Why so many LDS threads?

I am posting this on behalf of many LDS freepers. They will post their own 'signature' to this in the comments below. --- Some of you have noticed lately a lot of LDS (ie: Mormon) threads here on FR. I'm going to tell you why.

For many years there have been several active LDS freepers here. We post to all the forums on relevant issues, and were happy to have a site where conservative values were so openly welcomed.

Those conservative values include faith in God, and freedom of religion. We fully respect the rights of all posters to express their opinions and views on religious matters, even when people choose to use those rights to express criticism of our own faith. We also support the ideas embodied in FR rules against religion bashing. There is no need for hostility and there should be no room for bigotry on FR. Every religion has it's miracles and mysteries. Every faith has things in it that are not or can not be proven, and things that run contrary to what secular science would have us believe. Someone mature and confident in their own faith generally doesn't feel the need to belittle the faith of others.

We have, to the best of our ability, conducted ourselves with civility and dignity. We do not feel that that respect has been returned by some posters (putting it mildly).

When Mormon missionaries were murdered, the moderators were kept busy pulling jubilant posts off the thread. When Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home, we contended for months with posters who appeared to be motivated by religious bigotry doing all they could to smear the family and accuse the father. Several posters openly admitted their religious motivation in opposing Mitt Romney and confessed that no matter how conservative any Mormon was, they would never vote for one for President of the USA. When the Pope died, I don't think any Mormon poster posted anything unkind, yet the thread about the passing of our President recently needed many comments removed.

Nearly every thread having any connection with Mormons, or Utah winds up being hijacked by anti-Mormon activists who copy and paste the same false accusations over and over even when it has been clearly and factually pointed out to them on multiple occasions that they are bearing false witness against our faith. Everything possible is done by these activists to make FR a hostile place for Mormons, and for at least some of them, bashing Mormonism is all they do here. Their most recent project is trying to blur the fact that the polygamous FLDS is a separate and distinct religion from ours, just as Lutherans are a separate and distinct religion from Catholicism.

In our opinion, such poster do a great disservice to FR and to their fellow freepers by spreading disinformation and promoting hostility towards a people known for walking the walk of conservative values.

Why the moderators here don't see the behavior of these anti-Mormon activists as religion bashing is a mystery to us, but it is the moderators call to make and we respect their right to do so. That doesn't mean we have to be passive however. We have all spent many hours refuting the accusations leveled at our faith, but these wind up buried deep in a flood of comments, effectively shouting us down.

Recently some of us have decided to take a more proactive approach. Rather than try to wrestle the pig into taking a bath, we are just going to hose it down. We will actively define our faith here rather than just respond to accusations.

So expect to see lots of Mormon threads, now and for as long as we see fit to keep posting them (although probably not as many as there are Catholic threads). They will be about our basic doctrines and responses to common accusations. If you want to know what our faith is about, read the articles we post. We will post them as open threads and I encourage you to compare the difference in tone and spirit between what we post and what our critics say.

This is precisely why we need a second witness, one is too easy to misinterpret. I understand the frustration you have that since you only have the Bible it's difficult to actually know what it's testifying of, the Bible itself says "Cor 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." and you have only one witness, the Bible.

If you are claiming the bom to be that second witness, then it first stands and falls upon the credibility of the writer – Joseph Smith – how well would his word stand up in a court of law. Not too well as a convicted treasure seeker/scam artist from his NY days to a perjuring witness denying that he was wed to multiple women while in reality he was married to at least 9. His First Vision stories are contradictory. His translation of the Book of Breathing papyrus has been shown to be bogus. He claimed to have started translating the Kinderhook plates – which were shown to be fraud by both the perpetrators as well as modern metals testing. And while we are talking credibility, still waiting for those great archaeological discoveries to be headlined in every major anthropological and archaeological publication documenting where the bom cities are in N. America. Your Three Witnesses were all excommunicated and denounced by Smith as liars. Most of the remaining 8 witnesses left the LDS within a short period too.

Being contextually challenged too, the immediate contextual setting for 2Cor 13 is that Paul quoting this passage from Deuteronomy 19:15, and quotes it in reference to his coming visit. Either the two or three witnesses are Paul’s three visits, or the testimony of his associates. But the point of the quotation is to remind the Corinthian Christians that he comes this time as a judge. He has enough evidence to write, “If I come again I will not spare.” Sadly (for DU), this has nothing to do with the supposed witness of the bom.

