Proper way to address answers that don't answer questions from denomination persepective?

Question

Very similar question (however asked almost 9 years ago with only 1 answer with negative votes) this question also vaguely addresses this topic, but not exactly.

I mainly watch the LDS tag, mainly because I am LDS and know the doctrine/beliefs of the LDS. There have been several times this year when someone has asked a question that seems clearly directed to/about the LDS faith, but then gets an answer that is clearly (at least to me) not from an LDS perspective. To me these answers are not in good faith, introduce confusion about a denomination's beliefs, and come off as an attack on the denomination. Various denominations will have differing beliefs, but we should at least attempt to be respectful of other denominations beliefs.

Some of the questions:

• According LDS theology the Universal Church "apostatize." Please reconcile this with Matthew 16:18, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
  • this answer seems to answer the question: "Can the LDS square their theology with Matthew 16:18 and with Jude verse 3." ... But again in the negative, when the LDS can (obviously their squaring/reconciliation will not align/match with other denominations)
• According to LDS, on what earth did God live before he became God and created everything?
  • this answer doesn't seem to even attempt to answer the question. There are various claims made and it comes off as a question. I suggest that only after all the confusion about the various gods of the LDS religion has been cleared up can any progress be made as to answering your question. or maybe this should be a comment (though quite long)
• Do LDS believers not accept any others who self-identify as 'Christian'?
  • this answer, which is the accepted one, introduces a lot of misinformation and is not how an LDS believer would answer the question
  • this answer comes a bit closer to an actual answer, but again is not how an LDS believer would answer the question and seems IMO to attempt to discredit the LDS denomination(I have edited this answer a bit so it comes closer to an answer)
• Is the Book of Mormon in English as authentic as in the original, or is Joseph Smith's translation imperfect? (closed, but follows same pattern)
  • this answer, proposes their own question Given that the LDS view of the Bible is that it has not remained authentically translated from the original koine Greek or from the ancient Hebrew, do they view the Book of Mormon in English to be authentically translated and, therefore, superior in reliability to the scriptures of the Bible?
• What does Mormonism have to offer in regards to salvation through Jesus Christ that was not already taught in the New Testament?
  • this answer, provides maybe an answer offers one thing regarding salvation through Jesus Christ that is not only different from Biblical teaching but is diametrically opposed. but then attempts to tear apart this belief/teaching

Reasons to flag an answer include:

• Rude or abusive: A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse.
  • I feel like answers that clearly do not attempt to answer the question, but come of as more of an attack, do not lead to respectful discourse. If there a question about another faith's beliefs, and someone answered with a "they are wrong for believing X for Y reasons" I'd feel like this would be equally disrespectful.
  • SO is not really the place for discussion, though it can happen in chat rooms and occasionally comments. Answers should stick to the question at hand, not the question they want it to be.
  • leaving it will often lead others who agree with the perspective (instead of the answer to the question-of course sometimes the question is asked as a gotcha by someone trying to find a flaw in said denominations theology), upvote (raising it in the view for those who come later), and thus appearing as a correct answer (or representative of a denominations beliefs), when it isn't.
• Not an answer: This was posted as an answer, but it does not attempt to answer the question. It should possibly be an edit, a comment, another question, or deleted altogether.
  • while not a match for the second sentence, these posts often do match the first one. It is an answer that does not attempt to answer the question from the tagged denominations perspective.

So my question(s):

• Are answers that do not answer the question ok? (This is more about answers that attack denominations beliefs posed in the question, not answers that aren't fully complete)
• If such an answer does appear, what is the proper response? flag it and hope mod agrees?

---

Some users seem to think this is about promotion of my denomination or only having answers that align with my beliefs (silencing other opinions). This is not the message I'm trying to convey. Using stackoverflow as an example maybe I can show what I am seeing better (these aren't perfect examples):

• Using javascript can I do operation X
  • the answer given seems to be be about operation Y and that javascript can't do so. javascript can do operation X though it may be ugly
• In javascript why did they use keyword var/let instead of something else
  • the answer seems to say until you can explain all the keywords this can't be answered. which doesn't necessarily address the question and should be a comment
• Does jquery accept javascript code (example not perfect)
  • answer seems to say php doesn't, which doesn't answer the question how a jquery expert would
  • 2nd answer comes closer but comes off as sorta/maybe/sometimes, when again there is an answer
• do mongoose keywords line up with mongodb keywords
  • the answers proposes a new question (given that they are different languages, do do you think they should?) that isn't really an answer
• what does typescript have to offer that javascript doesn't have?
  • the answer seems to say the only thing they offer is typing which is so opposed to javascript that it shouldn't exist.

