Jump to content

Banned From Topic... Why?


Grudunza

Recommended Posts

I just tried to click in to read the NY Times Kelly/Dehlin thread and it says "You're banned from this topic.  You can't read it."  I'm honestly baffled as to why I would be banned, and would like to know for a reference as to why, so I can not do whatever I did another time...  I tried clicking the "Contact the community administrator" button, in two different browsers, but all it does is open a new browser window to my home page (Google).

 

Below are my three comments in the thread...  Any idea what the problem could be?  Thanks.

 

First post:

You can have it again.

Eh, I don't think so. My understanding of Fowler's stages is that you don't tend to go back once you cross into a new one. And though "Iron Rods" can become "Liahonas," the Liahonas don't tend to revert back to Iron Rods.

I have also found both Dehlin and Waterman valuable as voices related to our faith. Dehlin seems to bounce sharply between marginal belief and doubt and Waterman I only resonate with about 70% of the time and seems to have an ax to grind in some respects, but I would find it unfortunate to lose those voices or have them perceived now from a different perspective that is outside the fold. And I think the more controversial aspects of their discourse would gain power from that, with them almost becoming martyrs to their conspiratorial bent (Waterman in particular on the conspiracy angle, which is where I usually part ways with his ideas).

Someone posted a Game of Thrones quote on Facebook that I found relevant, something to the effect that cutting out someone's tongue doesn't silence them so much as to show that you fear what they have to say. If it were one person being called into question, now and then, I wouldn't have this perception, but all of these people being served notice at once seems like a concerted effort and feels oppressive for an organization that has recently declared it wants everyone in the tent, even if their (ELBOW) is sticking out the side.

To my understanding, Dehlin and Waterman may be flawed in some of their reasoning and intentions but have also helped many to keep their (ELBOWS) in the tent. If we kick out every cranky crackpot Mormon with doubts and personal takes on church history and such, some of my favorite brothers and sisters will be outside the tent, and the inside may not feel quite as welcome to me, either.

 

-----------------------

 

Second post:

Smac, I'll concede your point about the church not really silencing these members, that they will certainly still voice their opinions online as they have, but there is an appearance of them being silenced within the church, if they are indeed kicked out for having and sharing those opinions while being active members. And the concerted timing of this, if not just coincidental, makes it appear more deliberate.

And yes, my comments are an exaggeration, but that's the point... These are not just 3 members. Their voices and opinions hold some value to thousands more, myself included to some extent. We should look at this in an exaggerated way to get a sense of the greater impact it may have. These may be only 3 specific cranky crackpot members, but if the church removed *all* cranky crackpot members, which in a symbolic sense this could represent, that's a lot of potential disaffection.

 

----------------------

 

Third post:

The central point of the BoM is that The Lord punishes people with dark skin?? While I value what he does and would not want to see him removed merely for voicing his opinions and doubts, Dehlin does make me scratch my head sometimes with comments like that.

Edited by Grudunza
Link to comment

Is it maybe the word for a person's posterior that I used?  If so, really??  Banned without any warning, for that?  That's the only thing I can think it would be, but please let me know, regardless.

 

Note: In the content above, I replaced the word I originally used with (ELBOW), on the chance that this thread might be closed because of that (if that was the problem).  The original word there rhymes with "nut."

Edited by Grudunza
Link to comment

That's nothing, I posted about a podcast that had just been released today, I won't mention what it was for fear it was because of it and apparently it has vanished. The thread is not in sight. It was the one John Dehlin started. So that tells me certain people/issues are off the discussion table.

Link to comment

That's nothing, I posted about a podcast that had just been released today, I won't mention what it was for fear it was because of it and apparently it has vanished. The thread is not in sight. It was the one John Dehlin started. So that tells me certain people/issues are off the discussion table.

My memory is that Dehlin was told by moderators he was not to just solicit stuff for his own board here and not actually participate.  If you posted a link to his podcast and nothing else, perhaps the mods saw it as more promotion/advertisement without discussion.

 

Grud, chances are this thread will be locked as moderators don't respond to such questions.  Reasons why, I believe, go way back to boards that now are defunct.

 

I don't know if there is an automatic ban function or if it was even the language, but wouldn't be surprised. There are certain no tolerance posts and vulgarity is one of them from what I've seen.

 

From the guidelines:

 

"2. Be respectful of each other. This should be a matter of common sense, but we have a detailed list below of the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated...

  • Profanity and vulgarity"

I know that for some people it is not seen as vulgar, but from what I can tell the board automatic censor as well as the mods themselves take the conservative route in order to create an environment that most LDS feel comfortable in.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

So you think it was that particular word?  If they don't respond to this and the "contact the administrator" link doesn't work and I have no means of knowing why I was banned, how is that useful for me going forward?  I would have appreciated a warning or notice, in which case I would have gladly removed that word (or whatever the issue was).

Link to comment

So you think it was that particular word?  If they don't respond to this and the "contact the administrator" link doesn't work and I have no means of knowing why I was banned, how is that useful for me going forward?  I would have appreciated a warning or notice, in which case I would have gladly removed that word (or whatever the issue was).

 

I too, was banned, and the following is my offense against humanity:

 

 

smac was there (past tense) and is there (present tense) anything improper or untrue with Kate Kelly "bolstered her position by claiming she is an active and faithful Latter-day Saint"?

do you have proof that she is/or was not active?

do you have proof that she is/or was faithful Saint?

just wondering why you would make a point of it.

 

 

Though not being smac and his campaigns probably lets whoever made the decision feel justified.

Edited by frank_jessop
Link to comment

It stinks when someone get's banned and they have no idea why, but it happens.  The mods never promise to be 'fair' though i believe they do try.  

 

It's always better to keep the issue private however if possible.  You'll get a lot farther along with the mods, and plus, it's almost impossible to really complain about the mods without coming off looking like the bad guy.  It just almost always looks like sour grapes to the outsider.

 

(though Grudunza, i think you are doing a good job on this thread at not coming off like that-i'm thinking more of past threads and public complaints.)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...