Have you heard of The Johannine Comma?

Red herring – the understanding about it has been out longer than you have been alive. How about the thousands of changes to the bom? Which Bible is it that's complete, the Catholic, or the Protestant one?

Mormons would say the Protestant one, since by doctrine mormons do not accept the apocrypha – more obfuscation. However, more to the point is why aren’t mormons using the Joseph Smith Translation and discarding the KJV, since the JST was fixed by Smith via revelation.

Why isn't the book of Enoch (quoted by in all the Gospels and by Jesus himself in the Bible? (it's in the dead sea scrolls as part of the scriptures)

Psssssst. Those alleged quotes came from the section of 1 Enoch called the Similitudes. Subtle hint – Similitudes are not present at the dss site. More subtle hint - most scholars believe they were written well after the time of Christ. But that doesn’t matter either since Enoch was never considered scripture by the Jews or Christians. But then that should not be a problem for the church with a living seer and prophet – those books could be added to the lds canon at any time.

Why are there so many different Bibles, new ones being added seemingly every day? (Somebody thinks they need a new version interpreted their way...)

Yes, more ways to express the richness of the greek and Hebrew in a way understandable to todays society. But why hasn’t the mormon church canonized the JST since that was the inspired cure all for the KJV translation???????

So is it denigration to point out the truth? (anti's keep claiming that is all they are doing, you can't have it both ways...)

What is denigrating? Only your poorly researched presentation in an attempt to discredit the bible to the eyes of Christians (but then you don’t participate in that).

God did Tell of a coming falling away... 2 Thes. 2: 1-3
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I have asked mormons this with no answer - who is the son of perdition – he should be revealed and recognized for all to see? Name him. Has Christ returned? Biblical key word study of the term day of Christ or similar indicates the end of times. Have we been in the end of times since????????

More tripe and mis application of 1 John.

The anti Mormons what to they typically do when faced with this?

Since you have identified me as an anti in the past, you are broad brushing here. Reading these, you seem to make my points. Never the less, as a challenge to the bible the claims of the bom must also be examined as the Bereans examined Paul’s testimony. They weren’t condemned for it as you condemn us. The bom calls for people to pray about it. So lets see about these excuses

Try to explain why the Book of Mormon can't be true.

Lets just say that the overwhelming evidence (and the lack of the proof) shows that there was no Nephi civilization in the new world during the periods of time claimed by the bom. Further, studies have shown the native Americans to be Mongolian descent – not Jewish by multiple physical, and dna related methods. The story is false and only a false spirit would convince otherwise

Impugn the name of dead men in an attempt to make Mormons look weird.

One doesn’t have to work hard at all, they did a pretty good job of doing it all by themselves. BTW, being dead does not infer credibility to these dead people one bit, their credibility is still open to evaluation and challenge. But then that’s what they pay FARMS for.

Testify that they didn't receive an answer.

Bottom line here is that DU is calling all of you who received an resounding NO, are liars in an effort to mute our testimony, as he had done with me in the past to others without the honor to ping me on his comments.

Lie about our doctrine

Much time here has been given to present mormon doctrine – even from non-canon sources (which heaven forbid an anti would try to do). Your problem is that we just won’t let you do you spin job on the exposed truth.

Misquote our leaders

As one Freeper P-marlo showed, Young taught the Adam-God doctrine by being allowed to cite the entire sermon. Problem is that you complain when we put down too much context.

Tell people that Satan will answer their prayers.

He tricked Peter : Mt 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

And in 2 Cor 11: 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And if Satan can trick Adam and Eve in the garden, his MO is still the same today. If Satan can’t disguise a false answer to prayer, the apostles spent a lot of ink warning us about it and Satan is pretty much a failure.

Try to tell people we and the FLDS are the same church (we're not in case anyone wondered).

Oh, modern history. No, FLDS is what officially LDS was through the mid 1890’s and in some circumstances as late as 1910 and without the repeal of Section 132, could well be again.

anything but encourage people to pray about the Book of Mormon.

That is because we have already received our spiritual message and the Spirit says NO. And I will stand with the many former mormons here who have realized the same and come out. Now how valid are DUs final observations?

Anti's place Logic above revelation.

