What?
Who needs to TRACK?
Those little varmits will come right UP to your door!
Why; even the Croc's on PBS could nab a couple of them!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/12/2009 6:01:45 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked. |
Posted on 05/08/2008 5:04:47 PM PDT by 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.
People will spend their entire lives studying and still not understand who Jesus is. Others will be confronted with him, and in an instant, understand enough to receive eternal life.
Also, once saved, some will spend their entire lives studying, and will still not fully understand who Jesus is. Many will spend much less time, and will have many different ideas of who Jesus is.
We will have debates over what Jesus meant, what Jesus did. We could all agree to live our lives as Jesus would, without agreeing on what that means. The answer to the question “What Would Jesus Do” is debated by scholars and laymen alike.
My point is that I do not have to understand that Jesus was from the foundation of the world, that there is a Trinity, or any number of other important theological points, in order to be saved. John 3:16 says that ““For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Paul expounds in Romans 9:10 “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Do you need to know the origins of Jesus to confess him as Lord? Do you need to understand the Trinity, or the eternal plan, or even the virgin birth, to believe God raised Jesus from the dead?
I am loath to impose any requirements on people than what the Bible clearly specifies. Would I be comfortable with leaving a person in ignorance of the details of the faith? No. But that’s a different question than whether a person could be saved based on their current knowledge.
Straw man. Believe anything you want.
without denying them the identity of discipleship to the Savior of mankind.
Why is it so important to you that Christian embrace you as a brother when it's clear we are so different?
>>Spoken like a True Believer®! <<
Of what? Helping babies who are dying? Making afgans or burial shrouds for those angels who go before us? You bet!
Post 330 already has the *I and my Father are one* reference. I don't see how it can be stated much plainer or clearer. What are you looking for in the way of statements to prove that Jesus IS God? How could it be stated any better?
Interpreting scripture is one thing, adding whole new books is quite another. That is evidence to me that the Holy Spirit is not at work in the Mormon Church.
That’s the reason for this thread, and so many LDS posts. You can try to define me and who I am, but I will not stand idle and let you.
Time to go to work, have a good day.
You may find that there are denominations who, while believing the trinity, would not use that belief as the deciding factor in declaring christianity. Some denominations don’t reject Mormons as christians. Some denominations reject Catholics as Christians.
I was once a member of a church that would not accept the baptism of Catholics OR Baptists or Mormons. I understand the concept of a minimal set of acceptable precepts.
BTW, the Baptists don’t accept the Presbyterian baptism either, but that doesn’t mean Baptists don’t think Presbyterians are Christians.
Would it not have been easier to provide a link to one example, so I could be educated?
And I will not stand idly by and let you pervert the Gospel.
What?
Who needs to TRACK?
Those little varmits will come right UP to your door!
Why; even the Croc's on PBS could nab a couple of them!
I did.
Why do you drink water?
Backtrack on RESTORNU's stuff of a couple weeks ago.
SHE (amoung others) managed to get all tarbabied up in polgamy during the initial FLDS raid posts.
You poor, blind Gentile...
Don't you see?
YOUR 'gospel' was lost or stolen or forgotten or sumpthin' during the last 1830 some years before Joseph Smith RESTORED the gospel to it's FULL GLORY!
--MormonDude(When would be a good time for a couple of our highly trained Missionaries to come by your home and explain things more to you?)
LOL.
"We do not indorse the teachings of any so-called Mormons or Latter Day Saints, which are in conflict with the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. They have departed in a great measure from the faith of the Church of Christ as it was first established, by heeding revelations given through Joseph Smith, who, after being called of God to translate his sacred word--the Book of Mormon--drifted into many errors and gave many revelations to introduce doctrines, ordinances and offices in the church, which are in conflict with Christ's teachings."
-- David Whitmer (an elder in the Church of Christ), 1887
Today, there are as many as 100 organizations claiming to be a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, most centered in Utah or Missouri. Most regard their own group, however small, to be the only legitimate Christian church. Most of these organizations are very small, but overall, but the second largest denomination, the Community of Christ, reports over 200,000 members.
Just a sampling...........
"Can't we all just get along?"
It seems that banned FReeper mormons are having their say on FR lately...I got a challenge from one (by proxy, LOL) yesterday.
"More than 50,000 missionaries are serving missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at any one time. Most are young people under the age of 25, serving in nearly 350 missions throughout the world."
"So expect to see lots of Mormon threads, now and for as long as we see fit to keep posting them.
One day, hopefully, you can find it in your heart to let others worship the God of truth their way
Nice to know that Mormons can call allude (in a vanity post as well) that Christians (and you are attacking Christians) are pigs - and get away with it. [SP]Diamond, I think it's time for you to "repost" your "Lady Lawyer" response. [C]
Back by popular demand:
It takes a particularly vile person to attack another’s religion the way these people do. And there is a nest of such vile people on FR, unfortunately... You can’t reason with them. If you try in good faith to explain things, they ignore your valid points, twist what you said, and end up arguing with straw men.
