Is there a board that is more heavily moderated than MADD???

[_harmony]

If there were internet message boards in North Korea, I don't think they would be as heavily moderated as that board.

That's because the North Koreans aren't protecting God's own church.

[_Brackite]

Of the 12 years I've been on the internet, I've never seen a site so heavily moderated. I can't believe how sensitive the mods are to anything "anti." Orpheus seems to be the worst offender. They make up rules as they go along and slap you or ban you for violating some new unwritten rule. Just as a topic begins to get interesting, it is locked. Normally on most sites, threads are only locked because of a flame war or if the thread is totally stupid, spam, Old Testament, or totally inappropriate.

And then there's certain members that get away with everything under the sun, like pahoran, charity, selek, DCP, or juliass. They have to be the most petty, mean spirited, vicious, and manipulative jerks that I've ever seen on the internet.

Just let them keep doing what they're doing. If some questioning member comes in and asks a legitimate question they can expect to get flamed.

Hi there fubecabr,

I have been on the internet for about ten years now, and I have never seen a Message board that is so heavily and so horribly Moderated than the "FAIR"/MA&D Board. The Moderators have banned a lot of people from Posting any Messages on their Message Board over there during the past year. The Moderators have even banned a few People from Posting any Messages on their Message board because they did Not like what those People Posted and stated on other Message Boards such as this Message board.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Did you get banned fubecabr?

[_Mercury]

If there were internet message boards in North Korea, I don't think they would be as heavily moderated as that board.

That's because the North Koreans aren't protecting God's own church.

Nope, they are protecting what they believe to be a demigod.

[_fubecabr]

Did you get banned fubecabr?

I was banned over there back in november and was threatened again on friday. Look at my comments there, the stuff I posted back in Nov. really put them in a tizzy. by the way, I'm 'fubeca' over there.

[_fubecabr]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 9585&st=20

This is a classic example and what resulted in my ban. It was a slam dunk.

[_harmony]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=19585&st=20

This is a classic example and what resulted in my ban. It was a slam dunk.

Something you might want to know about MAD and us: they won't allow links from here to there. They're a bit paranoid about it, actually. So if you want us to see something, you have to cut and paste it.

[_Mister Scratch]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=19585&st=20

This is a classic example and what resulted in my ban. It was a slam dunk.

You are probably unaware of this (and welcome to the board, by the way!), but links to the MADboard do not work at this forum. (Actually, I think it will work if you cut and paste into a new browser window.) Some time ago, the fittingly named MAD moderating team rigged up their board in such a way that links from here to there would re-direct a person to an entry on "Sons of Perdition" at LDS.org. They really, really hate many of us.

[_fubecabr]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=19585&st=20

This is a classic example and what resulted in my ban. It was a slam dunk.

You are probably unaware of this (and welcome to the board, by the way!), but links to the MADboard do not work at this forum. (Actually, I think it will work if you cut and paste into a new browser window.) Some time ago, the fittingly named MAD moderating team rigged up their board in such a way that links from here to there would re-direct a person to an entry on "Sons of Perdition" at LDS.org. They really, really hate many of us.

I'm aware of it and you can either copy+paste the url or if using firefox, go to about:config and set the network.http.sendRefererHeader to '0'

Oh, and the link had a problem in it anyways. Here's the correct one:


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =19585&hl=

This pissed them off too. Referring to Hinckley as "the hinckster" can be really offensive you know...
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 463&st=40#

Here's another good one:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 463&st=40#

[_Brackite]

The link that fubecabr/fubeca gave here goes to Page #2 of a Discussion thread that he statred over there last November. The Discussion thread that fubeca statred over there is titled: 'Joseph Smith, By And Others Committed Adultery'.
Here is his Opening Post on that Discussion thread:

I served a mission in Brazil. There, many people do not get legally married. The reason being is that the cost to be legally married is a month's salary for a lot of people. Instead, they get married in a religious ceremony, usually in the Catholic church.

The LDS church teaches that you must be legally married according to the laws of the land or you're breaking the 7th. People must get legally married before being baptized. They must repent of unknowingly breaking the 7th. This is a significant impediment to the growth of the LDS church there. When a couple wants to get sealed in the temple, they must first get a marriage certificate issued by the local govt. and the same day go to the temple.

Now, let's talk about Joseph Smith, BY, and other early church leaders. Polygamy has always been explicitly illegal or unrecognized in all western societies since the time of the Romans. Joseph Smith's only legal wife was Emma. All others were illegal and therefore adultery.

What about the 12th article of faith? "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

The next Message Posted on that Discussion thread was POsted by a Poster named 'smac97' over there. Here is the Poster smac97's reply:

QUOTE
Now, let's talk about Joseph Smith, BY, and other early church leaders. Polygamy has always been explicitly illegal or unrecognized in all western societies since the time of the Romans.