Nope, Paul said to prove all things. We further believe that the Bible is all the revelation we need.

Anti's will say bad things about someone when they aren't around to defend themselves.

Again, a remark about Smith, et al inability to defend themselves or their teachings. So sad, but the pay FARMS to pick up the slack.

Anti's believe they can receive revelation for you (even when they tell you revelation has ceased)

This is laughable and fluffy – I have yet to see an anti here make this claim in that context.

Anti's think Lurkers are stupid.

On the contrary, speaking for myself (though I suspect it is shared by other antis) the lurkers are very smart and the responses to the right handed typing posts by mormons here make the point very well. Secondly, I would not be going into the detail I do if I considered the readers to be stupid. What they may think about mormon theology and apologia is another matter.

Anti's think Lurkers won't read the responses, and Can't use Google.

Again, see previous line, people here are FR are very literate.

Anti's don't believe God answers prayers to him.

Just a little earlier DU posted a statement saying that we lie about mormon doctrine. Kettle meet pot.

Anti's think Catholics and protestants are the same church (hey, it's the same logic splits in religion = same religion...)

I will rejoice with my Catholic brothers and sisters in heaven in that we are both catholic, members of the saved throughout the ages (DU fails to understand the difference in the uses and application of the term ecclesia, but we love him anyway) and we will both be amaze at what we will find out then. But what DU fails to realize is that denominations do not equal separate religions, but different ways of interpreting and applying the faith we share. This faith cannot be shared in the same way with mormons because their theology is completely incompatable with Christianity. This enormous mormon hose job of the past few days has made this clear.

Anti's don't think Lurkers can get a prayer right

Doesn’t everyone just LOVE the way DU is able to leap to such conclusions and do it with a straight type font. Unremarkably, one will look far and wide to prove this.

From this thread

to All

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what a “town square” debate is like. The “open” threads on the Religion Forum have been moderated like a “town square.”

In the town square, any and every citizen can post his opinion to the “liberty tree” or speak up openly for or against whatever he chooses. He may challenge anyone he chooses to challenge. He doesn’t have to be eloquent, educated, polite or respectful. Issues are not considered “settled” just because some of the citizens in the community believe that to be the case.

The limits on the free speech in the town square are a matter of decency. Pornography is not allowed, profanity is not allowed, etc. Propaganda is allowed. Lies are allowed.

Some are thrilled by what is said in the town square. Some are offended. Some ignore. Some take notes.

The “town square” is a free exchange of ideas. The “liberty tree” is part of our American roots.

Fast forward to the Religion Forum.

There may be changes in the guidelines as a result of this discussion, but for now all posters on the RF should realize that the “open” threads are like the “town square” except that in addition to profanity and pornography being disallowed so is “hate mongering” which includes such sources as Jack Chick, KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, VDare, Jesus-is-Lord.com, the false Jesuit Oath.

A poster does not need to be a member of X to post an article or Holy writ of X or to claim what the Xes believe or used to believe. However, to avoid being a trouble-maker and ending up on the moderator’s radar as a disturber of the peace, he is wise to be polite and to present his ideas as his own.

The problem.

When a gentile person walks into the “town square” or reads the posts on a “liberty tree” he might become deeply offended. No doubt that was also the case back in the day of the actual “liberty tree.”

On the Religion Forum, gentile members of X may become offended by the town square frontal assaults on their deeply held beliefs. That is to be expected. And for that reason, the “closed” threads exist so that they can find “safe harbor.” The closed threads – devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses – are moderated as if the discussion was occurring behind the closed doors of a church.

But when those gentle members of X refuse to retreat to the safe harbor and instead stand in the “town square” insisting on the silence of others, they become disturbers of the peace. More importantly, such insistence challenges whether the concept of a “town square” is workable when the subject is religion.

I realize that many think there is nothing more contentious than religious debate on this forum. If so, they’ve probably not spent much time on the Civil War threads – or the Creation/Evolution (Crevo) threads. And the same initiatives happen there also. On the Crevo threads, some of the science community used to insist that only scientists should have a voice. And on the Civil War threads, one side or the other asserts political correctness.

And because this is a conservative forum, the “town square” does not permit the socialist or fascist voice except as a piñata to be shot down by the contributors.

But conservatives come with various religious beliefs. There is no “official” belief on the forum.

530 posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 9:25:38 AM by Religion Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.