'Major discovery' discussed at Mormon History Assoc. Conf.

Mormon Times ^ | 5/22/2009 | R S Lloyd

[GreyMountainReagan]

"Most of my posts are from the Mormon Times, KSL.com, and the Church News -- all owned directly by the Lds church structure.

Again, I realize what you posts are almost 100% from 'Mormon' sources. I am not keeping a log or anything but it is obvious that you choose your sources to be Mormon.

The posters question was to why so many 'Mormon' posts. I answered it with my opinion about why not what.

Do you disagree with my 'why' so many Mormon posts?

Simply.
Mormons trying to portray Mormon church as good.
Others trying to portray Mormon church as not good.

I thought it was a simple answer to a simple question.

[Colofornian]

Do you disagree with my 'why' so many Mormon posts? Simply. Mormons trying to portray Mormon church as good. Others trying to portray Mormon church as not good. [GMR]

For me, it's NOT even a matter of trying to post "reputation killer" articles -- or as you say, "not good."

Simply put, Lds repeatedly tell us that they "are gods" -- based upon a faulty interpretation of Ps. 82:6 & John 10.
And Lds leaders have repeatedly told us that Lds are "gods-in-embryo."
And then, they back up their godhood story line by citing Matthew 5:48 -- "Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" (and notice it says BE perfect, not BECOME perfect)

Now, believe me, if we had millions & millions of gods, gods-in-embryo, & perfect humans walking around, I'd think we sit up & take note. The fact is, we don't. We don't even have thousands or hundreds or dozens of these types of individuals. We have one God -- who indwells His people -- none of whom live up to God's standard in Matthew 5:48 (or 3 Nephi 12:48) of "beING perfect."

I guess, my hope & prayer is, that at some point, it just might don on "saints" that...
..."Hey, the human evidence seems to be in...maybe we're not gods after all, as our leaders have told us with proof-texts of Ps. 82:6 & John 10."
..."Hey, the human evidence in our church seems to be conclusive other than what & how our leaders have told us to believe...maybe we're not gods-in-embryos, after all, despite what our 'living (& dead) prophets' have said."
..."Hey, I finally see where Matt 5:48 & 3 Nephi 12:48 isn't a command to 'become' eventually perfect in some afterlife, but to BE perfect now...and as I look around, I don't see perfection here or there...I'm never going to be able to 'do all I can do' so that grace would somehow eventually kick in for me." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:23)

[GreyMountainReagan]

So do you agree that the reason there are so many Mormon threads is that:

Mormons trying to portray Mormon church as good.
Others trying to portray Mormon church as not good.

[Colofornian]

So do you agree that the reason there are so many Mormon threads is...

Listen, no FREEPERS who oppose Mormonism created any of the following news stories:
Obama's dead mother being baptized;
the Big Love show;
fundamentalist polygamist raid of its sister Mormons' Texas compound;
150th anniversary of the original 9/11 terrorist act -- Mountain Meadows Massacre;
Mitt Romney
etc.

In fact, the MMM is of such interest that the Utah media wants to keep covering it & covering it & covering it of late.

In one sense, I guess I just don't understand. Utah media covers Mormonism a lot more than what we've seen on FR. (Yet, we don't hear people writing to the Utah media asking them, "Why do you write/report so many stories relating to Mormonism?")

I think what happens then is that Lds would prefer that these stories be kept in a corner within the largely Mormon culture...you'll notice, for example, slams coming from some FR lds trying to mitigate PR damage. Let's face it, even the secular press & the Lds church's own recent polling data reveals it just hasn't been a good year or two for them...

But they can't have it both ways...they can't send out 60,000 missionaries all over the world, provoking people to ask, "What does Mormonism really stand for?" And then when people find out more what goes on "behind the scenes," they can't continually try to dance around that & attempt to explain away the plain meaning of what their leaders have said through the years. (I think that's where we've seen many of the more extended FR conversations)

[GreyMountainReagan]

Listen,

It was a simple question I answered it simply.

But you got me curious and I decided to see who was posting the Mormon articles. Below are the results.

Colorfornian: 16 threads
Restornu: 13 threads
greyfoxx39: 7 threads
The Don: 6 threads
SVCW: 3 threads
Alex Murphy: 3 threads

So my math and checking might be off a little but out of the past 48 threads:

19 out of 48 posted by people who ‘support’ the Mormon church. 40%

29 out of 48 threads posted by people who it appears do not ‘support’ the Mormon church. 60%

About what I posted isn’t it?