Pearl/swine
Come now Defendants, Unnamed FReeper Swine (a/k/a "Pigs") and file their SECOND AMENDED MOTION BY INTERLINEATION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
IN THE FREEPER COURT
OF PUBLIC OPINION
RELIGION DIVISION
LADY LAWYER, et al.
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 4:23CV2008
v. )
) JURY TRIAL ) DEMANDED
UNNAMED FREEPER SWINE )
(a/k/a "PIGS") )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANTS UNNAMED FREEPER SWINE SECOND AMENDED MOTION BY INTERLINEATION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
COME NOW Defendants Unnamed FReeper Swine (“FReeper Swine”) and move this Court pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of FReeper Procedure for a more definite statement of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendants FReeper Swine need a more definite statement so that they can understand and accurately respond to Plaintiffs' allegations. Specifically, FReeper Swine are entitled to a more definite statement that clarifies: (1) which of FReeper Swine statements are alleged to attack another’s religion “the way these people do”. 2) Which of FReeper Swine are alleged to be a “vile person” 3) Which “vile” FReeper Swine are alleged to dwell in nests. and 4) Which pigs are in need of hosing down.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must plead facts sufficient to (1) put the defendant on notice of the claims alleged against it, and (2) reasonably permit the defendant to respond to the allegations. Darwin Inc. v. Creation Specialty Co., 322 FR. Supp. 2d 260, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). Under Rule 12(e), “if a post to which a responsive post is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a poster cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the poster may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive post.” FR. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Despite the liberal pleading requirements under Rule 8, “[a] motion for more definite statement is proper when a poster is unable to determine issues he must meet, or where there is a major ambiguity or omission in the complaint that renders it unanswerable.” restornu. v. Religion Mod., No. 4:06CV01117 RWS, 2006 N&A 3210497, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 3, 2006) (citing Tinderbox v. Flame War Asbestos Underwear Dist., 207 FR. Supp. 2d 951, 959 (E.D. Mo. 2001)). Ultimately, an accused depraved and wicked ought to have “sufficient knowledge of the facts alleged to enable it to answer the complaint and defend itself.” AntiPhonometrics, Inc. v. Hospital Barf Alert Franchise Sys., 203 FR.3d 790, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2000). For this reason, the pleading requirements are intended to “permit the court and the litigants to know, at the pleading stage, who is being complained about and the grounds for same, thereby facilitating the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action.” Bay at the Moon., Inc. v Decaf Mfg., LLC, No. 06-C-1010, 2006 WL 3469599, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2006).
II.
DEFENDANTS FREEPER SWINE (a/k/a "Pigs") ARE ENTITLED TO A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT DESCRIBING WHICH OF THEIR NUMEROUS POSTS OVER THE YEARS ARE ACCUSED OF VILENESS, WHICH POSTER ARE ALLEGED TO DWELL IN NESTS, AND WHICH POSTERS ARE ALLEGED TO BE IN NEED OF A BATH.
In the Motion for More Definite Statement, Original Defendants allege that the Complaint provides absolutely no indication whatsoever as to which statements made by Defendants actually give rise to the allegations of turpitude or malodor. The Original Defendants also correctly noted that Plaintiffs fail to identify the specific claims of wickedness Original Defendants’ statements are alleged to violate.
Likewise, Plaintiffs' claims in their Amended Complaint of Wickedness against Defendant FReeper Swine fail for the same reasons. Similar to the Original Defendants, FReeper Swine make, and over a decade covered by the statements made, have made countless statements. Plaintiffs' allegations give FReeper Swine (and the Court) no clue as to which statements are subject to Plaintiffs' allegations. Plaintiffs’ Complaint simply reads that FReeper Swine “attack another’s religion the way these people do. And there is a nest of such vile people on FR”, etc. See First Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 27, 32. In order to answer Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendants would be forced to evaluate each and every one of their statements over the years against each of the various claims of stinkiness, and determine which ones cames from nests. This task is entirely unmanageable and unduly burdensome. As such, FReeper Swine are entitled to a more definite statement.
Under Rule 8, Plaintiffs have the simple burden of identifying specific turpitudous posts. If Plaintiffs have a good faith basis that actual turpitude occurred, they can surely identify the posts which supposedly are turpitudous and malodorous.
Plaintiffs identify no specific statement or post by FReeper Swine at any time that infringes any identified claim in controversy. See First Amended Complaint. As such, FReeper Swine request the Court to order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement for the same reasons set forth in Original Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement, referenced and incorporated herein.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants are entitled to a more definite statement and respectfully requests that this Court require Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint (1) to specifically identify the statements and FReeper Swine that Plaintiff is accusing of turpitude and malodor, 2) Which of FReeper Swine are alleged to be “vile”” 3) Which “vile” FReeper Swine are alleged to dwell in nests, and which FReeper pigs are in need of a bath.
Dated: April 23, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
Diamond
SOVEREIGN, GRACE & MERCY L.L.P.
1776 Calvin Dr.
Arminius, Texas 75503
(666) 794-HELL (telephone)
(666) 79H-ADES (facsimile)
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.