So my point is answers should be answers to the question. If the question asks for a denomination perspective answers should be from that view point. I am not saying my answer has to be the only one, but if answers don't address the question correctly (from the perspective/subject being asked) shouldn't they be removed? In the examples given I happen to be more knowledgeable about LDS(javascript) doctrine so I can identify when answers don't match the question. These answers look like programmers(christians) knowledgeable in other languages(denomination/beliefs) attempting to answer questions in a language(LDS) they don't know. Yes anyone can answer questions, but as LDS experts are limited and their doctrine is quite unique, often others answer with their understanding that doesn't match the question. In a sense it could be seen as promotion of my beliefs, but I feel any answers to questions about a denomination is just as much of a promotion.

Answer 1

I got the same impression: Q&A being used to slip in polemics

One of the things I like about Christianity.SE is how the diverse Christian experience can be asked about, and answered, in a non-polemical, non confrontational manner. This community, now ten years old, had to arrive at a manner for participants to do this in a way which does not promote interdenominational bickering. (Plenty of room for that in chat and anywhere else on the internet if people are so moved).

Lay off with this sniping at the Mormons

I am Catholic (came to the church in my late 40's). I grew up around people from a wide variety of Christian faith communities. Some of my best neighbors and shipmates (in the Navy) are from the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. My next door neighbor, whose sons and mine grew up together, is a Jehovah's Witness. The couple who most influenced my coming to the Church (RCC) are both actively practicing Methodists. (I could go on all day but I'll stop). I enjoy learning from JWs, LDS, Greek Orthodox, Swedenborgians, Baptists, Calvinists, and more the variety of ways that Christians express, experience, and practice their Faith.

We add no value at this site if we resort to interdenominational bickering and using the format to snipe at a different denomination. "The Truth" questions have been ruled by this community as off topic, since that approach stifles dialogue and engagement.

What @depperm is seeing, I am seeing, and I don't care for it.

Answer 2

The point of the site isn't building up or pushing down any particular denomination, but increasing the breadth of knowledge that someone interested in Christianity would want to have. Therefore, we should let answers persist on the site (including ones that don't necessarily attest, or seem critical to the doctrines asked about in the original question) if they:

1. "show their work"
2. attempt to answer the question in a scholarly, if not rational manner
3. do not outright disparage the viewpoint held (i.e. call it or its leaders heretical, evil etc.)

Answer 3

I agree with @depperm that an answer can be along the line of one of the following, and should still be regarded as a satisfactory answer, if in fact that's what the official sources of that denomination says.

1. There is no official doctrine
2. The issue is not essential for salvation

Take this answer for an example. @NigelJ may represent a large number of non-LDS Christians who think the question matters a lot for salvation, but in the context of the question, which explicitly asks for an LDS viewpoint (within the question text as well as the tags), if the answer can show from official LDS documentation that either or both of the above are true, then that IS the right answer, end of argument.

We non-LDS may not like it, or may be unsatisfied, but we should not instead post an answer that try to fill the gap from speculation or from wrong interpretation of LDS documents. To me, that qualifies as misinformation and we wouldn't like it if the same is done to us by atheists or Buddhists who insist that Christians should know more about heaven beyond what little hints the Protestant Bible provides.

We mainstream Christians should be able to say that beyond those hints,

1. There is no official doctrine
2. The issue is not essential for salvation

about whether heaven will be a cube of about 1,500 miles wide, whether animals will be resurrected, or whether the streets of new Jerusalem will be lined with gold.

Imagine if a supposedly Christian person posts an answer that claims to know what heaven is like because he had a near-death experience and was invited for a tour of heaven before waking up from a coma? That's certainly misinformation.

We should instead be able to simply say that Christianity focuses on HOW to get to heaven, not WHAT heaven is like, except that it is a place where God is present and where there are no sins and tears.

Conclusion:

1. If the official right and honest answer is "we don't know" we should be able to accept it.
2. If there are multiple answers, each with a different interpretation, an answer from a well-informed (and high reputation) member of the denomination should be preferred.
3. Answers whose main point is to disparage or attack a denomination's beliefs implicit in the question should be downvoted / flagged.
4. Questions that clearly desire for an explanation beyond a "party line" answer are okay (such as this one), and the official denomination's answer should provide the requested explanation.

Answer 4

The point of the site is to spread knowledge about Christianity, not prove which one is the best, therefore any answer posted that seems critical of another denominations doctrines should be deleted. Answers should reflect the official view of said denomination,

If offshoot sects within a denomination are used as supporting a thesis, those must be clearly marked. (i.e. you can't use sedevacantist sources to prove something or other about why Novus Ordo Mass stinks without saying it)

If works skeptical of a denomination are used in an answer, the bias of the sources should be acknowledged. (i.e. you can't quote a Baptist tract against Jehovahs Witnesses as a resources for why they're wrong about the hypostatic union)

Answer 5

I don't see that any of the questions or answers which you link to have been in any way disrespectful. There has been no sarcasm, no ridicule, no rudeness.

