Banned Members

[clbent04]

I see a lot of banned members on this site.  That doesn't surprise me.  What surprises me is that a good percentage of the banned members have been on this site for years, have made thousands of posts, and had a respectable reputation and amount of likes prior to getting banned.

I would think a vast majority of banned members would be newly formed accounts looking to sabotage the Church right off the bat, and maybe that is the case, it's just surprising to me the number of established, banned accounts I've come across.

I'm assuming pretty much most members who get banned from this site end up attacking the Church in one way or another.  Is that correct or is there another common issue for which members get banned?

I've never understood why people attack the LDS Church. I can understand if they had an unpleasant experience with a member and they need to vent about that person, but why attack the faith? Just take your business somewhere else if the LDS Church isn't doing it for you. 

Does anyone think they have a valid reason to attack the LDS faith? I'm trying to play devil's advocate here to think of a good reason since it seems to be common for people to attack the Church. Maybe if I had a family member who died in the Mountain Meadow Massacre?  I might take issue with that given the disputed involvement of Church leadership, although even then I probably would side with the opinion of Church apologists that Brigham Young had no involvement. Maybe if I was black and denied the Priesthood prior to 1978?  I don't know.  But all the modern reasons the Church is attacked seem so frivolous to me.  Does anyone think they have a valid reason to attack the LDS Church?  Why does it occur so often? 

The general rhetoric I hear from members in the Church as to why the Church is attacked by ex-members is that these people are disgruntled about not being able to conform to Church teachings, but I have a hard time accepting that as the reason since it seems too petty to take issue with.  Like I said, just keep your peace and take your business elsewhere, right?  Why attack an organization that's transparent as possible as to what it represents from the get go?  That's like rooting for a football team and then all of a sudden hating that team because you no longer like football... Just forget football and start watching basketball, dude.

Edited August 8, 2021 by clbent04

[Fether]

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

Why attack an organization that's transparent as possible as to what it represents from the get go?  That's like rooting for a football team and then all of a sudden hating that team because you no longer like football... Just forget football and start watching basketball, dude.

This is gross over simplification of what happens with members when they leave.

some are looking for a reason to leave and they use anti as that… but that isn’t everyone. Some feel they have been lied to by the church by not sharing the more difficult concepts in church history. Some have gone through tragic events and feel the church was not there for them. Some were never taught properly the gospel or were even deceived by well meaning members. Some are disturbed by actions of previous leaders of the church.

I find that we can be more helpful and develop healthy relationships with those that leave the church when we do not assume their motives. Rather we should listen and seek to understand.

As for valid reasons… it depends on what you believe. If you believe the church is seeking to manipulate and gain power through deception and brainwashing… then ya, one may have a valid reason to attack the church 

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the vast majority of bans are done on new members—some who are out-and-out anti, but many who are just spammers.  But when new members who banned they typically haven’t been able to make many posts, so they don’t leave much of a paper trail (at least, not one that’s visible to non-mods, AFAIK).

We’ve had a few long-time posters eventually go anti; but I think most longtime members who get banned tended to be overly abrasive/combative/personally contemptuous towards other board members.  Sometimes when a person has a long history of posting on the board and is generally compliant with site rules, a single post that would raise eyebrows if it came from a newcomer might get a bit of leeway from the mod staff—the mods know so-and-so, they understand the point he’s trying to make and they get that he’s not deliberately trying to be a jerk.  But over time people don’t tone it down and feelings get hurt and rifts develop and “bluntness”, unchecked, degenerates into “toxicity”; and at some point the mod staff has no choice but to do a ban in order to end the drama. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I would think a vast majority of banned members would be newly formed accounts looking to sabotage the Church right off the bat, and maybe that is the case, it's just surprising to me the number of established, banned accounts I've come across.

Thinking over my years as an admin, I'd say 80-90% of banned members are spambots.  If we admins are on our admin toes, none of y'all ever see anything from them, because we're fast. 

Most everyone else plays by the same set of rules, first strike is a warning, second strike is a suspension and moderator post approval for a while, third strike is a ban.

Some folks' behavior is so over-the-top that they get an instant ban.  Maybe the dozen or so times that's happened that I can remember, I'd say 8-9 are wolves who come here poorly dressed as sheep.  The rest have been here a while, but for whatever reason, go off this or that deep end and get themselves ushered out.

Occasionally we will have someone do the message forum version of "suicide by cop", where they demand a ban but don't break any rules, then they post some pr0n or something to force our hand. 

