Why so many LDS threads?

08-May-2008 | Grig

[Grig]

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.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

I agree totally that Mormons are not at all Christians, but a separate religion. If they want to have their own religion, that’s fine, but any attempt on their part to claim to be Christian MUST be met with a definitive rejection of such claim, since it would be (at best) a heresy, to the extent that there are some points of contact that may confuse the ill-informed.(E.g. claiming to honor Christ, yet Joseph Smith announced that he was above Christ, and the whole council of gods thing.)

[Gamecock]

**I agree totally that Mormons are not at all Christians, but a separate religion.**

In a related development, I just checked my Yahoo email account and was greeted by a Flash message near the top of the screen proselytizing for the LDS. In the fine print at the bottom of the ad it reads “truth restored.”

[MHGinTN]

When you delve deeply into LDS beliefs, it’s not just that they are claiming to be Christians, they are claiming Orthodox Christianity failed and had to be restored through their peepstone adulterous prophet. When folks don’t know that key fact about mormonism, they tend to be easy dupes for the victimology mormonism apologists scatter about, especially at FR.

[Elsie]

If LDS can self-define themselves a Christian, why cant the FLDS self-define themselves as Mormons?

Because we SAY so!

Is that a good enough answer for you; GENTILE??

--MormonDude(WE are the REAL 'MORMONS'! you can tell I am by my SCREENNAME)

[Elsie]

...easy dupes ...

Dupes??

Ya GOTTA believe in SUMPTHIN!

Give them something to believe in!!

---

 

 

              Gee!

 

 

 

[Godzilla]

--MormonDude(WE are the REAL 'MORMONS'! you can tell I am by my SCREENNAME)

Dude!

[DelphiUser]

DU, a "church" or religion is not a "person"...a church or religion is not referred to as "you".

Yeah, I got that, it is also Disingenuous for me to say the Catholic perspective is ... Because I'M NOT CATHOLIC! Get it? You cannot offer a perspective you don't have, that's mind reading. The RM said it was mind reading by Warning MHG to stop.

The mind-reading rule simply does not apply to an inaminate object, no matter how "personally" a member of said object wishes to take a remark.

Wonderfully stated Opinion, the facts of the matter are different however. In animate objects do not have perspective, only animate objects do, so by offering our "perspective" MHGinTN was involved in mind reading on a grand scale.

An inaminate object cannot be affected or suffer "personal" harm from alleged "vicious, scathing, unreasoning, unreasonable and pathetic attacks" because it is an object, NOT a person.

I am not an inanimate object, I said that I had suffered these kinds of attacks... nice try.

Insisting that mhgintn's remarks.(whether a correct description of mormon doctrine or not), are "mind-reading" is simply wrong.

MHGinTN did not merely describe doctrine, he offered perspective which an inanimate object cannot have, the RM told him to knock it off without even being pinged.

Offering a perspective for someone else (or for a church you don't belong to) is mind reading.

This is ridiculous, you are arguing an interpretation of just how close to the line of mind reading you can come, the RM has spoken, be gracious, it's Jim's house...

[MHGinTN]

It is telling that this particualr poster can get this ‘personal’ in his assertions without the moderator noticing, isn’t it!

[Religion Moderator]

The guideline pertaining to mind reading applies to "making it personal."

It is not making it personal to read the mind of an author or religious authority, a person who is not a Freeper, a denomination, a group of Freepers, etc.

Posters often state what another confession believes and often the members of the other confession disagree. That's normal for religious debate. And I am not the arbiter of truth, fact, dogma, doctrine, tradition, logic, etc. The disputes will continue.

But when the poster says you (another Freeper) believes thus and so - or you only say that because, etc. - that is "making it personal."

It is also "making it personal" when the thread gets off the issues and onto discussing individual Freepers.

[Reno232]

I would surmise that the lack of answer is b/c it would perhaps seem self evident. It's really quite simple, Christianity, or Christian, is a belief in Jesus Christ in it's most basic definition. Christian is not a church.

Therefore, the LDS church & the FLDS church are churches. All be it they may both be Christian churches, they are not the same church any more the the Westboro Baptist church is part of other Baptist churches. All may be Christians w/o being the same church. We don't claim the FLDS church isn't part of Christianity, we just claim it's not a part of the LDS church. Quite simple really.

Don't confuse the lack of response w/ the inability to respond. I for one, just thought it was obvious. Hope this clears it up for you.

