Facebook Group for Conservative Logos Users

*This will be in a cross-post over in General*

I am considering starting a Facebook Group which would be either a Public group so you can see the contents of the posts without joining or a Closed Group which would mean that you cannot see the posts. For this type of group, I would be leaning on creating this group as Public, but having people to ask for membership into the group.

The PURPOSE in the group is simple: a place where current conservative users of Logos can find help on finding particular resources of trusted resources.

An EXAMPLE of the purpose would be me, a conservative Baptist (I'm independent, but would line up more with SBC biblical theology) being able to ask a question like, "I have 167 resources that are Acts specific. Does anyone know of an 'introduction' to Acts that would be trustworthy for my theological leanings." The idea behind the concept is so that we can get an idea of a valuable resource to what we are trying to achieve and to have reasonable verity that it is a good theological resource for what we are trying to accomplish.

This is AKIN to sitting around the table with your pastor or a friend in the ministry and saying, "I'm about to start a study in Acts and I wonder what would be a great book to kick off the the survey.

A lot of time, I go into my account here on Logos and search through my orders for a key word, just so I can get an idea. Especially with all of the "Classic Commentary" series. Sometimes looking at them on the Logos site is a good way to judge where I need to start, but not always. Many times, I come away daunted at where to begin.

I believe a Facebook Group would be a great way to have these discussions.

As a "devil's advocate," one might say, "Well, why not just ask this in the General Logos forum. Quite frankly, with due respect, the Logos community is very forthright and helpful, but it is extremely broad in biblical theological leanings. In other words, the advice of an Episcopalian (for example) isn't very much desired and would be counterproductive. I say that with grace and I hope not to offend, but there are reasons we are different.

For the purpose of this group, I am not saying that a person who joins needs to be Baptist, I'm just saying they should have general agreement to conservative principles.

What say you? Is this doable? Is it practical?

Wilson Hines

User since 1995

Find more posts tagged with

Baptist Products

Comments

GaoLu

Consider a Faithlife Group.

Justin Gatlin

I would participate. The advantage of a Faithlife group is the ability to share filters and other documents.

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031358#Comment_1031358

I obviously come from a very different tradition, which means I have a very different perspective. Observations like this, the Logos "forum is extremely broad in biblical theological leanings" always make me laugh, because I perceive it as so much the opposite. (Not trying to start anything. Just an observation from a different vantage point. Your proposal sounds great.)

Jan Krohn

I'm curious: How would you want to control who is accepted into that group, and who isn't?

There are very conservative Episcopalians as well, for example.

SineNomine

Go ahead and start a Faithlife group or a Facebook group. But ask yourself beforehand whether you want "conservative Logos users" or "conservative Protestant Logos users" first so that you know what to name it / put in the description.

Wilson Hines

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031354#Comment_1031354

I'm just not very much sold on the idea of a Faithlife Group.

If I'm right, it's essentially Faithlife's attempt at Social media. How successful is it? Which would get better exposure, a Faithlife Group or Facebook Group? Which would be more logical? Everybody, it seems, is on Facebook constantly.

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031366#Comment_1031366

There are very conservative Episcopalians as well, for example.

Indeed - I would consider myself one of them! [Y]

Gregory D. Earle

I would be interested, however I am not a big Facebook user.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031374#Comment_1031374

I'm just not very much sold on the idea of a Faithlife Group.

If I'm right, it's essentially Faithlife's attempt at Social media. How successful is it? Which would get better exposure, a Faithlife Group or Facebook Group? Which would be more logical? Everybody, it seems, is on Facebook constantly.

Facebook would definitely get more exposure. But with a Faithlife group, you could so things like share notes with each other or create a collection of trustworthy commentaries that everyone in the group could download. So maybe both?

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031374#Comment_1031374

I'm just not very much sold on the idea of a Faithlife Group.

If I'm right, it's essentially Faithlife's attempt at Social media. How successful is it? Which would get better exposure, a Faithlife Group or Facebook Group? Which would be more logical? Everybody, it seems, is on Facebook constantly.

MJ. Smith

As a "devil's advocate," one might say, "Well, why not just ask this in the General Logos forum. Quite frankly, with due respect, the Logos community is very forthright and helpful, but it is extremely broad in biblical theological leanings. In other words, the advice of an Episcopalian (for example) isn't very much desired and would be counterproductive. I say that with grace and I hope not to offend, but there are reasons we are different.

