DiscussMormonism.com

I just created a new user, RequestFromSethbag, and was in the act of posting to MADB the following, but this new account was banned before I could even get the post off, and in fact it would appear that my IP address has now been banned.

Here is the post I was attempting to make in request for reconsideration. I trust that at least one member of the MAD mod staff will read it, and consider it.

*************************************************************************************

I don't mean this to be argumentative, and I'll try not to make it such, but I did want to clarify something.

I'm asking for reconsideration of my banning. I recognize that I am/was a guest here, however I don't feel that the banning was warranted.

As I said, he was not contributing in an acceptable fashion as most critics here do. Not only was he speaking ill of a Prophet, and saying the Lord doesn't exist (in a rude manner), he also associated thinking of another poster or the church to the Taliban.

I don't know what was considered "speaking ill of a Prophet." I said that the Prophet is actually speaking for himself, not God, since God doesn't actually exist. If non-believers are to be allowed at all on this board, I think that the belief that the LDS Prophet isn't really talking for God is something that ought to be tolerated. Otherwise, very few critics indeed could possibly participate. Who else but believing LDS does believe that the LDS Prophet talks with and for God? I wasn't trying to be rude about it.

I did say that the Lord doesn't exist. Here's the direct quote: "The real answer is much more simple, though. There is no Lord. It's just people. And yes, I'll offer my comments and criticisms up to people for the decisions and claims they make."

I'm pretty much an atheist nowadays. This means that I don't believe that the Lord exists. I tried not to be overtly rude about it, but I don't believe that the Lord exists, and I said so. Was "There is no Lord. It's just people." really so rude? Is this anymore "rude" than an LDS telling an atheist "I know that God exists"? I don't consider that rude, actually. It's just a disagreement in belief. I'm willing to make sure I always qualify such a statement with things like "I don't think that the Lord exists", or "I don't believe in the Lord", rather than the more matter-of-fact "there is no Lord", if that is required to continue participating here.

To the last point, please reconsider your perception of my inclusion of the word "taliban". I was not saying, or insinuating, that the post I was replying to, or the LDS church, are like the taliban. I was replying to a person who claimed to know the will of God, and to believe it was perfectly fine for him to attempt to get the Will of God as he perceived it applicable to all through the organs of civil government. I mentioned that this approach had been tried before, by several groups, including the Taliban, and that it hadn't worked out too well.

I disapprove of the Taliban, and I believe that LDS people also disapprove of the Taliban, and was, if anything, invoking the disgust for the Taliban that both LDS people and I share, in making my point. I have no problem with the idea of God's Will being codified in law, if God himself actually came down, proved to us all that he really was God, and did it himself. It would be his right. But every other attempt to do it is performed by people, and I just don't believe that this is a good strategy for people to support. And, pragmatically, LDS ought to realize anyhow that, as a very small minority in the world, if God's Will is ever to be codified into law by people, it won't be the LDS version of it.

Anyhow, I apologize if this invocation of mutual disgust for the taliban was confusing, or if anyone thought I was insinuating that the LDS, or that particular poster, were like the Taliban. Given that apparently someone did think that, then I will offer my unqualified apology for it. That was not my intent. And I hereby pledge that, if my account is restored, I will never post the word "Taliban" again on this forum.

Anyhow, thanks for the consideration, and I hope the mods will consider reinstating me.

Go to http://www.hide-my-ip.com/
Download the program and run it. You will then be able to access any sites where your IP has been banned.

I hope they reconsider.

Thanks, MBeesley! That looks like a cool tool.

Really though, I'm not trying to become some arch-nemesis of MAD. I really wish I could have a phone chat with whichever mod it is that hates me so much. We might be able to clear some things up.

To the MAD folk: I have no intention of antagonizing you, or sneaking back with multiple sockpuppets and whatnot. The "sock puppet", if you can call it that, that I just created to try to ask for reconsideration of my banning, actually had the name Sethbag in it! I wasn't trying to be sneaky.

What's ridiculous and very telling is you're able to post here without restraint, and on top of that fact some MAD Mod will actually come here and read your post that he/she wouldn't be able to do otherwise. I'm sure there's some irony in that somewhere...

Sethbag wrote:Thanks, MBeesley! That looks like a cool tool.

You're welcome. It is a cool tool. The downside is, it may make you look like you are posting from Texas! :D

Heh, I saw that "RequestfromSethbag" avatar, in italics down at the bottom. I thought... "when is his post going to appear?" You took too long composing a petition that would have been too long and complicated anyway. Remember, they only post a line or two at a time, and even that is taxing on their capacities for spelling and grammar. LOL They don't have time for the intricacies of your deep thoughts and perspectives, Seth. If you try to contact them again, keep it simple. No, that's not enough. You have to really, really dumb it down. Kiss ass and beg in very basic terms, and maybe they'll give you a break. Probably not, though.

Seth: I've seen the MA&D mods reconsider and change their minds. Fairly recently they did so with [I forget who but maybe Tarski?]

As I said in several of my previous replies, I think that on days when they are feeling particularly stressed they have very short fuses and do sometimes read antagonism into something when it was not intended that way. I do find this similar to my experience in the Mormon Church in that the people in my ward *really* got defensive when as a new convert I would ask questions. I once asked in Gospel Essentials class "What is considered scripture by Mormons?" and got the hairy eyeball and an anger/defence type response from the stake missionaries. I honestly had no clue that would be considered an out-of-bounds question. Any other church I had ever attended always lists their doctrine, beliefs and practices on a little welcome brochure in the hallway. I always like to be informed about those basics. I have concluded that if your mindset is that everyone is attacking you, you will see attack from all quarters. I find that sad and depressing.

I hope they do reconsider and allow anyone who wants to participate to be there. It wouldn't hurt for people's skin to get toughened up. I learned that when first encountering atheists at RfM! It was shocking to me at first and then enlightening. To any LDS who is "tired" of the "tired old" issues maybe they need to take a break. I don't say that as a shot but seriously, sometimes you do need to take a step back and spend time in different arenas.

The issues are always going to be "old" by definition because there are always newbies showing up to whom the issues are brand new. You can't say "asked and answered" every time someone asks a question that has been previously addressed. Otherwise, what would be the reason for that forum again? Also, there is a limit to the number of issues, is there not? So, by definition, after discussion, they are all going to be "old", except for new things that arise, e.g., DNA studies.

Maybe MA&D could practice the scriptural principle of "Jubilee" in that every seventh year everybody gets a break. LOL (In the Old Testament it was no taxes that year, If I recall correctly). Maybe they could fast forward it and reinstate people every 7th week or every 7th day, depending on how egregious their offence is judged. It could be Amnesty Day for Bannites. :)

But yeah, I wouldn't say Taliban over there. Especially if you're a "critic" past your sell-by date.

Sometimes they get jumpy. I made a post one time saying how much I appreciated hearing from the LDS perspective and I was told that I was pushing it and they weren't going to put up with that.

Oh!

Seth: I've seen the MA&D mods reconsider and change their minds. Fairly recently they did so with [I forget who but maybe Tarski?]

That was because DCP intervened in his behalf.

So seth, get a high profile apologist to plead your case, and you're in like Flynn - not that I understand why you think it's worth the bother.