Mister Scratch wrote:I am inclined to agree with Moksha, ABman. To a certain degree, the bannings were arbitrary. I think that it all comes down to how Dan_G & juliann read people's loyalties, and how threatened those two feel about certain posters. It also has to do with things such as whether or not any of us embarrassed DCP in debate, for example.
And yet they haven't banned bcspace either. Last I checked, bcspace held opinions on Islam which Dr. Peterson would strongly disagree with.
In my opinion, this whole thing started when they created the pundit forum for the Book of Abraham discussions. Then they banned KG. Then they made the pundit forum private. Then they found out that KG still had access to the pundit forum, and excerpts were being posted here or at KG's site. So then they decided to ban people they thought were feeding these forums the information. from the pundit threads. (me, et.al)
Did that make sense? I'm about 97% sure that's what happened.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
why me wrote:May I join in? You see I started the thread by posting a talk given by GBH in 1982 which can be found in the may Ensign of the same year. It was a talk given at general conference entitled: Five Million Members---A Milestone and Not a Summit.
In this talk Hinckley declared that the church does have blemishes and aberrations in its history. He also mention that GA's both past and present have blemishes. But we need to see the bigger picture and dwell on it. You will need to read my original post on MAD to get a clearer picture.
Now my point was to show the MADites and the critics there that the church has acknowledged that leaders have blemishes and LDS history does have aberrations. And this addresses the critics who at times unwisely claim, that the church has never acknowledged such things.
Now what those blemishes and aberrations are is an open question since GBH did not name specifics for a good reason. No one would be satisfied with the list. Hence we have the battle royal of what would be an aberration and what is not.
However, the point is: the church addressed this issue and the issue of criticism among other things in that talk. And it was a good talk.
Saying 'nobody's perfect' is quite different than saying 'i apologize specifically for X, i was wrong'.
Show me one instance of that.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:In my opinion, this whole thing started when they created the pundit forum for the Book of Abraham discussions. Then they banned KG. Then they made the pundit forum private. Then they found out that KG still had access to the pundit forum, and excerpts were being posted here or at KG's site. So then they decided to ban people they thought were feeding these forums the information. from the pundit threads. (me, et.al)
Did that make sense? I'm about 97% sure that's what happened.
Yes. I think you're mostly right. I just think there may be reason to believe they will ban those who rant about the stupidity of MA&D on other boards.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
why me wrote:May I join in? You see I started the thread by posting a talk given by GBH in 1982 which can be found in the may Ensign of the same year. It was a talk given at general conference entitled: Five Million Members---A Milestone and Not a Summit.
In this talk Hinckley declared that the church does have blemishes and aberrations in its history. He also mention that GA's both past and present have blemishes. But we need to see the bigger picture and dwell on it. You will need to read my original post on MAD to get a clearer picture.
Now my point was to show the MADites and the critics there that the church has acknowledged that leaders have blemishes and LDS history does have aberrations. And this addresses the critics who at times unwisely claim, that the church has never acknowledged such things.
Now what those blemishes and aberrations are is an open question since GBH did not name specifics for a good reason. No one would be satisfied with the list. Hence we have the battle royal of what would be an aberration and what is not.
However, the point is: the church addressed this issue and the issue of criticism among other things in that talk. And it was a good talk.
I'm afraid I disagree, Why Me. Phrases such as "our leaders are not infallible," and GBH's talk are really little more than old bromides. They do little---if not nothing---to redress and legitimately acknowledge screw-ups from the Church's past. Also, I sincerely question your logic when you claim that GBH "did not name specifics" because "no one would be satisfied with the list." The fact is, no one is satisfied with his lack of a list. He has one option left. Do you think he will take it?
Face it: the Church maintains silence on embarrassing issues as a way of whitewashing those embarrassments. It also provides the Church with a means to maintain "plausible deniability."