[SZonian]

(courtesy ping to JR...)

So, let me see if I understand...

The FR founder decides he’s going to post a vanity on a religious topic, in the RF asking if anyone knows if he’s misunderstanding, asking for their opinions and understandings.

Yet, because he happens to mention 2 men, who, in the 19th century claimed to be prophets, he’s now advocating that FR is to be known as an “anti-mormon” site?

He’s not banning mormon FReepers unless they themselves crossed the lines of good decorum. But they and their companions refuse to see it that way.

To them, it’s a bias against mormons if they get banned for overtly and deliberately lying, calling FReepers Nazis, stalking, attempting to implicate FReepers in murder, etc.

Is this all it takes to be branded as an “anti-mormon”? The legitimate and Biblically based questioning of their “prophets”?

[Washi]

To them, it’s a bias against mormons if they get banned for overtly and deliberately lying, calling FReepers Nazis, stalking, attempting to implicate FReepers in murder, etc.

I'm sure that somewhere, someone knows what in the heck you are talking about, but you lost me.