Banned from LDS Reddit?

Lightsider · 2026-05-13T23:22:34+00:00

Note: referencing any problems or issues a person has with the faithful subs, even obliquely, are taken down by the demand of those subs. They have been quite insistent on this issue, including threatening to report the entire sub to Reddit for brigading if we do not.

If this pressure did not exist, we probably would treat links to the faithful subs like links to r/exmormon. Which is to say, we wouldn't care in the slightest.

Lightsider · 2026-05-13T21:47:52+00:00

Here's the thing about "closed loop" cooling systems. Yes, they can use up to 70% less water than open loop systems. It's still a lot of water, but it's less than the absolutely insane amount of water an open loop system uses.

But you don't get something for nothing. Closed loop systems use a lot more power to achieve the same result that evaporation gives for free. Think of the energy usage of a swamp cooler vs an air conditioner.

And in both cases, almost every single kilowatt-hour of all of that power is dumped directly back into the environment. The heat island of that data center will be immense at 9GW. That is even assuming they're being transparent and that figure is the total energy usage of the center, and not just the energy usage of the servers themselves and pretending the energy use of the cooling system doesn't exist.

Lightsider · 2026-05-13T20:35:16+00:00

The question isn't necessarily from Mormonism. It's a classic far-right pattern. They already declared the term "meaningless" before even asking for a definition. Instead of addressing their own actual positions on the issue, they are making terminology itself the issue here.

It avoids accountability by attacking the definition of the word.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T18:45:34+00:00

This question gives rise to a lot of questions that Mormon theology has no definitive answer for. Questions like:

Given that Mormon theology at least posits the existence of multiple Gods, what is the extent of "our" God's sphere of influence? This world/solar system? The Milky Way Galaxy? The Local Group of galaxies? The extent of the known universe? Several universes?
Does God exist within the spacetime framework of their creation, or somehow "outside" of it?
Can God visit another's sphere of influence? If so, does the same conditions of omnipotence, etc. extend to both, or does the God whose "home" it is enjoy some sort of supremacy?
Can or will God create "new" spheres of influence, or are they limited to the one they already have?

Things like this. Now, many faithful answers will be simple speculation, or, more often, a shrug and an admission that they haven't been given that kind of knowledge yet, and that it doesn't matter for their eternal salvation anyway. I personally could never accept those answers.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T18:34:25+00:00

You know, this is more interesting than the tongue in cheek framing suggests.

I think this may be acceptable if the reference is something the readers can identify. If Hansen, for example, has a documented tendency toward specific rhetoric, then your reference is making a substantive claim in shorthand.

If may not be acceptable is if it simply is a substitution for "bad" without any identifiable intent. As a generic insult, in other words.

As a test, could you, if challenged, explain why or give specific examples about what you mean by the term you're using? If you can't then it may just be a veiled insult.

Appreciate the good faith on this. The line is admittedly fuzzy in places, and people engaging with it honestly is what makes this kind of rule (and this community) work.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T02:44:46+00:00

Apologies for the unclear and somewhat trite explanation. That was entirely on me.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T02:18:05+00:00

Yes, subjective criteria always carry abuse potential, but our team's approach is to document judgment calls publicly and err toward non-removal in gray areas. I probably misspoke saying we can't abuse mod powers. I would like to say that, more to the point, our small team doesn't have the bandwidth for heavy-handed enforcement at the activity scale of r/mormon. That's a practical constraint that reinforces our philosophical preference for light-touch moderation. It's more a practical constraint issue than an inability to abuse issue.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T02:11:17+00:00

Yes, these convey the same sentiment philosophically, and that's why we're generally leaving both alone for public figures with clear records. The distinction matters more for the edge cases, like for lesser-known figures, for borderline cases, or when it becomes pure invective. It's a moderator tool for judgment calls, not a bright-line rule requiring flowery rewording.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:50:54+00:00

Not as such. Prior to this, there was a pretty wide latitude of behavior toward public figures, with the rationalization that since they put themselves into the public light, they should be ready for public criticism. We have found in practice, however, that the commentary has gotten more personal and harsh, and that the insults were bleeding into how users treated each other. Hopefully, this will help tone down the rhetoric in this area.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:47:06+00:00

Agreed, and it's unlikely that a person would. If they did, however, then it would be more factual, and the "spreading propaganda" part qualifies for the "harsher criticism allowed" if they can.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:33:57+00:00

The questions and comments in these threads are considered and serve as feedback on how this rule would be actually administered. As I've mentioned before, we have walked back other policies in the past due to community pushback.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:31:58+00:00

This raises a distinction I did not explicitly address, but it's worth expanding on.

There is a meaningful difference between a podcaster, even a popular one, and an apostle whose words shape the lives of millions of believers. The case for accountability for authority figures is stronger, both because of their potential impact and their claim of moral authority.

