Analytics Banned! Response to Post-Ban Questions

[_why me]

I never claimed being banned from that thread was illegitimate. I don’t even think that way. There is never anything legitimate or illegitimate about them running the board as they see fit. It’s their private gig. If they think I’m done with a thread, that’s their call to make.

I didn't bring this conversation here to complain about the moderators--I brought here to continue the discussion.

You called the GAs weasels. Thus, the ban from the thread. By calling GAs weasels did not further the conversation.

[_Morley]

....
Most nonmormons who do not have a chip on their shoulder could not care less if Mormons had a priesthood ban.

I'm not a Muslim but I care if they practice female circumcision. I'm not a Catholic but I care about priests molesting young boys. I'm not a Hindu but I care about the high infant mortality rates of unwanted girl babies. And when these problems are resolved, I'll care about them historically. They'll still be part of the narrative.

Non-Mormons in the seventies certainly cared about the priesthood ban. Non-Mormons today do, too. If they didn't, it wouldn't be fodder for a national media.

[_why me]

I'm not a Muslim but I care if they practice female circumcision. I'm not a Catholic but I care about priests molesting young boys. I'm not a Hindu but I care about the high infant mortality rates of unwanted girl babies. And when these problems are resolved, I'll care about them historically. They'll still be part of the narrative.

And...where is the comparison to the priesthood ban?

[_why me]

Non-Mormons in the seventies certainly cared about the priesthood ban. Non-Mormons today do, too. If they didn't, it wouldn't be fodder for a national media.

Now morley, come close to the computer...I want to whisper something in your ear...because it is private....that's right...come closer....are you ready?

The national media has nothing about Romney's private life...no broads in the closet, no chicks in a massage parlor...no drunken binges with gay lovers and so, they pick up on a priesthood ban that ended decades ago. No one cares or gives a hoot except exmormons and Mormon haters with a chip on their shoulders.

[_Morley]

I'm not a Muslim but I care if they practice female circumcision. I'm not a Catholic but I care about priests molesting young boys. I'm not a Hindu but I care about the high infant mortality rates of unwanted girl babies. And when these problems are resolved, I'll care about them historically. They'll still be part of the narrative.

And...where is the comparison to the priesthood ban?

We all have a stake in the institutions of our country and our world. All of the institutions.

[_Morley]

Non-Mormons in the seventies certainly cared about the priesthood ban. Non-Mormons today do, too. If they didn't, it wouldn't be fodder for a national media.

Now morley, come close to the computer...I want to whisper something in your ear...because it is private....that's right...come closer....are you ready?

The national media has nothing about Romney's private life...no broads in the closet, no chicks in a massage parlor...no drunken binges with gay lovers and so, they pick up on a priesthood ban that ended decades ago. No one cares or gives a hoot except exmormons and Mormon haters with a chip on their shoulders.

You're wrong. There aren't all that many Mormon haters. But go with your theory. It's got to be as good as some of the others you've espoused. Take care, WhyMe.

[_why me]

You're wrong. There aren't all that many Mormon haters. But go with your theory. It's got to be as good as some of the others you've espoused. Take care, WhyMe.

The media needs a story but the story has not gotten them very far. No one cares about past policies..people care more about current policies. This is why there is no sensationalism about it. Mormons have been in national government for years even during the priesthood ban. No one cared.

This is a non-issue for most people. However the exmormon crowd wants to make it an issue because they have a chip on their shoulder. But this issue is dead in the media. Now we have the proxy baptism issue being in the media but for most people, it is also a non-issue if one reads the comment sections where the articles appear about it. And helen is somewhat ridiculed for her non-life.

[_why me]

We all have a stake in the institutions of our country and our world. All of the institutions.

Your comparisons were a little off.

All faiths have a record based in the presentism of their times and Mormons have done pretty well. Africans were not banned from membership nor were they segregated from the whites in the LDS church. There was a priesthood ban but not a membership ban.

[_Mary]

The media needs a story but the story has not gotten them very far. No one cares about past policies..people care more about current policies. This is why there is no sensationalism about it. Mormons have been in national government for years even during the priesthood ban. No one cared.

This is a non-issue for most people. However the exmormon crowd wants to make it an issue because they have a chip on their shoulder. But this issue is dead in the media. Now we have the proxy baptism issue being in the media but for most people, it is also a non-issue if one reads the comment sections where the articles appear about it. And helen is somewhat ridiculed for her non-life.

I really don't care if the issue is dead in the media Whyme. I absolutely don't have a chip on my shoulder and I absolutely don't hate Mormons. I'm also not ex-mormon. I've never had my name taken off the records and unless someone somewhere deems it necessary to excommunicate me, then I doubt I ever will.

I do want to distance myself from certain doctrines and practices that the church espouses. The doctrine on the negro race is one of them. You know, I don't get it. I remember Julianne trying to argue that many ex and post Mormons were fundamentalists, but honestly, I think that if the church could just let go of some of its fundamentalism and literalism towards prophets and scripture and even the nature of that scripture..(who really believes that the earth is a few 1000 years old, Adam and Eve were the first humans, and a Universal flood occurred - to quote some biblical stories)...then it would be so much easier to let go of the more negative and destructive parts of Mormon Theology and just move on.

That way the Book of Mormon could be ancient or modern and it wouldn't matter, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could be what they were, imperfect men, who often got it wrong as much as they got it right, even when they thought they were talking prophetically, and it wouldn't matter. The scriptures could be seen as human attempts at seeking out the divine will rather than infallible books direct from God on High's mouth.

That would do it for me anyway..it would solve most of the problems I have with the church and with religion in general...

Not that my opinion would matter to anyone with the power to change things...

[_Analytics]

You were banned because you were disrespectful of the GAs. This is why you were banned from the thread.

The LDS church is not in a popularity contest nor is it in it to placate all former Mormons as miss taken wishes it to do by offering a formal apology.

You deserved to be banned from the thread. And you know it.

Most nonmormons who do not have a chip on their shoulder could not care less if Mormons had a priesthood ban…

You misunderstand my point. I personally don’t care about this issue at all. There is no reason for the church to apologize to me. This whole conversation started when a journalist did a well-researched story about Mormonism and race. This caused Mormons to get upset with other Mormons about their speculations as to why God acted like a racist. I am simply offering the Church constructive advice of what it can do for its own good to move beyond this issue. The OP asked what the church should do, and I answered the question.

Did I “deserve” to be banned? I’m not surprised I was banned. I don’t feel like it was a punishment, and I don’t resent the moderators for doing it. Because of my own standards of trying to be clear and polite, I wish I would have said the apostles were being “intentionally ambiguous” rather than saying they were “weaseling”.

You called the GAs weasels. Thus, the ban from the thread. By calling GAs weasels did not further the conversation.

I didn’t call them weasels. I said their press release about the origins of be ban “not being entirely clear” was a weasel. Weaseling is what they did, not what they are. But I can see how describing their actions with this word can be considered derogatory, which is why I wish I would have called it “being intentionally ambiguous” rather than “weaseling”. But I stand behind what I said.