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.

[Colofornian]

Yeah, the ol McConkie book that was pulled from the shelves by the first presidency as non doctrinal.

Sorry. (try again). I cited the 1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine. You’ve only explained McConkie's 1958 version of "Mormon Doctrine." Anything republished since then--with FULL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY--and anything that's remained in there in its last reprint--was done with full First Presidency & General Authority oversight.

McConkie “flying solo” applies only to 1958. Any critical assessments or putdowns of republished books of "Mormon Doctrine" since then is an outright slam against the entire First Presidency & General Authorities & the editors & publishers of the book. Many authors make as you reference it mistakes--but when a book is republished, those are fixed. I know many such "mistakes" in McConkie's '58 version were "fixed." But if mistakes continue in the 1966 & 1978 revisions--and you imply that you acknowledge that's the case--then it's not just a one-man doctrinal show.

According to Deseret Book Publishing, owned by the LDS Church, (see The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, a biography written by his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie (Deseret, 2003):

On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder [Spencer W.] Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes....My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction.<./b>

There ya have it. McConkie acted on his own with no review committee in the late 1950s.
Marion Romney, a member of the First Presidency, reviewed the initial work and reported on “errors” in the book. McConkie wanted to fix his 1958 errors and re-publish the book in the early 1960s. Members of The First Presidency told him “no.”

A future LDS “prophet” Spencer Kimball, was assigned as McConkie’s “mentor” leading up to the ’66 revision. McKay and the First Presidency changed their mind…otherwise, McConkie would have been told in the mid-1960s what he was told in the early 1960s, “No, you can’t republish.”

[greyfoxx39]

The Court will now come to order Ping to #400 ;)

[MEGoody]

So expect to see lots of Mormon threads, now and for as long as we see fit to keep posting them

Great. I'm hoping they will have lots of citations from the BOM and the Doctrine and Covenants and quotations from the prophets and so forth. I've seen plenty of such citations in posts 'attacking' Mormonism, but I've never seen any correction of those citations. It's possible I missed some of them, but they haven't even been provided when I've asked.

[MEGoody]

I am a Catholic & just would like my deceased family left alone.

Someone is digging up the remains of your deceased family members?

[netmilsmom]

That’s what I keep asking!

[ansel12]

“I got the toss from Catholic Answers forums for being too conservative.

I’m not sure they are the best source.”

---

Evidently you don’t agree with the church about Mormonism though, you seem to be to the left of them on that.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mormon_Stumpers.asp
“When they aren’t forthcoming, be prepared to offer the truth.”

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[Colofornian]

Rather than try to wrestle the pig into taking a bath, we are just going to hose it down. [Grig]

Amicus curiae, “Friend of the Court” brief filed by The Flying Inmans.

IN THE FREEPER COURT
OF PUBLIC OPINION
RELIGION DIVISION

LADY LAWYER, et al. [Grig]
)
Plaintiffs, )
) No. 4:23CV2008
)
) JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
UNNAMED FREEPER SWINE )
)
Defendants )

As representation secured by The Flying Inmans (TFI), the TFI believe Grig and Lady Lawyer are attempting to impose a new previous unrecognizable standard as pertaining to thread jurisprudence precedence. By transforming the previous standard known as ordre public to a swine-based standard of odor public, this “messing” with words flung at the broadest of targets is amounting to a pig sty.

Given the etymological development of the word “sty” as having originated in its native tongue from the word, “stewardship,” this lack of civil stewardship in combination with an appeal to base unFReeperable mollification collaterally conducted at-large in shameless disregard of a civil preponderance of posts, only serves to inject greater oxidation of an e-process that remains unedified when such occurrences of thread hydrous ferric oxide (rust erosion) is unveiled in the form of condescension and e-frowning.

Furthermore, overbroad and vague and amorphous language--not to mention being potentially limitless in extension so as to be untenable and workable as regards public exchange—threatens to return FReeper civilization to utter barbarism. Such vague and undefined terms that prevent legitimate discourse allow unbridled discretion to be circulated and imposed upon the FReeper community at will.

As Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys filed in an Amicus Curaie involving an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “as America's founders warned us long ago, vague law is the most dangerous sort of oppression, because it allows rulers to punish anything at any time, by simply redefining the ambiguous words in the law.”

We second that legal emotion, only broaden its application: “as America's founders warned us long ago, vague claims are the most dangerous sort of oppression, because it allows self-assigned thread policemen to arrest any comment at any time, by simply redefining the ambiguous words in the thread.”

The Flying Inmans seek redress regarding its inflammatory treatment as The Oinking Porkmans, and respectfully request relief from such injurious words.

The Flying Inmans

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, but the Catholic church has a set of extra books as well, or to look another way, the rest of us are missing a set of books.

[netmilsmom]

Well actually, I believe that I am right in what I believe and I let Our Lord himself sort out the rest.

If the Pope is getting with the Mormons, hey that’s fine by me.

[SkyPilot]

You can call me anything you want, and you obviously will.

Whoa! Ease down. You spun yourself up there pretty quickly.

You posted your "Mormon Name" on your homepage:

My Mormon name is Monteray Faunice!

I asked you if I should call you that. To be honest, I don't really understand what a "Mormon Name" is. If you are female, is this the name that you will be called upon from 'behind the veil?' I am asking sincerely - I don't understand this concept fully.

But that won’t change who I am. Mormon-bashers, when not able to draw a Mormon into a “debate” usually head for the home page and find something there to get nasty about.

Let's be honest here, shall we? I objected to Christians being alluded to as pigs in this thread.

You told me:

Obviously, you took it personally. Shame on you.

So, I am supposed to be "ashamed" because I didn't take that on the chin, and now you want to play the victim card for me simply responding to your post to me?

This is the way the LDS defenders constantly operate. It is a shell game. We are simply calling you out on it.

No personal attacks, remember?

Here we go again. Back to the Future. What "personal attack?" Asking if we should call you by your own self-proclaimed "Mormon Name?"

You have a "really GOOD" day too.

:^>

[DManA]

Catholics do not consider the apocrypha to be inspired word of God.

[greyfoxx39]

Amicus curiae, “Friend of the Court” brief filed by The Flying Inmans.

Greyfoxx39 signing on to this brief by Colofornian and Diamond's motion.

Also signing in by proxy for Needle Nose Neely.

[MizSterious]

"Someone is digging up the remains of your deceased family members? "

They don't have to. Perhaps you do not believe in the power of prayer, which is often done at a distance (i.e., not in the presence of the person being prayed for). I do, and have seen and experienced its power. I do NOT want any group, Mormon, Muslim, or members of the First Church of Holy H*llraisers "re-baptizing" me or my family. It's just plain wrong.

[Godzilla]

[MEGoody]

I do NOT want any group, Mormon, Muslim, or members of the First Church of Holy H*llraisers "re-baptizing" me or my family.

Unless you believe it has some validity, why would it be a big deal? Sure, if they kept talking to you about it, it would be an annoyance, but other than that, I don't understand the problem.

At least if they are spending their time getting baptised for the dead, they have less time to be 'evangelizing' the living. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[MizSterious]

Do some research on prayer. There’s quite a lot of research that’s been done on it. (Plus, my own experiences.)

[netmilsmom]

>>Catholics do not consider the apocrypha to be inspired word of God.<<

Ah-hem.

[netmilsmom]

If I am dead, I am in heaven, hell or purgatory.

Their ceremonies are going to do nothing to me. Let them do what they want to me. I’m going to be, Lord willing, praising Him and won’t care at all.

[MizSterious]

That’s your choice. Mine—leave me the heck alone.

(I guess you’ve never hear of praying for someone who’s already died? People do it all the time.)

[colorcountry]

Hey, wait a minute!

I'm not signing on to this - - I prefer boxers.