This place has a special place forever in my heart for two reasons:
- I once banned some of the Lord's anointed - official real live full-time missionaries.  They were here on a test program from the church, but just couldn't for the life of them obey the site rules.  If I remember correctly, the decision went all the way up to a General Authority, who said something like "If they can't obey the rules, they should experience the same consequences as any regular member."  Pam gave the go-ahead, I clicked the button.
- I once received moderator action.  Like over 10 years ago - before I was a mod.  I get to live the folksy wisdom "I'd never be a member of a forum that would have the likes of me as a member", and tested the patience of a moderator at the time. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

once banned some of the Lord's anointed - official real live full-time missionaries.  They were here on a test program from the church, but just couldn't for the life of them obey the site rules.  If I remember correctly, the decision went all the way up to a General Authority, who said something like "If they can't obey the rules, they should experience the same consequences as any regular member."  

Wow! 

[clbent04]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

- I once received moderator action.  Like over 10 years ago - before I was a mod.  I get to live the folksy wisdom "I'd never be a member of a forum that would have the likes of me as a member", and tested the patience of a moderator at the time. 

I would've never guessed this. Can you please post the link to that post? Lol

[Just_A_Guy]

54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Thinking over my years as an admin, I'd say 80-90% of banned members are spambots.  If we admins are on our admin toes, none of y'all ever see anything from them, because we're fast. 

Most everyone else plays by the same set of rules, first strike is a warning, second strike is a suspension and moderator post approval for a while, third strike is a ban.

Some folks' behavior is so over-the-top that they get an instant ban.  Maybe the dozen or so times that's happened that I can remember, I'd say 8-9 are wolves who come here poorly dressed as sheep.  The rest have been here a while, but for whatever reason, go off this or that deep end and get themselves ushered out.

Occasionally we will have someone do the message forum version of "suicide by cop", where they demand a ban but don't break any rules, then they post some pr0n or something to force our hand. 

This place has a special place forever in my heart for two reasons:
- I once banned some of the Lord's anointed - official real live full-time missionaries.  They were here on a test program from the church, but just couldn't for the life of them obey the site rules.  If I remember correctly, the decision went all the way up to a General Authority, who said something like "If they can't obey the rules, they should experience the same consequences as any regular member."  Pam gave the go-ahead, I clicked the button.
- I once received moderator action.  Like over 10 years ago - before I was a mod.  I get to live the folksy wisdom "I'd never be a member of a forum that would have the likes of me as a member", and tested the patience of a moderator at the time. 

Oh my gosh, the internet missionaries!  I’d forgotten.

Good times . . .

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh my gosh, the internet missionaries!  I’d forgotten.

Good times . . .

My first in depth contact with a missionary was online. 

[clbent04]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I once banned some of the Lord's anointed - official real live full-time missionaries.  They were here on a test program from the church, but just couldn't for the life of them obey the site rules.  If I remember correctly, the decision went all the way up to a General Authority, who said something like "If they can't obey the rules, they should experience the same consequences as any regular member."  Pam gave the go-ahead, I clicked the button.

What’s funny is how this went up all the way to a General Authority. I have no doubt the online missionaries deserved to be banned. Do online missionaries still use Third Hour to proselyte? 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

- I once banned some of the Lord's anointed - official real live full-time missionaries.  They were here on a test program from the church, but just couldn't for the life of them obey the site rules.  If I remember correctly, the decision went all the way up to a General Authority, who said something like "If they can't obey the rules, they should experience the same consequences as any regular member."  Pam gave the go-ahead, I clicked the button.

What rules were they breaking?

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

What rules were they breaking?

Yeah, @NeuroTypical we need the entire story here bro. 

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, Fether said:

What rules were they breaking?

As I recall the ones we attracted tended to be really spammy/repetitive, and they posted more personal info about themselves than the mods were comfortable with given site rules at the time (links to personal blogs and social media pages, etc).  Relatively minor stuff, really; but then when the mod staff asked them to adjust their style they got into a big-headed “You can’t correct me—I represent Jesus and His Apostles and you internet nobodies need to get in line with the Brethren!” sort of schtick.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I recall the ones we attracted tended to be really spammy/repetitive, and they posted more personal info about themselves than the mods were comfortable with given site rules at the time (links to personal blogs and social media pages, etc).  Relatively minor stuff, really; but then when the mod staff asked them to adjust their style they got into a big-headed “You can’t correct me—I represent Jesus and His Apostles and you internet nobodies need to get in line with the Brethren!” sort of schtick.

Thanks @Just_A_Guy. I was curious too. 

[Fether]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

when the mod staff asked them to adjust their style they got into a big-headed “You can’t correct me—I represent Jesus and His Apostles and you internet nobodies need to get in line with the Brethren!” sort of schtick.

