Silencing Christian Critics of Mormonism

A crusade (of sorts) is moving across Facebook. It is targeting pages that are critical of Mormonism. Who the crusaders are is unknown, but it seems reasonable to suggest that they may be Latter-day Saints.

The crusade is aimed at silencing those who disagree with Mormonism. In a broad sense (and from the perspective of many Mormons), this has some biblical support:

“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” (1 Peter 2:15)

The Facebook crusader’s strategy, however, does not involve “doing good,” nor does it seek to expose what some Mormons would call “the ignorance of foolish people.” The Facebook crusade instead is employing oppressive tactics in order to have critical discussion shut down and/or removed from public view.

Though a bit more complicated than I’ll describe here, the program goes something like this: A site critical of Mormonism is identified by the crusaders; this group of people begin a flurry of reporting, flagging the page’s status updates, videos and comments as “hate speech”; Facebook’s automated response sends warnings to the page owners and Admins, removes flagged “offensive” content, and eventually disables (temporarily) the personal accounts of those who receive sufficient warnings.

Trying to look at things from a Mormon perspective, I can acknowledge how some things posted may be reasonably understood as offensive to a Mormon (e.g., a discussion about sex; namely, the physically sexual relationship between Heavenly Father and Mary. In fact, this Mormon teaching is offensive to me, too!). Due to “one or more reports,” Aaron received a Facebook warning at Christmastime related to his audio series on the Virgin Birth:

But most of the things that have been flagged in this crusade (that I am aware of) reflect mere disagreements between Christians and Mormons regarding spiritual issues. For example, this (subsequently flagged) Facebook comment was posted on December 9, 2011 as part of an ongoing conversation:

“God has provided these tools to validate His truth. While there is an element of faith, I’d say that faith is based on things that are unseen, BUT NOT PROVEN false. Science and history have definitively proved the Book of Mormon not to be [of] God. The Bible holds its own.”

“Which Jesus, Elizabeth? The created brother of satan or the Un-Creator of all things? God?”

“oh! but one last thing Bobbi…how did you check to make sure that the answer to your prayer was truth?”

According to Facebook policy, the use of a person’s name in comments, even in a response to a comment that person may have previously posted, can be construed as “harassment.” That explains Facebook deleting some of the comments, but it does not explain the initial reporting of these conversational comments. Only a crusade designed to itself harass and silence Mormonism’s critics makes sense.

On December 26th a Christian friend received a warning from Facebook for posting a link to Aaron’s video project, God Never Sinned – Do Mormons Agree? Facebook removed the entire post and threatened the owner of the page with possible loss of his Facebook account. Facebook stated that the video link had been reported, and anything that is “hateful, threatening, or obscene” is not allowed. Yet the God Never Sinned video consists entirely of Mormons responding to a question that clarifies their own individual beliefs. Why flag that as hateful?

All of this sounds a bit un-American, or at least unlike the America envisioned by her Founding Fathers, who placed a premium on freedom of speech and the lively, open exchange of ideas. In fact, as others have noted elsewhere, these crusaders on Facebook seem to be following in the footsteps of Mormonism’s founder. When Joseph Smith was confronted with dissident voices in Nauvoo, Illinois, rather than answer them, he did his best to silence them by destroying the newspaper and press that gave the critics a platform.

Yet another aspect of this crusade is equally troubling. Assuming that the crusaders are Mormons, it must be noted that Mormons expend a lot of energy trying to convince the world that they are Christians (that is, followers of Jesus Christ). But their disregard for biblical teaching regarding how to deal with critics demonstrates a different spirit.

The Bible, recognized by Christians to be the very Word of God, does not tell followers of Christ to silence critics by taking away their voices.

The Bible tells us of the benefits of a “soft answer.” It proclaims, “To make an apt answer is a joy to a man, and a word in season, how good it is!” It teaches that the righteous think about how to answer, as opposed to the evil responses of the wicked (Proverbs 15:1, 23, 28)

The apostle Paul talks about “persuading” people of the truth while being “able to answer those” who are mistaken in their spiritual focus. He says, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (2 Corinthians 5:11-12; Colossians 4:6)

And, of course, there are the familiar instructions for God’s people to “contend” for the faith, be ready to “give a defense” of that faith, while “patiently enduring evil, correcting [spiritual] opponents.” (Jude 3; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)

Christians are not supposed to bully those who disagree with them by forcing them into silence. Christians are supposed to answer the objections and persuade opponents by speaking the truth, hoping that the lost and deceived will “come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil.”

This is what the Christians on Facebook (and here on Mormon Coffee) are endeavoring to do. What, then, is the aim of the crusaders?

Fine...call the moderators and whomever you will. I and my family and everyone I go to church with was accused of being like the Islamics in a way that was obvious to everyone and when I call that statement, you immediatley seek to have my post removed and infer I should be banned.

You ought to read what this article claims LDS are doing (which if they are I have condemned in no uncertain terms...if any LDS is tryng to silence the speech of others they are simply wrong in doing so) and compare it to what you just wrote.

This is Jim’s house and he can and will do as he pleases. But there was no hate speech or hate associated with what I wrote, just simple querstions of why on earth someone would compare with such a broad brush what is arguably what of the most conservative, family oriented, freedom loving, traditional valued, constituion honoring, Christ professing (even if you do not agree with our interpretations) in the nation...and compare them directly to the enemies of all of that in Islam.

I swear your ravings in this regard and attempts yourself to squelch sound like some liberal trying to push some PC agenda. If you take offense at that, like I said, read what this thread is about and what you just wrote...for that’s how it comes across to me.

The fact that some church members have Muslem friends and supped and fasted with them is immaterial. I know plenty of good moral muslims, but they are not trying to live the basic tennants of islam which include coersing by force the entire world to convert, be enslaved, or die...and you know this.

Folks can judge for themselves...but your aim and desire to silence any question of what should be indefensible is clear.

No need for any further dialog between us on this greyfoxx...you will not silence me regarding any such questions when I am accused in the manner that that post did from questioning it directly and calling it out.

Sadly, you may get me ejected from FR...and I hope that is not the case...but that is Jim’s call. Based on my dealings with him over the years, I do not believe he will do so...but if he does, know that I will still hold and stand by every word of what I wrote in response to that accusation.

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer.

Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison,

Joseph Smith also made the following claim.
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
________________________________________

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

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.