidently wanting to be admin+owner+mods. i suppose this results from their life experiences wherein they get to call the shots?? retired CEOs? i’m not sure.

imho, this forum has competent, dedicated admin+mods, and, frankly, for those with strong opinions about what the forum “should be,” if the time ever came for them to take over, i expect, “failure” would quickly result.

an interesting truth in life is, those who are really good at their work, make it look easy, as-if anyone could do it.
it’s a good time not to fool oneself.

there is something special about this forum. it has endured ‘way beyond expectations. i give credit to admin+mods, also to the Holy Spirit to bless them in their selfless pursuit. i don’t see how it could be otherwise.

while MD-MN has steadily chugged along, many-many internet experiments have come+gone without a whimper.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy, this is the sort of comments (Kens) that are the reason why some of us may at times ask for replies only from conservatives. Because if we don't, the thread is as risk of derailing from the desired topic of discussion. And litigation begins over what is already a shared premise by conservatives, but is a point of contention between conservatives and liberals. And the hoped for conversation is effectively aborted.

Well, to me, it is a control issue that some 'conservatives' have been raised in where there is not much opportunity to challenge things and they have trouble with those who don't agree with them or question what they say. Imo, it is trying to manipulate an open forum to be closed to a specific group of Christians so they don't have to deal with Christians of another kind. An attempt to add rules beyond what the forum was built on.

There is nothing wrong or difficult with starting your own thread, is there?
That is not the issue here. Anyone is allowed to start a thread. The issue is whether or not it is right to screen out certain posters from posting to a thread. I believe the moderators do watch and control those who purposefully enter a forum and are primarily there to be, you know what, disturbers.

Really at the core is not so much excluding the people, as much as it is the ideas that they are prone to espouse and thus derail the focus of the topic. It's not that there is a lack of opportunity or interest on this forum to discuss whether not, as Ken asks, "non-Biblical standards" are or are not "Christian". But that particular thread isn't that place. That particular thread is for a different topic.

Well, lets see if Ken had any right to question something posted and whether it was Christian or not - If you look back at what Josh wrote and the question Ken raised I can see where what was said could be understood in the way Ken took it. This is the original quote -

They also have some requirements around sleeve lengths that cause Beachys from more-conservative backgrounds to not desire to transfer there. To quote one person, "We would have gone to Hebron but we would have had to change our clothes."

To me, this can be understood as written that they had adopted certain sleeve lengths because they know that it will keep Beachys from wanting to join them. This is what I believe Ken challenged as 'Christian'. I would see that also as something to question. But I believe that what was intended to be understood was that they did not alter sleeve lengths to keep Beachys away but rather that Beachys would naturally stay away as they would not agree with controlling sleeve lengths. Taking that Ken mis-understood what was meant by what was posted, that just could have been clarified in a response to Ken's question. Ken knows if he took this wording and used it to point out that these are 'non-Biblical standards' or not. We don't so we should not jump to conclusions on the intent of his question. Thats how I see it.

I understand the desire to ignore a specific or nuanced question if I believe it is based on a terrible foundation. I suppose I would naturally do the same thing, if someone posed a question asking whether or not it is okay to divorce and remarry more than twice. And asking whether or not a third time was over the line. My tendency would of course be to say that is missing the point, and the important question is if any divorce and remarriage is okay - never mind the third.
I suggest that the liberal members of the forum, should they desire to specifically discuss the righteousness and shortfalls of someone's third divorce and remarriage (for example), that they be free to ask the conservatives to stay out of the thread. That seems consistent to me.

What seems correct to me is that there are no guidelines saying that one can limit who can and who cannot participate on any thread. This is an open forum and it has been noted in the past where certain groups of Christians want to isolate themselves on certain threads and this is usually a reflection of how they prefer to deal with Christians they disagree with. Imo, the door should remain shut to this backdoor kind of controlling other Christians on a thread. Whether this be liberal, conservative, whatever category is used to define Christians. Christians should not be treating other Christians as if they don't qualify to discuss Christianity. Anyway, I'm going to stand for freedom of religion and speech and be very wary of attempts to squelch the thoughts of others when these kind of controls are promoted. I know I have requested a thread I began be closed from no further input but in the future I will not even do this for the sake of free expression and will leave the closing to the decision of a moderator.

There is another way that some avoid derailing and that is just ignoring the input of those who wander off topic. I have had this happen to me and my post is just ignored as far as responding to it and that is fine with me. I provided how I view the topic whether it is pertinent or not to others.

Could be a solution. Especially if the offender doesn't simply spam the thread.

I think some 'conservatives' would like their own section in this forum where they could keep out the 'trouble makers'. What happened to that 'conservative forum' that was made so others would not interfere ? Did it fail ?

I don't know if fail is the right word or not, but it would be accurate to say that it is used very little, with the most recent post currently being over a month old.

[Josh]

To me, this can be understood as written that they had adopted certain sleeve lengths because they know that it will keep Beachys from wanting to join them. This is what I believe Ken challenged as 'Christian'. I would see that also as something to question. But I believe that what was intended to be understood was that they did not alter sleeve lengths to keep Beachys away but rather that Beachys would naturally stay away as they would not agree with controlling sleeve lengths. Taking that Ken mis-understood what was meant by what was posted, that just could have been clarified in a response to Ken's question. Ken knows if he took this wording and used it to point out that these are 'non-Biblical standards' or not. We don't so we should not jump to conclusions on the intent of his question. Thats how I see it.