[DelphiUser]

I Said: Mormons are not "Orthodox Christians", but we are Christians according to any reasonable definition,

U Said: Sorry, not by any reasonable definition except the mormon one. There is not a single Christian denomination that recognizes mormonism as Christian.

There are no Moslem's that recognize Christianity as the true church, does that make it false, Fred Phelps says we (Everyone not in his Wesboro Baptist Church) are all not Christians (and he's a baptist) so are we all not Christians?

I submit that there are only two people whose opinion matters on "Christianity" viz being a "Christian", the person who wants to be a Christian (so they try to keep his commandments) and Jesus' opinion on Judgment Day. opponents of any religion simply don't get a vote on anybody else's status.

When it comes to Faiths (broad based belief systems):
Everyone who follows Buddha is Buddhist whether they are Shinto, Zen, Tibetan, etc.
Everyone who Follows Mohommed is Moslem whether they are Shiite, Sunni, Wahbi, etc.
But members of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints are not Christian even though they worship Jesus Christ because they don't agree with some creed or doctrine or the "Majority" does not accept approve of them or accept them. Your attempts at explaining this "reasoning" are fun to watch...

U Said: You might sleep in a garage, but that doesn't make you a hot rod. If mormons are Christian, then by any reasonable definition FLDS (and all the other xLDS) are mormons too.

It's my sleek lines and large motor that make me a hot rod /Humor

Christianity being a faith contains many churches, Churches are mutually exclusive, One cannot be a baptist and a Catholic at the same time. FLDS do like being called Mormons any more than we like for others to call them Mormons. FLDS, and ExLDS all left the Church, the Baptist who leaves the Congregation and joins the Catholic church is no longer called Baptist. The Baptists who Broke off from the Catholic church, were no longer called Catholics. Anti Mormons want to create these special cases that are supposed to isolate Mormons or make us mad, and they just end up looking silly for their postulates that break down in reality .

I Said: I did not ask MHG to stop because he quoted Mormon Doctrine accurately (that would be ... refreshing), Nor did he say Mormons believe... and accurately reflect our published statements of belief (again, that would be refreshing) instead MHG purported to be able to give our perspective, and then misstated what our perspective is surely Godzilla, you will disavow any such intellectually dishonest tactic, right?

U Said: What would be intellectually refreshing is not to misdirect a challange to a belief system as mind reading - which is what happened out of the gate. If the post was misguided - deal with it on that level, not whine about it.

First, I note you did not disavow trickery over logic.

Um, I quoted directly from the Book of Mormon refuting his claim that that was our perspective, not misdirection, you are indeed engaging in misdirection in not focusing on the issues, and continuing to whine that MHGinTN got caught with his hand in the mind reading cookie jar.

I Said: Even when you resorted to calling me Fluffy and started posing pictures of that cute little adorable puppy? (which was supposed to be me, I guess)

U Said: Seriously humor challenged.

That was humor? LOL! Now I get it! (not it was an ad homonym attack.) So if I start posting to you as Gecko and posting pictures of the cute little bloke with the English accent, that would be funny?

I Said: Have a great day Godzilla, believe it or not, it's good to see you back, and posting smaller posts to respond to... Thanks!

U Said: Only for a short while, gone tomorrow til ?????. But then I see your responses to some continue to grow exponentially and still not address their questions.

I believe I am responding to the issues, maybe they just need to make their questions clearer.

Well, I'll post to you anyway, I hope you have a safe trip wherever you are going.

[Elsie]

We don't claim the FLDS church isn't part of Christianity, we just claim it's not a part of the LDS church.

Well; I do!

[Gamecock]

**We don’t claim the FLDS church isn’t part of Christianity, we just claim it’s not a part of the LDS church.**

And why not?

BTW, thanks for taking the challenge.

[DelphiUser]

Someone said: If mormons are Christian, then by any reasonable definition FLDS (and all the other xLDS) are mormons too.

U said: I’ve been trying to make that same point.
If LDS can self-define themselves a Christian, why cant the FLDS self-define themselves as Mormons?

First, It's one thing to say you are of a Faith, and another to say you are a member of a church.

Second, The FLDS do not want to be called Mormons, so we are denying them something they don't want?

Example: I hereby deny you the right to break your leg in a compound fracture tonight. Do you feel deprived?

U said: I would say that by denying the FLDS the right to self-definition while practicing that themselves (the LDS) there is just a wee bit of hypocrisy in Salt Lake City.

No hypocrisy at all, Faiths or broad collections of belief are not the same thing as a church with a specific structure, leadership and rules for being a member.

U said: Interestingly I haven’t had one single FRMormon give me an answer, any answer, to this question.

