Howdy all. Just to clarify the sequence of events, I had posted my FLDS analogy and a few other posts in the afternoon, then got suspended for the FLDS comment. When I tried to access the page later that evening, I was denied saying my account was locked out.
The "sockpuppet" was actually an "L. Ron Hubbard" account I created last year as a joke in a scientology-related thread over there, so I logged in as L. Ron to see what happened. When I saw it was my analogy that did it, I couldn't believe it. I assumed there must have been some misunderstanding, so I thought I'd post to try and explain it (knowing full well the "consequences" for poor L. Ron). The L. Ron Hubbard account didn't have anything to do with the original suspension.
Frankly, I can't believe it was
that comment that got me suspended. I can think of at least 10 other posts where I was sure it was my last post. I wasn't equating anybody with anything. I was just trying to point out why some groups might be sensitive to having other groups classified under the same moniker, since LDS seem to be surprised that mainstream Christians take offense to having Mormons called "Christians", not to mention indignant when mainstream Christians try to control the definition of the word "Christian". From a branding perspective, it makes perfect sense. It was an analogy, and I wasn't claiming that FLDS
want to be called Mormons. The analogy works if you can just imagine how LDS would feel if FLDS
did want to be called "Mormon" (and published books like "Are FLDS Mormon?" arguing for a broader, historically based definition of "Mormon" that isn't limited by the narrow LDS definition).
For the record, I absolutely believe LDS
are Christians, but I think LDS need to acknowledge why Christians want to be protective of their "brand" (or at least acknowledge they might have a point). Compare that with the attitude shown here on the Church website:
LDS Church Will Tell You When And How You Can Use The Term "Mormon", Journalist Be-yatches
I'm still not sure which rule I broke, or how my comments are snarkier or sarcastic-ier than Pahoran or DCP's (awesomely entertaining) retorts. But such things are obviously not put up for discussion or public appeal, so I'll never know. I like to flatter myself and pretend that my sarcastic remarks are the modern day critical equivalent of Jesus' parables. They appear to be simple barbs on first read, but upon further reflection, there may be a layer of commentary hidden only for those who think about it. I am loathe to spell it out after the fact, because it's like a joke. If you have to explain it...
As to why I participate on MADB and not more critical boards, a lot of it is just habit. I only hang out at boards with thread topics that are really interesting, and I only post to threads where I feel I have something informational, insightful, or humorous to share. This being my first visit to this board, I've obviously found one thread that would count as "really interesting" (hey! My name's in a thread title!), and here I am sharing a little information.
I also post to the "invisible reader" at MADB, thinking of those people who lurk and might have questions, and then read one of my posts and maybe see things a little differently (or just realize that it's OK to question the claims of the apologetic ramblers and still go to Church), just as so many other posters have helped me see things differently over the past few years. I assume boards with a higher concentration of critics attract fewer of these questioning lurkers, so I would just be preaching to the choir (granted, critics are an great choir), but I would feel less effective if I were just posting to entertain people who already agree with me.