Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
But don't you dare question the theology or criticize the leaders of the LDS Chruch or you are an Anti-Mormon bigot.
Is that the rules of the Game WM?
This whole issue got started when restornu, an LDS poster, posted a whole boatload of racist statements by some of the past leaders of the LDS Church. What am I supposed to do, ignore it? No, I challenged her on it. I thought that is what we do here at FR. I did not resort to any personal attack. I asked a lot of questions, which in light of the stuff that restornu posted, needed to be asked. If that will get me banned, then so be it. Frankly if the moderator will review the posts, he will find that I was called a liar, a sladerer and an apostate by the LDS people. Did I respond in kind? No, I might have questioned some of the things that the LDS leaders have said and stated my own opinion, but I did not resort to any personal attacks on any of the posters.
I would implore the Moderator to review all the posts before pulling this thread. I believe that this thread is most informative from both a theological as well as a historical standpoint. This type of dialouge ought not to be censored.
In your #441 you give the moderator a huge reading assignment, then play the bigotry card (compare #438 and #439), and the censorship card. In my opinion, that is not a good way to address the moderator.
We were allies, maybe uneasy allies, on the Calvinist threads months ago, addressing their misbehavior and trying to understand where it came from. I made my points with them, and when the problems with a certain FReeper's emotional abuse seemed to be getting the attention they needed, I went to other threads and gave non-FR activities more of the time they deserve, but of course the Calvinists always show up and try to dominate the discussion, trying to make each thread a Calvinist anti-Arminian or anti-Catholic or anti-LDS thread. It took me a long time, until this thread in fact, to lump you in with the aggressive Calvinists. Here on this thread I can't tell the difference between the bashing-by-Marlowe and the bashing-by-Calvinists.
This thread was a Catholic thread. JMJ333 started it, and then flagged me to it with a claim that Latter-Day Saints deny the Triune God. I responded, and to her credit, she moderated her statement to one of differences rather than denial of God. Then you guys flocked in, changed the subject, and hijacked the thread. Somebody, perhaps drstevej, is tracking my posts. See #34, where he posted and flagged you. It is the Calvinists that are coming after me, not the other way around, although I should pay them a visit now and then so they won't claim they drove me off.
Suppose you were a conservative female or Jew or African-American on a thread bashing conservative women leaders or Jewish leaders or Black leaders on a forum that tolerated that, like the bashing on this thread seems to be tolerated by the management here. How would you get it to stop?
There is no place for this kind of behavior in heaven. How is it that you think this kind of behavior will lead anyone to the truth about anything?
For us, it is like trying to describe a peaceful meadow in the midst of a raging storm, or like talking about spiritual things to natural men. You guys are like a storm that never blows over, so we will deal with the situation with the means we have available to us. But know this: the Master will come again, and He will in effect say, "Peace, be still", and there will be no place for the behavior that you and the aggressive Calvinists love, and trust, and rely on so much.
Steve, you are mischaracterizing my efforts to get you to stop your bashing on the now-pulled thread. I decided this time, rather than take an approach that you could spin and mischaracterize, that I would take it publicly to the moderator.
I will repeat what I said then: You owe all of us so great an apology that it doesn't even register on the apology chart (to paraphrase an old Bill Cosby monologue).
quite the opposite actually - he is known a the "compassionate calvinist" -
Additionally, he raises a valid point that the LDS freepers engage in a concerted effort to shut down a thread when the topic is not in thier favor, as has been my experience.
I urge you (the moderator) not to participate in that manner as drstevej's & p- marlowe's comments are pertinent and in the spirit of the forum
Jesus forgive me for supporting a calvinist LOL
Having said that, I cannot recall a time (and don't believe it exists) when DrSteveJ violated any of those FR rules. In fact, he is quite gentlemanly in his posts and will seldom even make a pointed remark.
P-Marlowe, restornu, and WhiteMountain have similar credentials. PM has not violated the FR rules. He is an EX-MORMON and, therefore, can bring up theological points that might make mormons uncomfortable. But that is fair game. Everyone's theology should be open to question, or nobody's should be.
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc. Restor
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc.
dittos- I will also ask why it just didnt get relegated to the "smokey back room"?
Let the fur fly!
Disagreements over doctrine are not smokey back room topics. Else the entire Relgion Forum is relegated to the Smokey Back Room.