For the purpose of this group, I am not saying that a person who joins needs to be Baptist, I'm just saying they should have general agreement to conservative principles.

Two observations while actively encouraging your idea: (1) I have the same reaction as Ben regarding "extremely broad in biblical theological leanings" as I see quite the opposite although it is very slowly broadening (2) what is "general agreement to conservative principles" - a conservative Catholic is not a conservative Anglican is not a conservative Friends (Quaker) is not a conservative Baptist. Theological conservatism is not neccessarily social conservatism. Rather, statements like "In other words, the advice of an Episcopalian (for example) isn't very much desired and would be counterproductive." strikes me of precisely what we don't need in the forums which is why I actively encourage your idea. P.S. I am proud to have been labeled multiple times as being so conservative as to be positively Medieval ... much to the delight of teenage children [;)]

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031374#Comment_1031374

If I'm right, it's essentially Faithlife's attempt at Social media.

Sort of. But the FL groups are essentially invisible, even if you are a member of one. As a social media platform, FL groups are an abject failure. But they do function well for sharing documents and such.

How successful is it?

As social media? Zero. As a document sharing platform, not bad, but should be more visible.

Which would get better exposure, a Faithlife Group or Facebook Group?

Facebook, without question. But at a cost.

Which would be more logical?

If you want active participation, Facebook is the way to go. But the cost is high (your personal data will be strip-mined to the smallest electron). There are other interactive platforms that don't data-mine as much (such as Me-We), but they aren't as visible and can be hard to use for those used to Facebook.

This is a tough call. There are ups and downs no matter which you choose.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031700#Comment_1031700

If I'm right, it's essentially Faithlife's attempt at Social media.

Sort of. But the FL groups are essentially invisible, even if you are a member of one. As a social media platform, FL groups are an abject failure. But they do function well for sharing documents and such.

The point is that Faithlife groups are integrated into the Logos ecosystem, especially with regards to sharing documents, notes etc. (so you could read and discuss a book within the group). Experience shows that it is very hard to keep such groups "alive" in a sense that actively participating members actually post to a group and answer other people's posts etc.

Which would be more logical?

If you want active participation, Facebook is the way to go.

If the target group really is Logos users, a Faithlife group would be the logical choice. Every Logos user is part of Faithlife even if they don't know it. And Faithlife groups are not known for attracting trolls and flame wars. But since the whole thing is what Doc called "essentially invisible" (i.e. it misses that the platform actively tries to put you into contact with more people and more groups, you always have to search yourself for a group or get a hint from a forum post or elsewhere), it most probably is viable only on Facebook.

Obviously you could have both. And there are a number of people who don't use Facebook on principle who could be part of the Faithlife group.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031732#Comment_1031732

Just wonder, is it possible to link these two: one Faithlife group and one Facebook forum group.

In such a way that utilizes the good of both without letting FB datamining in to FL?

How about other groups: fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, radical?

David A. Peterson

The PURPOSE in the group is simple: a place where current conservative users of Logos can find help on finding particular resources of trusted resources.

Wilson, perhaps a more descriptive qualifier may help. I meet with a group of Pastors from various denominations and backgrounds, but we all agree on the T4G precepts (https://t4g.org/about/affirmations-and-denials/). There are other statements of faiths that may more closely match the viewpoints you are looking to collaborate with. In this particular group, I am consider one of the more liberal members, lol, but in a group of Chaplains, I am considered ultra conservative.

By stating a particular statement of faith, you set expectations, and membership criteria is clearly spelled out,

Warmest Regards,

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031746#Comment_1031746

Seems self-evident even from posts above that such a group would be self-regulating. Those who want to participate will. Those who don't, won't.

Wilson Hines

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1031750#Comment_1031750

Seems self-evident even from posts above that such a group would be self-regulating. Those who want to participate will. Those who don't, won't.

I don’t know. From the posts, I believe it would NOT be self regulating. Personally, if I saw something along these lines and I knew I was not interedted, I’d slide on by and ignore it; however there are some here who are committed to the opposite. I’m not sure I even want to do this now.