DCP Returns, Worries About PBS Doc

[_Mercury]

There was a thread on Muhammad and I just couldn't resist posting. There is something about misinformation about Islam that really makes my skin crawl. It is pretty weird when 17 LDS posters believe Muhammed was a true prophet, yet not a single one can make an argument for it.

The funny thing is that I said the same things as X1X as I did for so many years as Kevin Graham, yet the mods didn't delete or edit anything I said. They deleted other posts from other discussions, closed other nearby discussions, and they monitored the Muhammed thread closely as they said they would (the point here is that they were not on vacation, they knew what was being posted). But apparently they didn't find anything offensive to delete. This pretty much proves to me that it was not the content that made them go after me, it was me. And no, they didn't know it was me until I just advertised that fact here and on my forum. Though, I am sure DCP probably knew who I was.

But for Dan to quibble over my statement that he will "stick" to a review, is pretty petty I should say.

True Sock Puppetry is when one speaks to themselves, not as two separate names conversing in separate threads.

[_harmony]

He can continue on his board. I guess they can't keep their board going without crashing this one. We haven't been able to be awful enough to keep Kevins sock puppets away for long. Maybe someday they will like what they have there and stay there, we sure hope so. ~ Mods

(red text ibid) [/quote]

What does this mean: "they can't keep their board going without crashing this one"? Are they using "crash" like "crash the party"? When they say "their board" are they referring to MDB or Kevin's own board? And who is "they"? What do they mean by "awful enough"? I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?

Inquiring minds and all that.

[_Bond...James Bond]

What does this mean: "they can't keep their board going without crashing this one"? Are they using "crash" like "crash the party"? When they say "their board" are they referring to MDB or Kevin's own board? And who is "they"? What do they mean by "awful enough"? I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?

Inquiring minds and all that.

I think they're referring to this board. DCP quoted dartagnan's thread (found in the link below) in the same thread. I'm sure they're referring to crashing the party as in being uninvited. "They" are the as yet unidentified critics who invade their sewing circle/faith promotion device/bull session.

As to "awful enough" I guess they think that the actions of their posters and moderators may irritate critics enough to the point of not wanting to come there. But who knows what the Mods over there are thinking. They seem to wander around looking for solutions the way a delirious man looks for pleasure resorts in the Sahara desert. The mods need to realize that message boards won't ever be perfect and that the little wrinkles brought by different posters give a board life.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1233

[_Bryan Inks]

The mods need to realize that message boards won't ever be perfect and that the little wrinkles brought by different posters give a board life.

MormonDiscussions. The all-natural Botox of the Message Board World.

[_maklelan]

Well, you'd have to ask Tal, but he said that she at times was positively gushing over the church and said at one point that she said something about how she would love to be a Mormon. He came away feeling like it wasn't going to be an objective portrayal of the church.

Since when does objectivity automatically equate with criticism? I objectively studied the church for some time without anyone knowing before I joined it, and I didn't have much to criticize. Sometimes being objective also means understanding why some things appear wrong to some people and not to others. When objectivity invariably translates into criticism for a certain group of people then maybe they have a bias.

Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who? That's the biggest bunch of bullshalocky I've heard in a long time. Daniel can't have it both ways. Either his prophet's the prophet, or else Islam's prophet is the prophet. So which is it?

He doesn't think he was ever a true prophet. He's said many times that he was a false prophet. Why does one person's facetious guess suddenly turn into verified information?

[_CaliforniaKid]

He doesn't think he was ever a true prophet. He's said many times that he was a false prophet. Why does one person's facetious guess suddenly turn into verified information?

I thought LDS believed that Muhammad was halfway-inspired or something like that?

[_Runtu]

Since when does objectivity automatically equate with criticism? I objectively studied the church for some time without anyone knowing before I joined it, and I didn't have much to criticize. Sometimes being objective also means understanding why some things appear wrong to some people and not to others. When objectivity invariably translates into criticism for a certain group of people then maybe they have a bias.

I did not say objectivity equates with criticism. From what Tal told me, she seemed unwilling to even discuss any problems with the church and instead focused on the church's positive self-portrayal, which to me seems not to be objective.

[_dartagnan]

I'm assuming they've banned Kevin's sock puppet, again... yes? What else can they do... torture him? How bad do they really want to be?

I don’t know because I haven’t tried it yet, but they did block the proxy server I was using to post as X1X as few days ago, which makes me wonder why they said, “He can continue on his board.” Well I know I can. Mainly because they’ve never been successful at stopping me, but I much prefer to observe than post. Only on rare occasions is the temptation too much for me to endure, and that seeing a bunch of misinformed LDS talk about how Muhammed was probably a prophet, is just too much to ignore.

Mormons believe Muhammud was a prophet? Since when? Says who?

Seven posters believe he was a bona fide prophet, same as Joseph Smith and Moses. Twenty-eight posters believe he was inspired by God to teach an “ethical monotheism”; whatever that is supposed to mean. Twenty-six posters said he was a false prophet. I think it safe to assume all the non-LDS posters who represent atheists and non-LDS Christianity, fall into the latter category.

Dan says he is not sure if Muhammed was a prophet. He leaves the door open on that one and it he comes across as a guy who is desperately trying to find out that this is true. He likes to reiterate what the first presidency said about religious leaders being inspired by God. He likes to reiterate what LDS leaders said (post 1854) about Islam as a misunderstood, persecuted religion. These guys spoke in public about how Islam was always on the defense and it was misrepresented by Christian scholars the same as Mormonism. Already you can see a sense of brotherhood intended here between the two faiths. 19th century Mormonism was very much anti-Christianity. Brigham Young frequently lambasted the “so-called Christian” world. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Once I posted excerpts from LDS leaders predating this 1855 “let’s build bridges with Islam” movement, and the mods deleted them from the forum. Why? Because Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt didn’t have much to say about Islam and Muhammad that was nice.

I'm sure they're referring to crashing the party as in being uninvited. "They" are the as yet unidentified critics who invade their sewing circle/faith promotion device/bull session.

Well, how many people are actually invited to discussion forums anyway? The people I discuss with do not have problems with me, unless theya re Juliann, DCP and some other henchman for FAIR.

[_harmony]

Once I posted excerpts from LDS leaders predating this 1855 “let’s build bridges with Islam” movement, and the mods deleted them from the forum. Why? Because Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt didn’t have much to say about Islam and Muhammad that was nice.

Perhaps they got this one right for a change?