Call for references, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is a reference for you Smac97:

D. Michael Quinn:

An 1833 Illinois state law provided two years’ imprisonment and a $1000 fine for the married man who married another woman and one year’s imprisonment and a $500 fine for the unmarried woman who knowingly entered into a marriage ceremony with an already married man. Illinois statutes defined the resulting sexual cohabitation in such an unlawful union as a continuing offense, with six months in prison and a $200 fine for the first offense that "shall be sufficiently proved by circumstances which raise the presumption of cohabitation and unlawful intimacy; and for a second offense, such man or woman shall be severally punished twice as much as the former punishment, and for the third offense, treble, and thus increasing the punishment for each succeeding offense." 36 Better known is the fact that the Congressional Morrill Act of 1862 outlawed bigamy in U.S. territories, ending the quasi-legality enjoyed by Mormon polygamous unions in Utah and other territories since the departure of the Mormons from Illinois in 1846. After the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law constitutional in 1879, all new polygamous marriages in Utah and surrounding territories were in violation of both Congressional and Constitutional law. Moreover, the U.S. Constitution and statutory law had already extended the jurisdiction of federal law (and therefore all anti-polygamy laws) to any persons and activities aboard U.S. vessels traveling on the high seas. 37

( www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_dialogue.shtml )

Anyway, The next Message was Posted by a Poster named 'selek' over there. Here is what he Posted on that thread over there:

Hmmm....formulaic exit narrative.... inflammatory posts lacking in substance.....derisive and insulting commentary about Church leaders......

Even though you've already been dinged by the Mods once, I guess it's time:

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The TEW (Troll early warning) system is now activated...

We are under a troll watch condition. This means that there may be a troll in the vicinity. Keep on the lookout for posters without a history making accusatory posts, then leaving the discussion unfinished.

Please be advised this is only a warning. People with a real life may not have time to respond to their own threads and only appear as trolls. Also people who have been indoctrinated by anti-mormon ministries may have TTS (Temporary Troll Syndrome) which is characterized by having a single issue and the desire to debunk all Mormonism in a single thread.

Trolls will eventually prove their existance by a complete lack of regard for reason and civility when pushing their point. However, if a troll is actually spotted we will broadcast a troll warning. At which time you will be instructed in emergency troll baiting procedures.

Thank you and now back to your regular broadcast discussion...

Beeeeep... beeeep... beeeep...

The next Message that was Posted on that thread was by fubeca in response to smac97. Here is what fubeca Posted in response to smac97, over there:

QUOTE(smac97 @ Nov 10 2006, 11:01 AM)

QUOTE
Now, let's talk about Joseph Smith, BY, and other early church leaders. Polygamy has always been explicitly illegal or unrecognized in all western societies since the time of the Romans.

Call for references, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Go read the REYNOLDS VS US Supreme Court decision back from 1879.


What's the matter Selek? Can't argue my point? Have to result to ad hominem attacks?

The next Message that was Posted on that thread was Posted by the Poster named 'charity' over there. Here is what charity Posted on that thread over there:

fubeca, according to my math, 1879 post dated the Nauvoo period of the Church, (late 1830's and early 1840's)and was considerably after the Roman era as well. This time get a real source for your unfounded assertion.

And we believe in being subject to laws,etc. But the government has at times instituted "unlawful" laws, such as slavery, laws against interracial marriage, segregation, etc. In the case of plural marriage, the laws against it and the subsequent persecution of the Church and its members, was clearly an illegal restriction on religion, which is against the Constitution.

Anyway, NOw let's go to Page #2 of that Discussion thread. The first Message that was Posted on Page #2 of that Discussion thread, was Posted by a Poster named 'thesometimesaint' over there. Here is what he Posted over there:

Redeemed:

Yes the Bible has God doing/commanding all sort of what we call "atrocities". But as a Bible believing Christian I believe that God is just and ALL will work out for the betterment of man in the Eternal scope of things.

The next Message Posted on Page #2 of that thread, was Posted by charity. Here is waht Charity Posted on that thread over there:

It may make little difference in the minds of those who want to tar people with the "sinner's" brush, but there is a distinction between adultery and bigamy. Bigamy is a civil crime. Adultery is not. Adultery is defined in ecclesiastical terms as a violation of canon law. Obviously, when God commands something, it is not against His law.

And for those who brought Warren Jeffs into the discussion. If he really thinks he is obeying God's law (and there is evidence of doubt on that point) he is wrong. So, nothing said about God's law on plural marriage applies to him.

NOw the next and final Message Posted on Page #2 of that thread, was Posted by the Moderator named 'Orpheus' (probably Scott Lloyd back then) over there. Here is what he Posted over there:

fubeca has gotten himself suspended for a week for trolling the boards. He will not be able to answer questions or calls for reference.

Wow! So the Moderaor named 'Orpheus' thought that fubeca was a troll over there. They (mosty the Moderators )sometimes like to do hominem attacks over there