There is no bad language used on this thread. The level of debate on this thread is parallel to other FR religious threads. The difference is White Mountain's attempt to get a losing argument deleted by accusing others of conduct that is over the top when he. on the other hand, violates without apology rules against slandering another Freeper.
To the Administrator, I suggest that White Mountain wants any discussion of Mormonism that does not accept it's claims to be expunged, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
LDS reverals on Polygamy (Declaration #1 in n 1890) and lift of the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood (Declaration #2 in 1978) make the issue of the prior treatment of women and blacks by the LDS church and its leaders germaine and appropriate.
I merely quote your leaders. The ammunition for this debate was provided by ressornu who posted about 10 pages of quotes from your "leaders." If your leaders didn't want to be criticized for these comments then they shouldn't have published their thoughts. And if you don't want to be criticized for what you think, then you shouldn't post your thoughts on FR.
Frankly WM I think you are a bit of a hypocrite. You feel free to criticize Calvinism and to attack those who post their beliefs on the subject. You nod in agreement when the discussion turns to Calvin's personal flaws, not the least of which was his complicity in the death of Servetus. Yet you cry foul whenever someone qeustions the leaders of your church.
Hey for Billy Graham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and every other church leader who makes public pronouncements it is open season on FR. But no one better say a single bad thing about one of the leaders of the LDS Church or challenge the basis for their doctrines or you are an Anti-Mormon bigot.
If the LDS Chruch is true, then one would think that it could stand up to its critics. If the LDS Church is true, then you should have all the answers>
When I was a young LDS I was taught that none of the other "Chrsitian" churches had the answers and that the LDS Chruch was the ONLY chruch that had all the answers to all the questions. I believed that. Perhaps that is why I was able to see light and realize that the LDS Church dind NOT have all the answers. In fact, as this thread shows, the LDS have more questions than answers.
I was literally shocked to my core when I discovered some of the statements of the leaders of the LDS Chruch which have been posted here. Well I think a little light shining on what these people had to say is in order. If you can defend it, then that is great. If you can't defend it, then tell us it is indefensible.
If you don't want to listen to criticism of your church, then perhaps you should stop chiming in on the Calvinism threads. The true Arminians can get along just fine without your input. You constantly post your LDS "Scriptures" on the Calvinism and Catholic threads and then give your testimony that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the Book of mormon is true, etc. Well, if you are going to post these opinions, then those who read your statements ought to be free to call them into question.
So if you have any real answers to the questions that I and others have posed. If you have any response to the information that has been posted, I'd like to see it. But don't just leave a "testimony bomb" on the thread and expect that people are not going to challenge it. If you think Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then prove it. If you think the book of Mormon is true, then prove it. If you think that the Book of Moses is true, then show us the manuscripts that Jospeh Smith used for that translation and let us judge it objectively.
Is that too much to ask?
Ping to that Marlowe.
WM you constantly injected your anti Calvinsit opinion into Arminian/Calvinist threads. You were for the most part just treated as another poster with an opinion. The Calvinists did not request that you be banned or your posts pulled
On this thread Arminians and Calvinists have posted from the same viewpoint..
I do not think that eithor has been crude or rude or abusive..they simply do not agree with your doctrine. You were flagged seveal times for your input in the discussion.
Your attempt to have this thread pulled speaks volumes .....
Ahhh Jesus smiles and says Peace Peace when there is no peace:>)
Rev as has been said very often..we contend strongly over 5-10% doctrinal differences...but for the most part we share a fundamental belief..
LOL There you go, giving everyone ammunition.
agreed & amen
we fight like cats and dogs, but at the end of the day - we punch the same timeclock
I think they treat Joseph as a "fallen prophet" to some extent, by virtue of the fact that they don't accept Joseph's plural marriage teachings. They don't even call themselves the "reorganized" CoJCoLDS any more, if I understand correctly.
The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 at Kirtland, Ohio, nine years before the death of Joseph Smith. The second edition was published at Nauvoo, Illinois by John Taylor in September of 1844, about 2 months after Joseph’s death. All of the passages which are quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants in this essay were found in both of these editions. To the contrary, there were no passages in either of these two editions which affirmed the belief in the theory of eternal progression or multiple gods. All of the questionable material which has been attributed to Joseph Smith on these subjects did not appear in any edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until the Utah Mormon edition of 1876, over 32 years after Joseph’s death.
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.