The point is that it was off topic for the thread, and the thread is not an appropriate place to discuss general criticism of whether or not conservative Anabaptist churches should be allowed to have church standards.

Why is it difficult to simply start a new thread and ask this question?

[RZehr]

What seems correct to me is that there are no guidelines saying that one can limit who can and who cannot participate on any thread. This is an open forum and it has been noted in the past where certain groups of Christians want to isolate themselves on certain threads and this is usually a reflection of how they prefer to deal with Christians they disagree with. Imo, the door should remain shut to this backdoor kind of controlling other Christians on a thread....

There are not guidelines or rules saying that one can limit who can and who cannot participate on any thread, that is correct. But like many functioning adults down through the ages have told their children, if you can't freely choose to behave responsibly, and respectfully, then it will have to become a rule. Don't abuse your freedom, or you will lose it. Likewise, this forum, right or wrong, seems to operate on an honor system on this topic.

Moderators have permitted OP's to make these participant restricted requests - That is what they are, requests. Not a rule. The question is, can the forum members behave in a polite and respectful manner, or do the moderators have to make a rule? I don't think that your point is meritless. Maybe more rules, more people forced to behave in a certain way is what this forum needs, eh? Is this an big enough issue for Sudsy to force the moderators to get involved, in hope that they come down on Sudsy's side of the issue? They may very well come down on your side of the issue. Would that make you happy?

[Sudsy]

What seems correct to me is that there are no guidelines saying that one can limit who can and who cannot participate on any thread. This is an open forum and it has been noted in the past where certain groups of Christians want to isolate themselves on certain threads and this is usually a reflection of how they prefer to deal with Christians they disagree with. Imo, the door should remain shut to this backdoor kind of controlling other Christians on a thread....

There are not guidelines or rules saying that one can limit who can and who cannot participate on any thread, that is correct. But like many functioning adults down through the ages have told their children, if you can't freely choose to behave responsibly, and respectfully, then it will have to become a rule. Don't abuse your freedom, or you will lose it. Likewise, this forum, right or wrong, seems to operate on an honor system on this topic.

Moderators have permitted OP's to make these participant restricted requests - That is what they are, requests. Not a rule. The question is, can the forum members behave in a polite and respectful manner, or do the moderators have to make a rule?

I would suggest that being polite and respectful is to be polite and respectful of the fact that this is an open forum and not to shut out anyone from participating on any thread.

I don't think that your point is meritless. Maybe more rules, more people forced to behave in a certain way is what this forum needs, eh?

No, I am advocating for more freedom to post wherever. Within that freedom we should try to treat each other in love as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Is this an big enough issue for Sudsy to force the moderators to get involved, in hope that they come down on Sudsy's side of the issue? They may very well come down on your side of the issue. Would that make you happy?

I would hope the moderators seldom would be needed to get involved and that we can work out a way to be an open forum. I am not suggesting moderators be involved but rather we consider keeping out threads open to all forum participants. It isn't a matter of making me 'happy' and if the moderators leave this up to us participants, that is OK with me. This is just my opinion on any attempt to control who can participate in any thread.

I will leave any further comment on this issue up to you. This is my last.

[Soloist]

Sudsy, red is reserved for moderators only

[Josh]

I would suggest that being polite and respectful is to be polite and respectful of the fact that this is an open forum and not to shut out anyone from participating on any thread.

Would you agree it is reasonable to allow someone to start a thread and ask it be restricted to a particular topic?

I did not restrict anyone from participating in my threads. I simply asked that certain off-topic discussion areas be taken to other threads. Ken, yourself, and others are welcome to participate, but not to hijack the thread into a general discussion of "Is it bad that conservative Anabaptists sometimes have various church standards that may or may not be extra-biblical from a fundamentalist perspective?"

No, I am advocating for more freedom to post wherever. Within that freedom we should try to treat each other in love as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

I think there is complete freedom to participate by starting new threads, setting a topic, and discussing further there, even with people who are not "brothers and sisters in the Lord". I am not sure every single person here is my brother or sister in the Lord.

Likewise, if a brother in my specific church and my local congregation wanted to derail the thread per above, questioning if our church or any other church should have what he perceives as extra-biblical expectations, I would also ask him to simply discuss it in a different thread.

I would hope the moderators seldom would be needed to get involved and that we can work out a way to be an open forum. I am not suggesting moderators be involved but rather we consider keeping out threads open to all forum participants. It isn't a matter of making me 'happy' and if the moderators leave this up to us participants, that is OK with me. This is just my opinion on any attempt to control who can participate in any thread.

I will leave any further comment on this issue up to you. This is my last.

I have never tried to enforce anything. The only times I can remember contacting the mods in recent memory is when someone has made statements of the like, "You think abc" when I feel I didn't do that, as Robert has requested we stick to "I" statements instead of telling other people what they think or say.

You are welcome to ignore my requests in threads and derail away - I don't have any way to force or stop that. I simply request sometimes to keep the topic to certain things. You could repeatedly post things that are offtopic, if you want to. I have not been filing complaints about that, although sometimes I do ask the moderators to simply move some of the discussion to a different thread. I don't think that's "silencing" anyone. If steve-in-kville starts a thread about trains, and I repeatedly post in it about conservative Anabaptist ecclesiology issues, perhaps he would ask the moderators to move my posts to a different thread. I would not be offended by that.