That’s amazing XD

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

That’s amazing XD

To be fair, they were kids at the time and very naive. No, that doesn’t make it right, but hopefully it makes it understandable. Yes, it's still obnoxious. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

To be fair, they were kids at the time and very naive. No, that doesn’t make it right, but hopefully it makes it understandable. Yes, it's still obnoxious. 

I just had flash backs to my mission where there were some elders and sisters that had suck strange views on their calling as missionaries. Almost as if they were wizards or given the license to kill.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

I just had flash backs to my mission where there were some elders and sisters that had suck strange views on their calling as missionaries. Almost as if they were wizards or given the license to kill.

Wow! 
 

Well, I never went on a mission but I like the Harry Potter series. How is that? 😉 

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Wow! 
 

Well, I never went on a mission but I like the Harry Potter series. How is that? 😉 

There was a pair of sisters that felt it was appropriate to stay inside all day and pray in hopes of a miracle. This is all well and good except for the fact that they didn’t really work any other day of the transfer either. We kept track of numbers and the amount of work they did in a month equated to what others could do in a day.

Another Elder, a district leader, had the sacrament performed in a district meeting. He didn’t have enough elders so he just had the sisters pass the sacrament.

Then there is the famous story of sisters not having enough gas to get to church so, in faith, they filled their tank up with water… and destroyed their car as they drove off. (Still not sure how true this one is)

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

 

Then there is the famous story of sisters not having enough gas to get to church so, in faith, they filled their tank up with water… and destroyed their car as they drove off. (Still not sure how true this one is)

I’ve heard that one too. 

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve heard that one too. 

I don’t think it’s true… but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be surprised if it were. There is this level of pure faith, that when combined with ignorance of the gospel, produces some hilarious and often times cringeworthy results.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don’t think it’s true… but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be surprised if it were. There is this level of pure faith, that when combined with ignorance of the gospel, produces some hilarious and often times cringeworthy results.

I don’t think it’s true either. I know nothing about cars but even I know that would ruin one. 
 

But you can use Pepsi, right? 

[Still_Small_Voice]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

There was a pair of sisters that felt it was appropriate to stay inside all day and pray in hopes of a miracle. This is all well and good except for the fact that they didn’t really work any other day of the transfer either. We kept track of numbers and the amount of work they did in a month equated to what others could do in a day.

Faith without works is dead, being alone. 

LORD, please bless me with some money.  Well, we have some job opportunities for you.  When can you start work?

No.  The LORD is going to bless me with some money.

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I recall the ones we attracted tended to be really spammy/repetitive, and they posted more personal info about themselves than the mods were comfortable with given site rules at the time (links to personal blogs and social media pages, etc).  Relatively minor stuff, really; but then when the mod staff asked them to adjust their style they got into a big-headed “You can’t correct me—I represent Jesus and His Apostles and you internet nobodies need to get in line with the Brethren!” sort of schtick.

Yep.  And, they would grab onto any newcomer and pepper them with private messages asking them to arrange phone meetings where they could teach the gospel.  And they did the same thing to anyone expressing a struggle or problem or issue.  Keep in mind it was a pilot test program - the church was in it's early years of trying to figure out how to more effectively use the internet, and this was one of the things they tried.  So the missionaries showed up to do their "2 hours a week online proselytizing", as directed by their mission presidents, and they crashed head-on into some of our rules:

13. You will not use this site to solicit the sale of any product, service or website. You will not use this site to promote a money making venture or contest. If appropriate, you may post a link to your personal website or to your business on your profile, in your forum signature, and you make create one post in the web link section of the forum.

The missionaries would make post after post with no content other than posting their personal info and asking people to contact them.

 

Please choose carefully the information you post on Third Hour and that you provide to other Users. You may NOT include any of the following information anywhere on Third Hour, including private messages: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names... Email addresses should NEVER be posted to the general public.

This site rule basically killed that test program, which relied on the missionaries using this forum to generate contacts to whom they could connect personally and give the lessons. 

 

So this particular test program was doomed to fail here, but the attitude the missionaries copped just made it impossible.

 

In related news, yesterday, our ward missionaries worked with me to get our ward's zoom link to some investigators, and I got information back to them on who attended.  That's much better internet savvy. 

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, Fether said:

I don’t think it’s true… but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be surprised if it were. There is this level of pure faith, that when combined with ignorance of the gospel, produces some hilarious and often times cringeworthy results.

Hugh Nibley has a great talk entitled "Zeal without knowledge"

https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONKC/Zeal Without Knowledge.pdf

[dprh]

12 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I don’t think it’s true either. I know nothing about cars but even I know that would ruin one. 
 

But you can use Pepsi, right? 

Only if it's caffeine-free