Why All The Locked Threads?

[Brian 2.0]

The saved and the damned.

Yeah, but which is which?

[Daniel2]

I joined the fair message board in 2006 and made the change to this one. I honestly don't notice a difference. The same posters that were there are here, and we have pretty much the same mods as far as i can tell.

I have been posting on these boards for almost 15 years now. Ironically, I was a devout temple attending Mormon when I started. I don't notice any huge differences either, Bluebell. Edited April 10, 2015 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

I don't know. Maybe the hard line ones that used to be around (I haven't been here long myself). I think so much of what the apologists labeled "anti-Mormon" material has now been discussed by the church in their new essays. It's sort of taken the wind out of some of the apologist's sails so to speak.

You can say that again. Also, here's a thought. I wonder if this church would have even existed if Joseph had just stayed believing in the church of his youth. I think he'd be disappointed if members were yes people and never dared question or explore for themselves. I like how a lot of TBM's on here allow for that open-minded approach. Maybe if this were encouraged more we might not turn questioners into anti's. Since the anti info has become actual truth. Maybe the anti's are the way they are because they were labled and their family wouldn't accept their questioning.

[Russell C McGregor]

Ah yes, I remember you from "Catholic Answers."

The board from which I was banned, ostensibly for "proselytizing" when I had done no such thing.

Well, at least "Catholic Answers" provides explanations for moderator action.

Even if those explanations are demonstrably false.

Regards,

Russell

[CCRW]

My 2 cents. Nemesis is related to Julian in some way and owns the actual server. My guess is that this person is a dude.

Once upon a time A Nemesis slipped and revealed a user, but I have not seen that user post here for a long time (no I will not say who).   Nemesis likely has a multi-personality disorder.

[Storm Rider]

Ah yes, I remember you from "Catholic Answers."

The board from which I was banned, ostensibly for "proselytizing" when I had done no such thing.

Well, at least "Catholic Answers" provides explanations for moderator action.

Even if those explanations are demonstrably false.

Regards,

Russell

 

I don't know too many LDS who have lasted over there on the CA board.  If you begin to "handle" their resident jerks too well you are tossed by the sainted mods.  I think I would rather that someone said nothing to me rather than just blatantly lie.  

 

They have an objective there on their board and it is not to have friendly discussions with those that belong to other churches.  They are there to promote their message about the Catholic Church.  I respect them for maintaining that objective even if it means I don't participate.  There may be better ways to run a website, but they don't seem to be harmed by the way they run theirs.  This site has different objectives than that site.  

[CCRW]

Two things:

First, I see a sock puppet as being one who posts under two or more screen names for the purpose of deception. I don't see Pahoran as doing that with his new screen name.

Second, I'm inclined to stick around <so long as> Pahoran is permitted to continue and does continue posting under his new screen name.

Excellent, based on your interpretation I should be good to go.  I’ll try posting again and see what happens.

[CCRW]

Are there many post-mormons on here?  It seems that most are active LDS.

inactive mormon here (wife, adult children very active)

[Daniel2]

As someone who most would consider today to be a critic of Mormonism, I believe the moderators here do an amazing job at striving to be as fair and open as possible in their attempts to allow respectful dialogue.

I have read much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on opposing boards by both believers and critics who claim they were victims of unjust moderators here--that has not been my experience.

Respect is as respect does. For some reason, online anonymity lowers many people's willingness to strive to be kind and respectful. I suppose some people enjoy the art of antagonistic argumentation just for the sport... but in this board's numerous incarnations over the years, the effort has been consistent to maintain civility despite who's side one supports. I appreciate that environment, and again, am grateful for the moderators' efforts.

If you're nice, you'll likely be welcomed. If you're a jerk, you'll likely do better elsewhere.

[CCRW]

All this talk makes it sound like in the past this board was like the wild west in a town where apologists ruled, cooking up new papers and theories, and when a critic strolled in on his high horse the apologist-posse set him straight and ran him out of

that fits a lot cowboys I know, including myself

[Russell C McGregor]

Wouldn't that be a violation of board guidelines as well?

 

But I guess if one is already banned, there isn't much to lose.

Rockpond, since my banning has become a topic of conversation here, I'd like to ask you a question.

In the now-closed thread, you wrote:

 

Espousing authentic LDS doctrine here is not a banning offense. Pahoran was obviously banned for *how* he chose to express his "authenticity", if you will.

Question: is there any possible way that Pahoran could have made that point that would not have had you firing off multiple reports to the moderators?

You see, Rockpond, I have a theory, and it is this: However objectionable you may claim to find Pahoran's "style," what you really object to is the substance of those posts. Whatever metaphors, similes, portmanteaux, cuts or slap-downs you may find to hang your hat upon, I think what you really don't want to see is the plain, indisputable fact that LDS doctrine is utterly irreconcilable with the changes you like to daydream about.

Am I wrong?

Are you really perfectly happy to allow the readers of this forum to be reminded that your fond imaginings could only exist in some kind of alternative universe?

Or would you rather find ways to stifle that point of view entirely?

Regards,

Russell

[rockpond]

Rockpond, since my banning has become a topic of conversation here, I'd like to ask you a question.

In the now-closed thread, you wrote:

Question: is there any possible way that Pahoran could have made that point that would not have had you firing off multiple reports to the moderators?

You see, Rockpond, I have a theory, and it is this: However objectionable you may claim to find Pahoran's "style," what you really object to is the substance of those posts. Whatever metaphors, similes, portmanteaux, cuts or slap-downs you may find to hang your hat upon, I think what you really don't want to see is the plain, indisputable fact that LDS doctrine is utterly irreconcilable with the changes you like to daydream about.

Am I wrong?

Are you really perfectly happy to allow the readers of this forum to be reminded that your fond imaginings could only exist in some kind of alternative universe?

Or would you rather find ways to stifle that point of view entirely?

Regards,

Russell

However objectionable, offensive, and incorrect I find some of your statements to be; if I wanted to stifle you I would cease to engage in dialogue with you. But I haven't don't that, have I?

[bluebell]

Rockpond, since my banning has become a topic of conversation here, I'd like to ask you a question.

In the now-closed thread, you wrote:

 

Question: is there any possible way that Pahoran could have made that point that would not have had you firing off multiple reports to the moderators?

You see, Rockpond, I have a theory, and it is this: However objectionable you may claim to find Pahoran's "style," what you really object to is the substance of those posts. Whatever metaphors, similes, portmanteaux, cuts or slap-downs you may find to hang your hat upon, I think what you really don't want to see is the plain, indisputable fact that LDS doctrine is utterly irreconcilable with the changes you like to daydream about.

Am I wrong?

Are you really perfectly happy to allow the readers of this forum to be reminded that your fond imaginings could only exist in some kind of alternative universe?

Or would you rather find ways to stifle that point of view entirely?

Regards,

Russell

 

In the essence of honest disclosure, i have to admit that, though i have no doubt that Pahoran is likely a nice guy who i would get along with in real life, his posting style often made me cringe.  It got to the point that i just stopped reading his posts altogether.

 

It wasn't that he was saying much that was different from other pro-ldd posters, but his posting style is, generally, very caustic.  Any points that he scored by way of truth were lost due to his way of saying things in my opinion.  

 

I get that other posters on here did not view his posts in that light.  I am only saying something now because you seem to have assumed that it's rockpond's  theological beliefs that cause him discomfort with Pahoran's posts.  As someone who agrees with Pahoran's theology, i just needed to second rockpond's post about Pahoran's posting style.

 

No disrespect to Pahoran intended.

Edited April 11, 2015 by bluebell

[CCRW]

thank you for that honesty bluebell!

[california boy]

Rockpond, since my banning has become a topic of conversation here, I'd like to ask you a question.

In the now-closed thread, you wrote:

 

Question: is there any possible way that Pahoran could have made that point that would not have had you firing off multiple reports to the moderators?

You see, Rockpond, I have a theory, and it is this: However objectionable you may claim to find Pahoran's "style," what you really object to is the substance of those posts. Whatever metaphors, similes, portmanteaux, cuts or slap-downs you may find to hang your hat upon, I think what you really don't want to see is the plain, indisputable fact that LDS doctrine is utterly irreconcilable with the changes you like to daydream about.

Am I wrong?

Are you really perfectly happy to allow the readers of this forum to be reminded that your fond imaginings could only exist in some kind of alternative universe?

Or would you rather find ways to stifle that point of view entirely?

Regards,

Russell

 

 

The whole reason I post on this board is because I like to hear opposing views, specifically, from members of the church.  I never mind someone posting a comment that is counter to what I state or believe.  Like I said, that is the reason I post.  But quite frankly about 50% of the contents of your posts were personal attacks that had nothing to do with your answer to the question.  I don't think I ever reported you.  I just came to accept your personal attacks and tried to weed through your comments to see if what you were really saying made more sense.  

 

While you seemed to feel that personal attacks were necessary to make your point, it rarely worked for me.  And I have to admit I too often got sucked into such attacks.  And that is something that I regret, and try to avoid.  I don't always succeed.

 

I hope you are able to stay around.  I love hearing your responses.  And if this new persona can stay away from the irrelevant comments, I will look forward to your responses and hearing your reasoning.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not make them an anti-Mormon or a follower of Satan.

[Russell C McGregor]

However objectionable, offensive, and incorrect I find some of your statements to be; if I wanted to stifle you I would cease to engage in dialogue with you. But I haven't don't that, have I?

When you call them "objectionable," I understand that to mean that you objected to them.

Likewise, when you call them "offensive," I understand that to mean that you were offended thereby.

And I confess that I find myself not at all concerned by these points.

I probably should be, but I am not.

And since you didn't actually address the question, I take it that you were primarily offended by the substance, and not the style, of my posts.

But when you say that you find my statements to be "incorrect," I find that opinion to be rather strange, in view of some of the claims you have made for yourself.

You cannot fail to be aware that my position on the principal point of difference between us is absolutely and unquestionably an -- or more correctly, the -- orthodox Latter-day Saint one.

That being the case, on what basis can you possibly pronounce my position "incorrect?" What is the alternative source of -- shall we call it wisdom? -- that enables you to set at nought a settled point of LDS doctrine?

Regards,

Russell

[CCRW]

.. And if this new persona can stay away from the irrelevant comments ...

Like Scott's timers, I'm starting one ... it will require significantly smaller scale but much greater resolution. hehe ... Hey Russel, long time no see!

[CCRW]

Will I be able to edit my posts and start new threads at some point?  Sorry about the missing L

[Senator]

meaning individual liberty to believe in what they wish to believe in the lds church.

 

Unconscionable!!!

Edited April 11, 2015 by Senator

[rockpond]

When you call them "objectionable," I understand that to mean that you objected to them.

Likewise, when you call them "offensive," I understand that to mean that you were offended thereby.

And I confess that I find myself not at all concerned by these points.

I probably should be, but I am not.

And since you didn't actually address the question, I take it that you were primarily offended by the substance, and not the style, of my posts.

But when you say that you find my statements to be "incorrect," I find that opinion to be rather strange, in view of some of the claims you have made for yourself.

You cannot fail to be aware that my position on the principal point of difference between us is absolutely and unquestionably an -- or more correctly, the -- orthodox Latter-day Saint one.

That being the case, on what basis can you possibly pronounce my position "incorrect?" What is the alternative source of -- shall we call it wisdom? -- that enables you to set at nought a settled point of LDS doctrine?

Regards,

Russell

What I refer to as incorrect was not the dogma that you express but your erroneous statements about me.

Edited April 11, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Will I be able to edit my posts and start new threads at some point? Sorry about the missing L

Yes... You have to reach a certain number of posts and then those abilities are granted. You can hop over to the social board and get the required posts pretty quickly (hat tip Calmoriah for that suggestion).

[Senator]

In the essence of honest disclosure, i have to admit that, though i have no doubt that Pahoran is likely a nice guy who i would get along with in real life, his posting style often made me cringe.  It got to the point that i just stopped reading his posts altogether.

 

It wasn't that he was saying much that was different from other pro-ldd posters, but his posting style is, generally, very caustic.  Any points that he scored by way of truth were lost due to his way of saying things in my opinion.  

 

I get that other posters on here did not view his posts in that light.  I am only saying something now because you seem to have assumed that it's rockpond's  theological beliefs that cause him discomfort with Pahoran's posts.  As someone who agrees with Pahoran's theology, i just needed to second rockpond's post about Pahoran's posting style.

 

No disrespect to Pahoran intended.

 

All I know is that anyone that can get themselves banned, reappear with a new name, and still take swipes at the moderation, has got some kind of clout!

[MorningStar]

I think this is an elaborate cover-up.  It's been said before that Pahoran is a moderator here, so of course he would ban himself to make it look like he's not a moderator.  Then he can continue banning people as he cackles an evil cackle. 

[The Nehor]

I think this is an elaborate cover-up.  It's been said before that Pahoran is a moderator here, so of course he would ban himself to make it look like he's not a moderator.  Then he can continue banning people as he cackles an evil cackle. 

 

It is what I would do if I were a mod. Which is probably why I am not...........or am I?

[tonie]

I haven't seen Russell C. McGregor ever post in Pahoran's trademark caustic style.  I would guess the moderators were banning Pahoran's wit and not the man behind the name.

 

RCM first post on this board, is quite a surprise. So much so, that I questioned whether it was the same person. At the time of you posting the above I agreed with you about the lack of caustic style, not so much in agreement now.

Edited April 11, 2015 by tonie