Probably because it's seen by many as a tar baby, but I personally often look over my shoulder and see angels looking at me like "what the heck are you doing way over there, we won't go there, you're on your own buddy!" (trading where angels fear...)

So I will answer almost any serious question, for more of my thoughts / Research See my home page here at FR.

[colorcountry]

The problem with the Mormon Church’s approach to this problem of association with the FLDS has been that they are trying to act as if there is no connection between the two groups when clearly there is. Like probably every other religion, the LDS has had its schisms. It usually starts with one or two issues and then once the split occurs the groups naturally drift apart. It’s really not that big of a deal and it’s funny to watch the Mormons contort themselves in a futile effort to completely dissociate themselves from the FLDS.

[Reno232]

Simple. Because it’s not. I suspect most, if not all Baptist churches would claim the Westboro Baptist church not to be a part of their church for the same reason, because it’s not. Very simple really.

[Reno232]

Just out of curiosity CC, do you feel that those Baptist churches that try & distance themselves from the Westboro Baptist church are contorting themselves in a futile effort to completely dis-associate themselves from from Fred Phelps & his church? The FLDS are a far cry different from the LDS church. There’s no association. Wouldn’t you want to dis-associate as well? Just like the Baptists & Westboro?

Not a really hard concept to grasp CC, imho.

[DelphiUser]

U Said: I am not a Catholic.

Now your position is even more interesting to me, I sincerely hope that our differences in perspective will not tick you off as I attempt to gain your perspective.

U Said: From my perspective, Catholics have added to the gospel message as well.

I really hope we can discuss this without you having to tell me your religion, I don't want that to color my questions, and I certainly don't want anyone on this forum to attack you, so If any question I ask you seems to ask the name of your church, please don't answer.

1. IYO when did the Catholics go astray?
2. Did your church exist prior to these changes to the Catholic Church, if so, Why was it started.
3. Where did your church's authority to act in God's name Come from? (former Catholic priest?, angel, etc.)
4. How exactly did God tell those who started your church to go and start it (vision, visitation, message from the Holy spirit, etc)
5. Was this prophesied in the Bible? Where?

U Said: In fact, Catholicism and Mormonism are similar in that way.

To protestants, Catholicism and Mormonism should look similar in many significant ways.

Are Catholics Christians to you?

U Said: Protestants strive to build their Christian belief and practice from the original documents which were compiled to make up the Bible.

You do realize that the Catholics compiled the original Bible books, right? (Canon of the Old Testament, Entire Bible including New testament) In your opinion, had they gone astray before the Canon of the Bible was established (OT AD-90) (NT-1545)yet?

Also, you are aware that there are many versions of the Bible with different books considered Cannon and as we go forward there are just more and more translations, so which cannon is correct according to your church?

U Said: We've gone back to the original documents to recover the Christianity of the Jesus Christ of the gospels.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that the original manuscripts were still extant, is that what you meant? or do you mean the earliest ones you can, and if so, how do you know things like the The Johannine Comma, a change from the original Vulgate have not crept in? Also, what about the books mentioned by name and or quoted in the new and old testaments, are they scripture to you? why and or why not?

U Said: That we all don't agree on every point is evidence of our own imperfection (in understanding the gospel once given) and not to any fault in the original scriptures themselves.

It's also a reflection of the imperfect nature of the translations we are stuck with, if only we had a time machine and cloak so we cold go back and record Jesus' own words lots of "disagreements" would evaporate.

U Said: From my perspective, it was after Paul had cautioned the Galatians ... not to allow anyone (not even an angel) to bring to them any other gospel than that which had been once given ...

You do realize that Galatians was written in about AD 50, and Revelations in AD 65, and The Gospel of St. John in AD 90, right? So it's not like all gospel revelation ceased with Galatians.

U Said: that Joseph Smith showed up claiming to bring portions of the scriptures which he claimed had been lost ... but having little or no evidence to prove his case.

So, do you believe that there is any book like say the book of Enoch Which appear in the Dead sea scrolls as part of the Torah, and were used by early saints, and was quoted by Jesus Christ and all the gospels, that should be scripture but was left out by the men in the Councils of the Catholic church? IS the Bible as we have it in the KJV inerrant?

U Said: In other words, Joseph's original story was sketchy anyway ...

So was Moses' story, I mean come on, a burning bush up on a mountain side talked to you?

U Said: and he offered no proof, no plates available to the world, no original documents in original languages, ... just his word and the affirmation of his cohorts.

