I disagree with their beliefs as well, but do not think it is a net benefit to continually attack their beliefs on this forum.
The way I look at it, is when I first came to FR, there were several Mormons actually proselyting here. It seemed they thought by touting the strong conservative bent of Mormonism to unsuspecting Freepers, they would be able to get converts to Mormonism among our numbers. I think they saw some success.
I and others started to counter the Mormons. I figured as long as they are free to try and convert Freepers to Mormonism, I am free to tell freepers everything I learned about Mormonism that is untrue. I was born a sixth generation Mormon who left it in my late 20’s but didn’t become Christian until I was 47. Those lost years when I wandered in agnosticism were a direct result of the denigration of the Bible and Christianity by Mormon teachings....it took me a long, long time to get over that distrust.
This is a great forum to have discussions about religions. Those who are uncomfortable with open discussions, often have something to hide. While Christianity does have some regrettable history, you don’t find us denying it, or trying to prohibit people discussing it.
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Perhaps you should seek your FR experience on other forums besides the Religion Forum or on threads that do not allow debate.
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
I understand you represent many people who feel the same way. I don't discount that "pros & cons" exist to critiquing faith beliefs. Any of us, myself included, can do so at times with the wrong tone -- or develop less-than-Christlike attitudes even when what we say is 100% the truth (1 Cor. 13 self-applications are often needed). And feel free to make your case with specifics about something we have blinders on.
My earlier responses to you just indicate that you haven't yet even begun to make your case for why Utah-based articles shouldn't be posted about people converting from Mormonism.
Mormons convert people from other faiths all the time. Yet I don't think you go around labeling them as "attackers" of other beliefs. If not, why not?
One of the top four points within LDS missionary lessons going back to the 1960s when Marion G. Romney headed up their missionary program was to focus on the so-called "universal apostasy" and restoration. "Universal apostasy" = the Christian church, in the Lds mind, totally apostatized from the faith.
On top of that, the Lds "first vision" -- the very foundation of its belief system -- was made into Lds "scripture" which labels...
...ALL Christian sect creeds as an "abomination" to the Mormon god...
...the same passage labels ALL Christian professing believers as "corrupt"...
...and that we're ALL "wrong" and shouldn't be joined.
Your Lds friends who either tithe or give $ to the Lds church wind up paying for this "scripture" -- known as the Pearl of Great Price -- to be translated into over 100 languages and distributed worldwide not only in that book but online and curricula/articles where its quoted.
Bottom line is that Lds have spent millions & millions of $ to malign and slander Christian believers, Christian churches, and Christian creeds for these past 170 years.
If you haven't responded to that, why does this public attack upon the Christian faith worth a zilcho response from those who have standards that people shouldn't attack or critique other beliefs???
I'm sorry, but not only do you need a reality check but if you can't equitably apply your personal standard then...
(a) your personal standard needs adjusting
and (b) you should reconsider exporting a standard that you don't exercise with fairness across the board.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
it’s not good to discuss or attack LDS beliefs on the Political forums in FR, but in the religious forums, all’s open, if you argue politely. I can’t say EDS’ers (pun intended) are debased and satanic — that’s impolite, but I CAN say that one part of their beliefs is wrong.