Coggins7 wrote:Those that are banned are normally those who cannot, like yourself, abide civil, respectful, critical debate undertaken in good faith.
Do you have difficulty with the verbal comprehension sections on tests? Because I clearly said I was NOT banned. I left that moral vacuum voluntarily, in protest.
Coggins7 wrote:...who will not endure civil, relevant, respectful debate or stay on topic once debate has began. Everyone knows the moderation policies at MAD, and they're really not that hard to follow.
Can you stay on-topic? Can you be respectful? Can you be civil? I suppose since you're a theist you're used to needing some rules passed down from some higher source to keep you in line 'cause you evidently can't do it here with minimal moderation.
For the record, I was not banned for incivility at the old, ironically named FAIRboard. I was first queued after I pointed out that the Church's ban on interracial marriage has never officially been rescinded. Later, while trying to post from the queue, DCP attempted to smear me with some post I did not write, which he supposedly found over on RfM. I was perfectly civil during my all-too-short stint on FAIR/MAD.
Why even bother to reply to ole' coggie? This guy is either a liar or delusional, as his denial of the former temple p**, l**, a** demonstrates. I suspect that his brain has been addled.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Someone started a thread about one of the conference talks, and everyone was just going on and on about how wonderful it was. I had a funny image of church members in the 1800's sitting around after conference talking about how great those talks were, and then apologists 140 years later totally downgrading those same 19th century talks to the level of "personal opinion" when some teaching contradicts current thinking, with the convoluted definitions of what is "official doctrine" compared to "personal opinion".
So I thought it would be interesting to see if those same modern LDS could so clearly distinguish between the "doctrine" or "personal opinion" in talks given just hours ago, without the decades of scrutiny to help them out. But it looks like modern Church members aren't any better than our forebears at such a task (and they aren't even interested in talking about it).
Oddly, my remark was 100% sincere, with no cynicism intended, but some seemed to interpret it that way. It would have been helpful if they just could have said the talk was 100% doctrinal, or that they couldn't tell the difference.
Someone started a thread about one of the conference talks, and everyone was just going on and on about how wonderful it was. I had a funny image of church members in the 1800's sitting around after conference talking about how great those talks were, and then apologists 140 years later totally downgrading those same 19th century talks to the level of "personal opinion" when some teaching contradicts current thinking, with the convoluted definitions of what is "official doctrine" compared to "personal opinion".
So I thought it would be interesting to see if those same modern LDS could so clearly distinguish between the "doctrine" or "personal opinion" in talks given just hours ago, without the decades of scrutiny to help them out. But it looks like modern Church members aren't any better than our forebears at such a task (and they aren't even interested in talking about it).
Oddly, my remark was 100% sincere, with no cynicism intended, but some seemed to interpret it that way. It would have been helpful if they just could have said the talk was 100% doctrinal, or that they couldn't tell the difference.
You'll be reinstated, just like Tarski. A ban is only a ban if it's permanent and comes with a black-out to the site.
I love their new mantra: "Mormon board for Mormons".
Like I said, I actually find this very amusing, as MAD devolves into the very thing so many of the MADdites once protested: the biased moderating of the Tanner's board.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Oh, here's the explanation for the testy moderators:
Conference will be a topic for days so we will keep the topic on LDD for convenience. The critics need to be very very respectful in thread about big events that are important to Mormons.
In other words, MAD Mormons demand and expect obsequious pandering, especially on threads about Big Events that are important to Mormons (like Joseph Smith in general, past polygamy, the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham - In other words, every topic of interest to participants on that board.)
Critics, get your kissy lips exercised and at the ready.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:I love their new mantra: "Mormon board for Mormons".
Like I said, I actually find this very amusing, as MAD devolves into the very thing so many of the MADdites once protested: the biased moderating of the Tanner's board.
I guess that old saying of walking in someones shoes before you criticize them is coming home to roost. Or as Jesus said: judge not that you be not judged because how ever you judge then you will be judged that way.
beastie wrote:I love their new mantra: "Mormon board for Mormons."
Hah. I saw that, too.
And with that, they officially forfeited their right to criticize RfM for being an "ex-Mormon board for ex-Mormons."
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"