beastie wrote:A few of whyme's posts from his latest visit still do remain, and appear to support my guess:
They know because the Holy Ghost has told them so. That is a very good reason to know. Now whether or not we remember that first time that the Holy Ghost tesified to us that the church was true is quite another thing. When one gets up to bear her or his testimony and testifies as to the truth it should be because the holy ghost has given that person a witness. Don't you remember when you felt the promptings of the spirit?
I think that the key is found in the Holy Ghost and in the promptings.
This isn't just saying something positive about the LDS or your experience within it. It is a flat out theological defense of the faith.
Do you not understand the difference?
If they allow people like you to go there and defend the faith, it will become a debate board. There's nothing wrong with a debate board, but, obviously, that is not what they want.
And yet, if you read the thead after my post, you will see a nice conversation developing. People commented very well and a discussion ensued. But Jeff, could not handle such discussion and I was banned. What was wrong with the discussion? Nothing. It was a good postmo discussion about the holy ghost. No attack by me. Just plain good conversation.
However, my comment did provoke thought and perhaps thought is dangerous to the objectives of the site owners. What else should I think?
However, my comment did provoke thought and perhaps thought is dangerous to the objectives of the site owners. What else should I think?
You can think the obvious: that the owners don't want a debate board.
You, and the others who enjoyed the conversation, are free to go to a board that is designed for debate between believer and exbeliever.
Once again, you would have a point if the board were designed as a debate board. A board that is purposefully designed to allow exchange between believer and exbeliever can be rightfully criticized when they run the board in an extremely biased manner designed to "help" one said over the other.
But a board that is designed to be a social support board, NOT a debate board, cannot be criticized for not being what it never claimed to be.
This isn't hard to understand. You just don't want to understand it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:A few of whyme's posts from his latest visit still do remain, and appear to support my guess:
They know because the Holy Ghost has told them so. That is a very good reason to know. Now whether or not we remember that first time that the Holy Ghost tesified to us that the church was true is quite another thing. When one gets up to bear her or his testimony and testifies as to the truth it should be because the holy ghost has given that person a witness. Don't you remember when you felt the promptings of the spirit?
I think that the key is found in the Holy Ghost and in the promptings.
This isn't just saying something positive about the LDS or your experience within it. It is a flat out theological defense of the faith.
Do you not understand the difference?
If they allow people like you to go there and defend the faith, it will become a debate board. There's nothing wrong with a debate board, but, obviously, that is not what they want.
And yet, if you read the thead after my post, you will see a nice conversation developing. People commented very well and a discussion ensued. But Jeff, could not handle such discussion and I was banned. What was wrong with the discussion? Nothing. It was a good postmo discussion about the holy ghost. No attack by me. Just plain good conversation.
However, my comment did provoke thought and perhaps thought is dangerous to the objectives of the site owners. What else should I think?
I've repeated this every time you bring it up. Your banning, as stated by the Admins, had nothing to do with the times where you were civil and discussing. Your banning came because you couldn't abide by the rules of stating your opinion as opinion. You started stating it as fact and then got upset when people called you on it.
why me wrote:My complaint is simple: put that in the postmormon mission statement. There is no commiserate impulse in the mission statement. In fact, the mission statement implies strong individuals who have left the church behind. They have come out of the cocoon (Mormonism)and they are now butterflies (postmormons) who are not antimormon and who are keeping all that was positive in the church.
See the problem?
No recovery message in mission statement, or pain.
Yes, I see your problem. You are trying to be a pain in the ass. Unless a board is designed to invite debate, you should probably leave it alone, unless you fit in with the profile of its members. If you go there to provoke them, they will probably kick you off. Is this some kind of travesty? Only in your imagination.
beastie wrote:A few of whyme's posts from his latest visit still do remain, and appear to support my guess:
They know because the Holy Ghost has told them so. That is a very good reason to know. Now whether or not we remember that first time that the Holy Ghost tesified to us that the church was true is quite another thing. When one gets up to bear her or his testimony and testifies as to the truth it should be because the holy ghost has given that person a witness. Don't you remember when you felt the promptings of the spirit?
I think that the key is found in the Holy Ghost and in the promptings.
This isn't just saying something positive about the LDS or your experience within it. It is a flat out theological defense of the faith.
Do you not understand the difference?
If they allow people like you to go there and defend the faith, it will become a debate board. There's nothing wrong with a debate board, but, obviously, that is not what they want.
And yet, if you read the thead after my post, you will see a nice conversation developing. People commented very well and a discussion ensued. But Jeff, could not handle such discussion and I was banned. What was wrong with the discussion? Nothing. It was a good postmo discussion about the holy ghost. No attack by me. Just plain good conversation.
However, my comment did provoke thought and perhaps thought is dangerous to the objectives of the site owners. What else should I think?
I've repeated this every time you bring it up. Your banning, as stated by the Admins, had nothing to do with the times where you were civil and discussing. Your banning came because you couldn't abide by the rules of stating your opinion as opinion. You started stating it as fact and then got upset when people called you on it.
Thank you Bryan. However, you must know that most postmos who post on that site state their opinion as fact. In fact, most of the negative statements about the LDS church are stated as fact and not opinions. A site should not put the contrarians at a disadvantage by having one rule for postmos and another for those they consider to be 'Mormons'. Also, I go by their mission statement and since no one here sees disagreement with me about their mission statement and their boards, I can assume that I am correct in my assumptions and opinions.
It seems the playing field is equal for only those postmos who fit their box and not to those that adhere to their mission statement.
Why do you care to debate something you do not even believe in?
Like I said in previous threads, you are neither a member nor a post/ex member.
Shady Acres sits between those two boards.
Come here and attempt to defend that which you do not live. Be prepared for a real ass kickin.
Well, there you go. I should have fit quite well over there. They had a wonderful opportunity to influence me. Plenty of inactives post there who are sitting on a fence or on a wall or who are standing behind the wall.
I am a butterfly experiencing many flowers just as their mission statement says they are doing. :=)
Why do you care to debate something you do not even believe in?
Like I said in previous threads, you are neither a member nor a post/ex member.
Shady Acres sits between those two boards.
Come here and attempt to defend that which you do not live. Be prepared for a real ass kickin.
Well, there you go. I should have fit quite well over there. They had a wonderful opportunity to influence me. Plenty of inactives post there who are sitting on a fence or on a wall or who are standing behind the wall.
I am a butterfly experiencing many flowers just as their mission statement says they are doing. :=)
Perhaps they just enjoy banning clueless, and need I say, ball-less posters.
That would fit for you, why me. Did you check the rules for ball-less,. male posters?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
You went over there, before they changed their format, (all the old stuff is gone) dressed up in your little white stiff necked avatar of Joe and started preaching as if you had a pulpit. You played like you were an ex-mormon to begin with and then slowly changed into a TBM defender right in front of everyone. They called you on it. Wah, wah.
You don't know where you stand and neither does anyone else. I have seen the ex-mormon routine you played there. Now you,re a TBM/Catholic, I don't know what. Maybe you should just debate yourself until you get yourself figured out.
Maybe I can s-p-e-l-l this out for you. They don't what to debate an ex-mo, TBM, Catholic with a Joe Smith avatar and a moniker that plays the victim, why me? Oh dear, why me? Yeah, why u? And why us?
Look its clear that anyone who organizes a BB can choose who to ban for whatever reason. Its also clear than many people state opinions as facts. Big f'ing deal. A couple of tactless random Mormons getting banned from some exmormon discussion board is hardly an example of some overwhelming Mormon "heat" or "logic" that can't be withstood.
Find another topic if you've got one.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."