Replies

Colofornian,

Though I do not start caucus threads, but I understand their purpose here.

Caucus threads give religious people who are generally good conservatives a reason not to just abandon FR to the anti firestorm that most see as a daily posting of nagging nabobs of negativity. Yes, I mean the anti's, flying imams, or whatever they want to call themselves today.

I for one would prefer to just talk politics, but when I see my religion, my flag or my wife disrespected, I feel it my duty to respond.

Do I respond to posts on Catholic threads about the Trinity? I never have.

Do I go to posts in Protestant caucuses where they talk about being saved by Grace? Again I never have.

I do not go to threads that are not caucus threads about these topics, unless they specifically mention me or my religion by name, Let them have their beliefs, I have mine.

Anti's of every stripe and creed that go to threads about other religions to bash them, well they are a group, and I don't care if they are anti baptist, anti Calvin, anti Lutheran, anti Catholic or whatever. As a group antis get very little respect from me, not their scholarship, not their "facts" not their reasoning because they have already shown their lack of judgment.

It was a caucus thread, basically a couple of believers in a corner discussing their beliefs, who cares what they are saying amongst themselves?

But to have rules of how and where the thread is posted be broken, that is a bigger concern to me than if a Catholic caucus thread had been disparaging Joseph Smith and me by name, and had been moved to the smoky back room according to the rules, no problem. If this thread had been seen by Jim rob and he said "Bzzt out of line and moved it to the Smokey back room, again, no problem.

Was PD out of line for posting this? I don't know, but it could have been handled better.

Delph

Caucus threads give religious people who are generally good conservatives a reason not to just abandon FR to the anti firestorm...

Come now, DU. Can we compete w/the $millions Lds, Inc. devotes to calling us "apostates" & "corrupt" & worst names in its translations of books & curricula & mass media & Web sites into hundreds of languages?

If we are "anti-Mormon," then Mormons are anti-Christian! You are, plain & simple, against the Christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't let SLC get away with bashing us as "apostates," "whores of Babylon," "corrupt," "the church of the devil" and the like!

Worse, your personal wallet has been paying for it for years!

Were you not "anti-Christian," then we would see you "distance" yourself more than just "I don't go to Web sites discussing Christian theology." We would actually see you critique the sources of that name-calling.

But we don't -- from YOU or from other Mormons. It's status quo; business-as-usual.

My point? Even though we CANNOT compete with the hundreds of $millions at the disposal of Lds, Inc. to label us how they will, does that mean that we conclude -- like you have -- that we will automatically abandon working with Mormons on various mutual causes?

(I.e. defending marriage; working on behalf of our youth in efforts like Boy Scouts; manning food pantries together, etc...Why is it that I -- more so than the average evangelical -- knows the hundreds of horrid things that Mormon leaders have called us...and yet I'm still willing to work on conservative causes with Mormons to a degree...and yet Mormons can't do the reverse? You & other Mormons keep claiming Lds can't stomach some critiques and continue working w/us? Why not? They can pay for their leaders to dish it out -- but they don't want return commentary?)

...when I see my religion, my flag or my wife disrespected, I feel it my duty to respond.

DU I'm not going to say that Mormonism isn't disparaged on FR; but I will say that a hefty chunk of it is simply regurgitated Mormon leader quotations coming right back atcha!

Yes, I know that's not a pretty sight. (It wasn't very pretty when it came out of those Mormon leaders' mouths the first time).

But what I don't understand, DU, is if Christians can put up w/the absolute filthy crap that Lds leaders have hurled at us for these past 180 years -- labeling us things not based in truth -- I don't understand how come Mormonism is withering under primarily a "revelation" of its own history and theology???

What exactly is so "anti" about seeing if Mormonism can stand up to its own history and theological consistency?

Let them have their beliefs, I have mine.

DU, I assume you are (and/or have been) a tithing Mormon. Having said that, what I mean is -- it's simply too late for you to make this statement with full truth-bearing disclosure.

Your contributions have already trickled into the coffers of publishing curricula & books & missionary training that calls us "apostates" -- and worse. The fact is, your leaders' belief system hasn't allowed us to have our "own belief" system minus your leaders' commentary.

We can't simply be -- to use the denominational names you used -- Baptist, Calvinistic, Lutheran and Catholic; no, your leaders have had to tinge our church as being the "church of the devil" by applying 1 Nephi 14:9-10 to us!

Just because you have personally delegated this commentary to your leaders, and funded their efforts in the process, doesn't alleviate you of your role in all of this!

I assume you did your two-year mission. How many times did you use the phrase (or a similar one to it), "universal apostasy and restoration?"

Was PD out of line for posting this? I don't know, but it could have been handled better.

PD can post what he wants to. The issue here is where he posted it -- what boundaries he attached to it.