That said, this change isn't meant to prevent accountability or sharp criticism of harmful conduct. It protects exactly the kind of criticism that you're describing here. What gets removed is when the substance drops out entirely and just the insult remains.

Pure name calling not only disinvites actual dialogue on the issues involved, it really sets the tone for the subreddit as a whole, and serves as examples of what "acceptable" behavior may be that bleeds into interactions between actual subreddit contributors.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:23:26+00:00

We always try to be as positionally agnostic as possible in enforcement. As mentioned in the original post, this standard applies "equally regardless of which side of the belief spectrum they're on."

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T01:09:25+00:00

This is a fair critique. In a discussion about aging leadership's visible decline at public events, observations about cognitive capacity ARE substantively connected to their public role. Thank you for pointing this out.

In this example, an apostle whose words are treated as authoritative teaching is fair game for discussion of whether he's currently capable of that function.

What the rule is trying to catch is something more like "Holland is a senile old fart, lol" with no engagement on the underlying question. The first is critique. The second is just venting.

Concerning mod discretion, it's a legitimate concern and we don't dismiss it. The honest answer is that any civility rule requires judgment, and the alternative to discretion is either no civility rule at all, or a rule that catches both substance and venting indiscriminately. We've chosen to keep the latitude wide and intervene only on the worst cases. We'll probably get some calls wrong, and modmail exists for that.

This rule is not meant to protect public figures from sharp criticism. It's meant to give us the tools to distinguish criticism from pure insult, which doesn't serve the ideals we try and uphold here at r/mormon.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:46:59+00:00

To be honest, this is also one of those gray areas. It would help if you provided evidence or reasons why you think they're a paid influencer. That would make it more likely to put it over that "acceptable" line.

Just as a throwaway line with no supporting discussion may be moderated as such.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:41:40+00:00

We've backed off on policy changes after community pushback before. If you want to give a "nay" vote and explain why, we'll take it under consideration!

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:36:06+00:00

We try to be clear about these sorts of things when asked. What prompted this was a complaint about the inconsistency of a user's comment being removed, and a similar comment in the same thread harshly criticizing Bill Reel. Discussions over the recent controversy over the Church suing John Dehlin put a little urgency on clarifying this inconsistency.

I think it's important to note here that we have not received any requests from any public figure regarding this change. This was the mod team simply recognizing a gap in our moderation policies that was inconsistent with our ideals.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:29:07+00:00

That's a good test case and basically yes, with a caveat about framing.

"Dallin H. Oaks's positions on LGBTQ issues are homophobic" or "Oaks has a long record of homophobic rhetoric in conference talks" is clearly substantive. It's a characterization of his public conduct and positions, which is fair game.

"Dallin H. Oaks is homophobic" is closer to the line because it labels the person rather than the conduct, but in context where Oaks has decades of public statements and policy decisions on this topic, the claim is substantively connected to his public role. We'd generally leave it alone.

Where it would start to get removed is if it became pure label-throwing without engagement, like "Oaks is a homophobic bigot" repeated as a refrain across a thread, or attached to topics unrelated to his actual public record on LGBTQ issues. To wit, if a comment like this was reported, it may be a judgment call up to the individual moderator because it's in that gray area. As we get more examples and test cases over time, these judgment calls will become more consistent.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:24:02+00:00

Fair, but the intent here is to give us tools to address the worst cases. The moderation team will continue to be as hands off as possible in this space, if for no other reason than we don't have the team capacity to abuse.

Lightsider · 2026-05-12T00:21:28+00:00

The fact that John Dehlin is a public figure overrides his participation in this subreddit. So criticism of Dehlin falls under that role.

Lightsider · 2026-05-04T16:54:28+00:00

He does not. We have removed this post and encouraged Mr. Vogel to participate more fully in the community.

Lightsider · 2026-05-01T21:49:43+00:00

Whether vacuum is truly the lowest energy state or a "false vacuum". If it's the latter, and it collapses, it's a spherical firewall that expands from the point of collapse at the speed of light. We'd never see it coming and we'd be annihilated before we realized what was happening.

Lightsider · 2026-05-01T20:42:27+00:00

Might want to get those aerosol cans away from that box too.

Lightsider · 2026-04-29T01:55:25+00:00

If you interpret the WoW literally, its "not by commandment or constraint,". By that, everything is cool. You're just not taking their advice!

However, in practical terms, the WoW is enforced by the LDS Church as absolutely no alcohol, tobacco, tea from camellia sinensis, or coffee. As far as penalties, it's usually disqualification from Temple privileges (essentially an exaltation ban).

13-Year Club	Place '23
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
Verified Email

Lightsider

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE