It Wasn't I Who Locked That Thread

[Scott Lloyd]

Because of the goings-on here in the past few days, and because there has been some discussion about whether or not participants ought to retain the privilege of locking threads that they themselves have originated, I've wondered whether there might be some suspicion as to whether it was I who closed the "ashamed of Joseph Smith" thread. This is to go on record as saying it was not.

 

I was getting bombarded with posts on that thread yesterday, the authors of all of them requiring a response from me. It got to the point where, as I was composing my response to one, I was getting notification of three to six additional posts showing up, all of them directed at me.

 

Eventually, I posted that I was disengaging from the thread because keeping several conversations going at once was taxing my attention and time that I needed to devote to other things. I said I might return, but, by the time I checked last night, the thread had been closed.

 

I'm disinclined at this point to re-open any of the arguments, but I do stand by what I posted there.

[bluebell]

I thought it was really weird that that thread got locked, especially as the conversation was not at all contentious (that i saw anyway).  I assumed that you had locked it for some reason.  It's good to know you didn't.

 

Still odd though.

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought it was really weird that that thread got locked, especially as the conversation was not at all contentious (that i saw anyway).  I assumed that you had locked it for some reason.  It's good to know you didn't.

 

Still odd though.

Well, if even you thought that I had done it, I'm now more certain than ever that I needed to set the record straight.

 

I don't object to it being closed. I'm just trying to head off suspicion.

[Calm]

I am guessing a mod locked it because a certain someone showed up and started preaching and telling LDS what they believed rather than actually engaging in conversation...at least that is why I would lock it if it was locked...though I would have chosen to ban that poster from that thread instead of lock the thread and direct someone who wanted to play with him to start a separate thread that wouldn't distract from other conversations.  But perhaps I am forgetting something else that might have been reported....so easily done (my forgetting) that added weight to closing the whole thing.

 

I didn't think you closed it, you announce it in the threads on the few occasions you have done it.

Edited April 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Because of the goings-on here in the past few days, and because there has been some discussion about whether or not participants ought to retain the privilege of locking threads that they themselves have originated, I've wondered whether there might be some suspicion as to whether it was I who closed the "ashamed of Joseph Smith" thread. This is to go on record as saying it was not.

 

I'll be honest, that was my first thought.

Since reaching "contributor" I have locked a thread or two of mine when they are getting derailed.  That's really the only time I would use it.  I think having that ability is a good thing to prevent derails.  I would hope none of us would use it because we "were losing an argument".  If my thread on worshiping Christ turned into another "Are Mormon's Christian" thread I would have locked it.  I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

Frankly, I'd love it if all contributors would automatically lock their threads when the topic inevitably switches to SSM. 

[ALarson]

I saw that last night too, so thanks for clarifying Scott.  I wondered if you'd locked it but then also wondered if it was locked because of the last poster who showed up.  I felt others were handling the poster that calmoriah referred to and were doing a great job with him.  

[rongo]

I am guessing a mod locked it because a certain someone showed up and started preaching and telling LDS what they believed rather than actually engaging in conversation...at least that is why I would lock it if it was locked...though I would have chosen to ban that poster from that thread instead of lock the thread and direct someone who wanted to play with him to start a separate thread that wouldn't distract from other conversations.  But perhaps I am forgetting something else that might have been reported....so easily done (my forgetting) that added weight to closing the whole thing.

 

I didn't think you closed it, you announce it in the threads on the few occasions you have done it.

That was my thought. There have been a lot more thread lockings lately with no comment, guidance, or warning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I am guessing a mod locked it because a certain someone showed up and started preaching and telling LDS what they believed rather than actually engaging in conversation...at least that is why I would lock it if it was locked...though I would have chosen to ban that poster from that thread instead of lock the thread and direct someone who wanted to play with him to start a separate thread that wouldn't distract from other conversations.  But perhaps I am forgetting something else that might have been reported....so easily done (my forgetting) that added weight to closing the whole thing.

 

I didn't think you closed it, you announce it in the threads on the few occasions you have done it.

True, except for when I turned into the Incredible Hulk and went on my rampage after learning that Pahoran had been banned.

[Calm]

True, except for when I turned into the Incredible Hulk and went on my rampage after learning that Pahoran had been banned.

We all have our momentary glitches...

[Scott Lloyd]

My prior thread is locked and  I can't post this there, so I'll do it here, but Daniel Peterson on his blog has revisited the subject of the supposed distancing of general conference speakers from Joseph Smith.

 

I won't say too much about it here except to explain that he presents a couple of interesting graphs:

 

One demonstrates substantial volatility but no real trend in the frequency with which Joseph's name is mentioned in conference since 1971.

 

The other shows similar volatility but a definite trend in the frequency of references to the Atonment of Jesus Christ over the same period of time.

 

When Correlation was in here the other day to scrutinize this week's edition, I did take take occasion to ask if the word had gone out not to mention Joseph Smith at general conference. They had a huge guffaw over the notion.

 

So apparently, they didn't get the memo -- if there was a memo.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Well, if we're discussing it again, I would also point out that whoever calculated the data apparently skipped the Women's session of Conference, because the first talk at that session by itself mentioned Joseph Smith four times.  So that doubles the number of Joseph Smith references!

Edited April 16, 2015 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, if we're discussing it again, I would also point out that whoever calculated the data apparently skipped the Women's session of Conference, because the first talk at that session by itself mentioned Joseph Smith four times.  So that doubles the number of Joseph Smith references!

Very good point.

 

In this latest blog post, Dan pointed out that, with such a small sample, a single Joseph Smith-themed conference talk -- or the absence of one -- can make an immense difference in the frequency with which Joseph Smith is mentioned.

[The Nehor]

Very good point.

 

In this latest blog post, Dan pointed out that, with such a small sample, a single Joseph Smith-themed conference talk -- or the absence of one -- can make an immense difference in the frequency with which Joseph Smith is mentioned.

There has also been a slight shift. I hear more about "the restoration" as opposed to "Joseph Smith" when speaking about the church in general, I do not think there is any shift in meaning though doubtless our detractors will crow in victory over this change as we are clearly about to disavow Joseph Smith and go even further then the CoC.

[CCRW]

There has also been a slight shift. I hear more about "the restoration" as opposed to "Joseph Smith" when speaking about the church in general, I do not think there is any shift in meaning though doubtless our detractors will crow in victory over this change as we are clearly about to disavow Joseph Smith and go even further then the CoC.

 

I noted this with Ken, as he tends to always refer to The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, taking the time to type it out each time verses simply say the Church or referring to JS.  I wondered if it was just him or possibly a trend