[Colofornian]

Your check, tho, doesn't go back to 2007 when the Romney campaign begun in earnest.

I posted only a few handfuls of threads throughout '07 and '08 -- sometimes going 1/3rd of a year or more without posting anything. Many more FReepers were involved in posting threads involving Ldsism in those 2 years. Why? Because Lds were commonly in the news.

And that's my point. Lds want to make these threads issues about the posters. (And you're just reinforcing that). The focus, instead, should be the content of the articles & related commentary to what that content is.

This isn't about the personalities of FR commentators; it's always been about the newsmakers. Those who abnormally focus upon the posters want to distract readers off of the issues.

A FR poster for a while was posting threads pertaining to sexual abuse by religious leaders. Did the Christian community become paranoid that someone was shining a light on dark corners to make Christians look bad? (No) Religious leaders who are abusing kids should have that light turned their way -- and folks shouldn't get all hyper protecting them (except for those who happen to be innocent).

[svcw]

So? Your point?

[GreyMountainReagan]

Your check, tho, doesn't go back to 2007 when the Romney campaign begun in earnest.

Of course my check didn't go back to 2007. I was answering Stinkerpot65's question about:
Why is there suddenly so much Mormon propaganda ... on freerepublic?"

The key word in Stinkerpot's question was suddenly. It really was a simple answer to a simple question.

[GreyMountainReagan]

So?
just pinging you when you are mentioned in a thread.

Your point?
Not to belabor the issue but I was trying to make the point that about 50% of the Mormon threads were posted by those who 'like' the Mormon church. The other 50% were posted by those that do not 'like' the Mormon church.

Nothing more, nothing less. Did you read the posts on this thread?

[svcw]

Ok, got it.

[greyfoxx39]

But you got me curious and I decided to see who was posting the Mormon articles. Below are the results.

So what is the point of your research on who posts and why? Are you congratulating those of us non-mormons for keeping the mormon church in the spotlight and bringing to light many facts that members and the general public are unaware of? If so, thanks!

Are you complaining and suggesting that only mormons should be allowed to post articles that are carefully vetted to continue the message that LDS leaders approve?

Are you planning on spending the time you have invested in your research of who is posting what on FR in researching the facts we post and presenting the sourced, linked rebuttal of those facts so that the discussion may be continued? I would welcome any thread you post that brings your opinion of the mormon message to us for discussion...as long as it is an (Open) thread. That would be a welcome change.

[GreyMountainReagan]

So what is the point of your research on who posts and why?
Research is a little strong of word here. I counted who posted the previous 48 articles on Mormons. I wouldn't call that research. Why did I spend 2 minutes seeing who posted? Just curious.

I'd be much more be interested in a overall FreeRepublic Stats page that listed the top 10 posters and commenters of the week, month, and year.

I am quite bored with all of the questions regarding why I listed the number of threads but I keep getting asked the same question. I think this is the 3rd time being asked. I was just answering stinkerpot65's question. Nothing more or less. Quite simple really.

Are you congratulating those of us non-mormons for keeping the Mormons church in the spotlight and bringing to light many facts that members and the general public are unaware of?
no

Are you complaining and suggesting that only Mormons should be allowed to post articles that are carefully vetted to continue the message that LDS leaders approve?
no

Are you planning on spending the time you have invested in your research of who is posting what on FR in researching the facts we post and presenting the sourced, linked rebuttal of those facts so that the discussion may be continued?
no.
Since my 'research' took all of 2 minutes, spending that much time sparring with you on Mormon threads wouldn't add much to the discussion. Besides the back and forth discussion about religion is not the main reason I belong to FreeRepublic.

I am much more interested in conservative discussion. Most of the discussion on Mormon threads do not interest me.

In fact, I think the Mormon threads damage FR. Most poeple are not interested in Mormons one way or the other and to see so many posts day after day probably turns them off. I don't think most people come here to discuss religion, sports, or the weather. Some do, but if there were 5 threads a day about the Pittsburgh Steelers, I think people would get tired of that also.

Serious Question: Do you think the Mormon threads brings many people to FR, or keep them here?

That would be a welcome change.
Change for Mormon posters in general or change for me personally?

[GreyMountainReagan]

10-4