Apropos of the Post Immediately Below

I.e, this one:

I mentioned that a long discussion on ACNA's "dual integrities" policy at the "unofficial" ACNA page had been taken down due to what appears to be force being brought to bear upon the original poster.  That this appears to be the case is evident in a follow-up discussion there on why that long discussion vaporized.  Here's the original post from one of that page's moderators, Fr. Ed McNeill:

A little earlier a post with over 300 comments was removed from the group. It was a very good conversation marked by civility and passion. It was well done and everyone who participated on it is to be commended for their behavior.

So who removed it? Well, the only people who can remove a post are the moderators and the person who made the post. It does not appear that a moderator removed it. If I find out otherwise I'll let you all know.

The first comment elicited was from Fr. John Linebarger and was followed by a reply thereto by yours truly, the Embryo Parson:

John M. Linebarger It was removed? Wow ... some people put a lot of thought into their responses. And it was indeed marked by passion yet civility. I'm glad as a ref you just let the players play. It was quite informative.

Christopher Clark Indeed, Fr. Linebarger. I lament the fact that such a substantive and relevant discussion vaporized. If the original poster just willy-nilly took the thread down, that possibly says something about his stability. If on the other hand someone made him take it down, well, that's a more interesting hypothesis.

Later in the discussion, I reiterated the possibility that he was compelled to take it down:

Christopher Clark Maybe someone brought the wrath down on the poster.

Which elicited this response from Cindy Larsen and my reply:

Cindy Larsen Why would you say that, Christopher Clark? The conversation was polite and informative.

Christopher Clark I agree that the conversation was polite and informative, but it was also, arguably, controversial. I'm just speculating that someone might have brought force to bear. I guess we'll never know. ;)

Indeed, as is clearly evident in the discussion, the conversation was "polite and informative", "indeed marked by passion yet civility", and to which several contributors "put a lot of thought into their responses."

So why did it disappear?  Fr. McNeill speculated:

One of our moderators is at the College of Bishops. It is possible that the poster's bishop asked him to take it down, but also unlikely as there was little to be offended by in the post or the discussion.

Prompting my question:

Perhaps you could ask him?

To which no response was made.

Near the end of the discussion, Fr. Linebarger reported in with some information, and the following exchange between him and me ensued:

John M. Linebarger The original post was not removed by a moderator, nor was it removed under any external pressure. I'll just leave it at that. No conspiracy or muzzling at play in any way.

Christopher Clark So someone has told you something that you're not at liberty to share?

John M. Linebarger I am a priest, dontcha know ...;)

Christopher Clark John M. Linebarger A priest in ACNA. Got it.  That's not a slam, BTW. Just saying I hear ya.

Katherine Harris Rick then suggested we ask the original poster.  This is what followed.

Katherine Harris Rick well let's ask him!

Katherine Harris Rick Okay I just messaged him but he doesn't know me from Eve so if anyone knows him, ask him yourselves!

And three days later, she reported in:

Katherine Harris Rick He is not responding.

So, the upshot of it is that the original poster is not saying whether or not he deleted the thread, but Fr. Linebarger reports that "the original post was not removed by a moderator, nor was it removed under any external pressure", but as he is a priest under authority, he can't say any more.

Which I think answers, with a high degree of probability,  the question of why the thread vaporized.

You know, I understand the dilemma that ACNA's Bishops currently find themselves in with respect to the dual integrities policy.  I suspect that right now it's all about damage control: trying to keep the ACNA as intact as it can be kept when the official word comes down on women's ordination.  So, I can understand why pressure was brought to bear on the original poster, if that is what happened (and I believe it is what happened).  However, it was ACNA officialdom's addled policy of dual integrities that has caused all the strife in the first place.  Neither the original poster nor anyone else who desires to publicly air their concerns and theories about what’s going on behind the scenes are culpable, and IF pressure was brought to bear on this poster from somewhere inside ACNA officialdom to delete the discussion , and as I said I believe that this is precisely what happened, well, that's as unconscionable as it is futile  .

Just this blogger's humble opinion.