DiscussMormonism.com

More Mos banned from the postmorg. It seems that the postmorgites can't take the heat. The last Mormon was banned after 4 posts. I still don't understand how people who claim to be beyond Mormonism can be so intolerant of Mormonism. What a shame. It would be great to dialogue with them about their attitudes and beliefs without fear of banning.

But...it seems that exmos and postmos just can't take LDS logic. :=)

Actually, what this proves is that you and others like you apparently are constitutionally incapable of respecting boundaries that others set.

Perhaps I should let you savor your "victory", because, apparently, they are so few and far between that even this tastes good. But this is such a common tactic among internet Mormons that I can't let you do it.

What you have done is the equivalent of me, or other exmormons, crashing boards that are designed solely for LDS believers, expressly forbidding debate of the faith - and then when we're banned, declaring it some sort of victory. I'm sure that this does happen sometimes. But it appears to be a far more common hobby among believers, in addition to the habit of claiming that the mere existence of boards for exbelievers that bans debate is some sort of "victory" for Mormons. "Yeah, they won't let us on because our arguments are so GOOD". Yes, honey, you keep telling yourself that.

I think that this tendency to ignore the clearly stated boundaries of online boards is symptomatic of the sense of privilege in the LDS culture in general. Believers often have great difficulty respecting the boundaries of others. It's like having "The Truth" entitles you to behave in ways that you would find offensive in others. You see it in missionaries, who are often flat-out told to ignore signs forbidding tracting in certain neighborhoods. You see it in family members, who feel free to continually emotionally harass the nonbelievers in their families. You see it in work, when LDS believers attempt to proselytize fellow workers. You see it online in behavior such as yours, or the constant whining of LDS that RFM doesn't allow defense of the faith, and that proves something.

The one time that it might be justified to use banning and censorship as evidence that moderators are attempting to bolster and protect a weaker argument is when a board is supposedly designed to allow both believers and exbelievers to debate issues regarding the LDS faith, and moderators still engage in heavily biased moderating activities, obviously designed to help one side appear stronger.

I mean, really, whyme, is this so hard to understand? Should I start crashing LDS-only forums and blabbering on about Joseph Smith' polyandry and then, when I'm banned, declare that this is some sign that my argument is just too strong for LDS?

by the way, whyme, what was your screenname on postmormon?

Beastie you are so spot on!

Mr. Joe Avatar, it seems that you have the problem that most of you Morg's accuse critics of: And that is that you just can't leave it alone. Well you can't seem to leave it alone either. You're obsessed!

Can't you just walk away and let them be?

You must have a personally problem because they banned you, Washington Washington.

Cry a river,
Build a bridge,
And then, get over it!

Frankly I don't have an opinion of these bannings. It raises an interesting comparison to MAD banning exmos under laughable pretense.

Are the offenses on the postmo board comparable to banning-worthy offenses on MAD?

It depends, Merc. If I went into the Fellowship folder on MAD and kept trying to bring up Joseph Smith's sexual predatoriness, I would deserve banning, because the MAD Fellowship folder is expressly designed for non-contraversial conversations between believers. So I just don't go in there, and respect the boundaries they've set up for that folder. But the Discussion folder expressly invites discussion of contraversial issues, so I go in there (though not very much recently) and discuss.

I don't go to pro-LDS sites that are designed for faith-promoting discussion between believers, and crash their party. But that's what the Defenders of the Faith try to do on this exmo board. by the way, it should be noted that some MDB exmos and critics have crashed the forums set up by the Moregood folks somewhat recently too, so both sides have plenty of guilt on their hands over the practice.

beastie wrote:by the way, whyme, what was your screenname on postmormon?

My screen name was why me. I went to them after I found some things on the internet that made me feel uncomfortable about the LDS church. I thought they would be tolerant. But I could not share their negatives about the LDS church. Then, I discovered FAIR when I was posting on the postmorg. Eventually, the manager of the postmo forum banned me and predicted my banning from FAIR. He was wrong. I owe FAIR a great deal. The postmo people are just intolerant people, in my opinion.

Why me, I am curious (if you don't mind) what is your religious background?

beastie wrote:Actually, what this proves is that you and others like you apparently are constitutionally incapable of respecting boundaries that others set.

Perhaps I should let you savor your "victory", because, apparently, they are so few and far between that even this tastes good. But this is such a common tactic among internet Mormons that I can't let you do it.

I can't say that I savor the victory. I think that it is all rather sad. My impressions of that board as defined in their mission statement is not a recovery board but a board that has moved beyond Mormonism. Such people should be able to have a dialogue with all types of people, LDS members, exmembers, postmo members, who may not be as negative as they are about the LDS church. That has always been my point. I believe that they mislead people by their mission statement. Hence, the LDS church press reads their mission statement, thinks of them as a decent and open organization, when in reality, it is an offshoot of RFM. In my humbe opinion.

Desseret News gave them a good writeup.

I can't say that I savor the victory. I think that it is all rather sad. My impressions of that board as defined in their mission statement is not a recovery board but a board that has moved beyond Mormonism. Such people should be able to have a dialogue with all types of people, LDS members, exmembers, postmo members, who may not be as negative as they are about the LDS church. That has always been my point. I believe that they mislead people by their mission statement. Hence, the LDS church press reads their mission statement, thinks of them as a decent and open organization, when in reality, it is an offshoot of RFM. In my humbe opinion.

Desseret News gave them a good writeup.

Who cares what you think they "should be" able to do. Just respect the boundaries set up for the board.