Posted on 10/05/2009 6:39:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
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 theres smoke, theres fire basis. When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, Ill 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 others 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.
“Is your’s to throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks?”
Seriously? This is a response to short, direct statements?
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folk’s divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left. I do not want to, nor will I get in an argument about anyone’s missionaries or the specifics about their chosen religious flavor. Those issues are beside the point that I made. If you disagree with my observation, fine. Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
See post #41.
OK, I deliberately exaggerated a bit in my response to you labeling you referencing me/us as "divisive". I've got thick skin; I don't think you were personally "bashing" me.
But, #1, I don't speak for everyone in this thread. I'm sure, if you labeled some folks here as "divisive," they could easily make a case that you're being "divisive" yourself by what they might deem as "bashing" them as dividers.
#2, the reason I used that word is that some people just can't see the difference between on the one hand...
...genuine critiques,
...genuine disagreements of beliefs,
...debates,
...vigorous discussions,
...and religious conflicts
Versus...
...outright "bashing"
..."attacking"
...or hostility on the other side.
[I believe you can have the former without the latter]
Because of the pattern I've seen of those who disagree with us engaging in the "former" activities above -- and usually describing us as "bashers" in that process -- I usually try to respond according to the vocabulary they know and use. If they interpret critiques & disagreements as "bashing," "attacking" and other "latter" language, then I'll use their own vocabulary to describe their critiques, disagreements, and debates with us.
(And, BTW, I appeared to peg you right: You've labeled me or some of us in this thread as "attackers"...so we're "attackers" for critiquing others -- but you're not a "basher" for critiquing us...mind explainin' the difference?)
No, it is my response to your throwing a bunch of non-related issues out at the very start.
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folks divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left.
I find your statement here rather humorous. The article is about a little old nun who left mormonism. I have read and re-read the article multiple times, and failed to see any of this so-called divisive rhetoric you say is pervasive.
Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
Well sir, that was done. I have specifically asked you to clarify your position twice now. The only one dragging yourself into mud-slinging is yourself. You have no idea of what my beliefs are, so spare yourself the additional effort. As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.
Read the 1st post, by the person who posted the article and tell me that it was not divisive.
I did not call anyone “attackers”. I did say that there were some attacks upon beliefs happening. There is a difference, as you have sanely pointed out.
You have addressed my observation in a pretty even-handed manner. Thanks for your intelligent responses. You have helped me make my point: That we who pretty much agree on what threatens our well-being, should stick together.
Simple Q: Is a FREEPER, let's just randomly call Him PatriotSeminole to grab a monicker out of thin air, engaging in "mud-slinging" if he or she has called others on a thread...
..."attackers,"
..."dividers,"
...or orators of divisiveness?
(Or have I just missed the latest campus diversity class that has perhaps redefined those words as Kum Bah Yah harmonious-can't-we-all-get-along outreach appeals?)
Identifies nun as a relative of Romney, that is devisive? Cites three portions from the article, quotes from the nun herself (devisive?). Or was it the last part where the point was made that one can leave mormonism. I mean, heaven forbid that someone come to know Jesus Christ.
As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.
Are you saying that I have been a disruptor here? If so, I welcome a determination from a moderator on this issue.
Is this thread intended to be exclusive of those who respectfully disagree with the initial comments of the poster of the article?
You are techinically correct, but now you're splitting hairs w/me. Believe me, if I said you were "attacking" someone or something, I'd be labeling you as an "attacker."
Was my initial post really a thread hijack?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . . . . . .
If you are distressed by the open threads you see here, the option to avoid them is always there.
You come into the religious forum essentially asking why there are people questioning anothers religion and pointing out its very obvious flaws...
If there were to be no religious debate on FR, if it were not important for many here, I doubt FR would have a Religion Forum.
Sometimes it pays to know where one is...
Yes. Godzilla made several good pts. Look at this: We have long been discussing w/many posts the "ExPat etiquette" standard for which articles we can or can't post without being labeled as 'divisive,' and if advocating someone coming out of a religion is 'attacking' that religion or not.
ExPat, I thought we lived in a land of Free Republic where Free Republic expression was encouraged, not chastised or scolded as if we lived in some less-than-FR land.
I'm with Godzilla...moving at least my discussion back to the article topic at hand:
I think this nun showed discernment in realizing men & women can't become gods. And she was right in labeling this a "make or break" issue upon which the rest of the beliefs tumble.
If Smith was wrong about becoming a god, a statement he made when he was supposedly most mature in his life-- and not something (the afterlife) you trifle with when explaining at a funeral -- then he was wrong on everything else. IOW, the real consequential choice isn't, "Do I remain a cultural Mormon or not?" The real consequential reality is, "If I can't reach godhood, then Mormonism as a belief system is -- and never was -- legitimately erected. It's a sandy foundation."
What is remarkable is the path her life has been down. She could have gone down the atheist/agnostic road when she had her revelation about mormonism. She sounds like someone I would like to know better.
Well, since you all agree that my point was not valid, and that it was a thread hijack, then I will take my leave, after apologizing for what was perceived, but not intended as a thread hijack. I am sorry for my interference in your discussion, my fellow Freepers, and wish you all the best. Good luck in your lives and endeavors.
Thank you for your graciousness. Should you ever care to discuss the "issues" raised in these threads rather than your opinion of the suitability of the discussion, please feel free to join us.
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.