Please show me the original parchment the book "The Gospel of St John" was written on (you can't) We don't have third party confirmation of much in the bible, I mean who really saw Saul's vision, besides Saul? Jesus had the same question from the Jews, he said the Father would bear testimony of him. Joseph said the same thing. I assure you that God is not a cohort in any scam.

It boils down to faith, God wants people to read the Book of Mormon and come to him in faith trusting him to answer their prayers of faith and by exercising faith, they come closer to him. (but now I'm starting to preach, Sorry, I didn't mean to Go there)

U Said: This and the fact that Joseph brought religious practice which was practiced neither by the early church ... or by the contemporary Jewish community (i.e the Mason-like Mormon Temple rites and polygamy) demonstrate to Protestants and Catholics that Joseph did indeed bring another gospel, which Paul warned us to have no part of way back in the first century AD.

OK, Let's do a little bit of Education: FreeMasons got their temple rituals from the Jews because they were observing the ordnances performed inside the temples from the walls while doing repairs and building additions. understandably they might have made some mistakes and these rituals have been handed down for years.

Freemasons must be "Deists" who believe in God.

Joseph smith was a Mason, and made it to the highest level in Masonic lodges. Joseph asked God about the Rituals he learned from the Masons, God gave him corrected rites which is why our differ from theirs.

The fact that the Masons claim to have gotten their temple rituals from the Jewish temple gives credence to the point made by Mormons, God does not want these temple rituals written down in the Bible.

If we are right, it's consistent, if we are wrong it's consistent.

U Said: By the way, mathematics hasn't changed, though science certainly has. Mathematics is used to verify old and new scientific thought.

If you mean Newtonian math, like 1+1=2, you are right, but math is merely a descriptive language fro the real world. when you get deep into into astronomy, physics, or Quantum mechanics, Math does indeed change as the laws we take for granted here in the Newtonian world change in Quantum physics world

U Said: Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come to bring to remembrance those things that Jesus Himself had taught.

That is one of the things it will do, it will also testify of truth to those who seek truth, and more to those who seek for more from Jesus.

U Said: The gospel message has been revealed once and for all time by Jesus and the apostles.

and it was soon corrupted by men.

U Said: The Holy Spirit teaches that same gospel message to willing hearts in successive generations from Jesus' time unto this.

and in the latter days the Fullness of the Gospel has been restored as it has been prophesied from the Beginning.

We just believe that restoration was necessary because Man can't reform God's church, you appear to think it was reformed, difference of opinion? Surely. Reason to damn each other to hell in snarky terms, I don't think so.

I am fully enjoying this conversation, I feel I am learning a bit more about your perspective, I hope you feel the same.

[DelphiUser]

The guideline pertaining to mind reading applies to "making it personal."

It is not making it personal to read the mind of an author or religious authority, a person who is not a Freeper, a denomination, a group of Freepers, etc.

Posters often state what another confession believes and often the members of the other confession disagree. That's normal for religious debate. And I am not the arbiter of truth, fact, dogma, doctrine, tradition, logic, etc. The disputes will continue.

But when the poster says you (another Freeper) believes thus and so - or you only say that because, etc. - that is "making it personal."

It is also "making it personal" when the thread gets off the issues and onto discussing individual Freepers.

we are not discussing doctrine, What was stated was that our religions perspective was...

I believe it is logically impossible for a person who does not hold a perspective to share it. that has been my objection.

Of course, I will abide by any decision you make on this, but let me give an example separated from my religion, is it OK for me to post for example that Catholics perspective is that God created Satan so God is the author of all sin (a gross misrepresentation) I would expect to be slapped down by you for trying such a stunt and not gently either.

Anyway, thanks for all you do here and I am sorry that my posts have caused you to have to spend your time on this thread.

[DelphiUser]

The problem with the Mormon Church’s approach to this problem of association with the FLDS has been that they are trying to act as if there is no connection between the two groups when clearly there is. Like probably every other religion, the LDS has had its schisms. It usually starts with one or two issues and then once the split occurs the groups naturally drift apart. It’s really not that big of a deal and it’s funny to watch the Mormons contort themselves in a futile effort to completely dissociate themselves from the FLDS.

CC I concur with everything you said, except that we are trying to deny the historical connection, they are a split from us (they would say the reverse...) but the doctrine and the way they do things has changed radically over time, again, they would say it was us... The Big problem I have is people who are trying to make it look like Mormons are still practicing polygamy, that's where we try really hard to show our differences with the FLDS.

Anyway, thanks for the pleasant post, you have a good day.