Some of the answers, as I see them, are logically conveying what appear to be inconsistencies in what is advertised on official websites regarding doctrine related to the holy bible.

It may be that these websites are inadequately conveying the doctrine that is held in which case you might be able to offer corrective comment (or an alternative supportive answer).

I have to say that I felt very dissatisfied with one of your own answers :

There is no official LDS doctrine on what earth God lived on. The LDS believe in continuing revelation so this may be revealed at a later time.

There are plenty of questions that we currently don't have the answer to, but IMO those questions aren't pertinent to one's salvation and so don't matter currently.

September 10th 2021 10:41

Note : my italics - both times - for emphasis.

That a question asking of fundamental features of Deity (the matter of what Deity is and where Deity is located) should receive such a non-answer is truly astounding to me.

And no less astounding (to me) is the fact that you consider such a fundamental question regarding Deity to be 'not pertinent to one's salvation'.

And I think this underlies at least some of the reason for the disparity between questions and answers in this area.

Also, the idea that only denominationalists of a particular denomination should answer or that such persons should be preferred to answer is, to my mind, discriminatory.

The site is an academic site and answers should not contain bias due to a person's affiliations.

Factual answers should be just as competent from information gathered from online (and other) documentation and, in some cases, will actually be closer to denominational teaching than an affiliate who, perhaps, is not sufficiently schooled in their own denomination's terms of reference.

Answer 6

Is the suggestion being made that the only way to rightly assess an answer about a particular denomination is to analyse it from the denomination’s official point-of-view? If so, then that is a staggering misunder-standing as to what this site is all about. On web-sites which a denomination has set up as its official web-site, they are free to only promote their official point-of-view. They can keep out all information that might put them in a less-than-benign-light. But they cannot expect to exert the same control in a non-denominational web-site. Let’s look at an example you have given.

The answer you acclaim (the second one) admitted, “There is no official LDS doctrine on what earth God lived on. The LDS believe in continuing revelation so this may be revealed at a later time.” Now, if not even any LDS person can answer the question, how can you expect a non-LDS answer to provide it? Perhaps the person giving the answer you criticise read that admission and realised the question simply was not going to be answered, with no mention of old LDS statements about some distant galaxy having an area called Kolob in it. Therefore, that person gave an example of why the question itself first needed clarification as to which deity was being asked about (to narrow down location). Exposing an underlying problem with a question on the site is in order, especially when it proceeds to flag up a need for LDS answerers to clear an obstacle out of the way in order to begin tackling the question. Kolob, you see, doesn’t really come into a satisfactory answer, which might be why the answerer never mentioned it.

Now, it is true that there can be a problem with some questions about the LDS denomination where the PO expresses it in a way that the LDS finds unacceptable to itself. Yet it must be pointed out that a whole host of other denominations have similar questions asked about them! They are viewed as being negative to the group, by those in the group. They are not questions the group would wish to see aired in public. Well, so what? Have we to change this site so that only questions agreeable to denominations get posted? Would it please you if all questions about the LDS were first passed to LDS authorities to vet? Is their approval needed before any of those get posted? That would then turn this site into a platform for the LDS group to promote itself! That, however, would be an abuse of this site. If that was granted, then every other denomination would have to be given the same ‘right of veto’ (which is what such clearance would effectively become.)

What needs to be faced up to is that it is not always necessary for a denomination’s perspective to be given in order to provide a genuine answer. There are times when someone outside a denomination has knowledge of the denomination that most of its members do not have. For example, there are some people who know about sexual abuse within a group, which the group disclaims (or outrightly denies). Lots of denominations have had to suffer public exposure of such things, and it’s obvious that most of them have strenuously tried to cover up policies and practices at a very high level. You might protest that that does not deal with questions about a denomination on this site. It’s “off-topic”. Sure. But the principle of certain ones in denominations wanting to control information that the public gets to see applies just the same.

Nobody on this site has the right to tell an answerer that they should not answer questions about the LDS group; that only knowledgeable LDS people should answer. Likewise with anyone from any other group trying to effectively ‘cut-out’ all answers that don’t square with their perspective of the group. The denomination perspective is valid, but it is by no means the only perspective!

Also, it is valid to answer a question by proposing another one that could get to the real, underlying issue at back of the initial question. Jesus used that tactic ever such a lot in his ministry. And he quoted older sources that his questioners knew of, but who never cared to make use of in public themselves.

So, to answer your questions: • Are answers that do not answer the question ok?

Answers that do not answer the way the religious group would like are not necessarily non-answers (though if they are non-answers with no bearing on the question, they should be removed.)

• If such an answer does appear, what is the proper response? flag it and hope mod agrees?

Yes, flag it, but just remember that moderators are not going to allow this site to let groups have nothing but promotional answers posted. And, before you flag it, why not re-read it to see if there’s any information there that you need to check out personally, instead of just sticking to the ‘party line’?