Guidelines on Hatred and the Religion Forum

Religion Moderator | June 22, 2012 | Religion Moderator

[nuconvert]

“It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.”

Does that go for Islam and muslims too?

[AppyPappy]

Seriously, how are you going to ask someone if they believe that BroJoe put a magic rock in a hat to read some gold plates that he dug out of the ground to write the BOM without making them look like they just fell off the turnip truck?

I read The Book of Mormon A Biography by Paul Gutjahr(a non-Mormon). He tried to be totally factual and unopinionated but when he got to that part, you could sense he was uncomfortable telling the story.

You cannot separate Mormons from Mormonism. They are too invested in it, up to their Temple Recommend. That’s why they take it so personally.

[AppyPappy]

By most definitions, a Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If a Mormon does that, by definition they are Saved. If you want to change the definition, it’s fine with me.

“The main one being that Mormons do not believe in the Trinity”

You are assuming that every Mormon doesn’t believe in the trinity. I think you are confusing Mormons with Mormonism. The LDS church is not Trinitarian. The only Mormon I ever asked about it said he believed in the Trinity.

[colorcountry]

You cannot separate Mormons from Mormonism. They are too invested in it, up to their Temple Recommend. That’s why they take it so personally.

I totally agree with you here, but that cannot and will not stop the religion forum for discussing Mormonism, and thus Mormons.

[Religion Moderator]

See posts 6,7,8 and 10.

[Godzilla]

Thanks for your efforts - again as in the past.

[Religion Moderator]

Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes do take religious debate personally. If so, they would be better off by ignoring "open" Religion Forum threads altogether and instead posting to "ecumenical" "caucus" "prayer" or "devotional" threads.

"Open" RF debate requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll of his back.

[Religion Moderator]

Your continued support is appreciated.

[roamer_1]

Some political posters are now venturing onto the Religion Forum probably because Romney’s beliefs are at issue in this election.

If you don’t know whether you are on the Religion Forum, look at the top of your internet browser window. If the current address (URL) begins with http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/ then you are on the Religion Forum.

As a comment toward operations, I wonder if it would be possible to auto-add a red-letter line to the top of any RF thread OP informing the reader he is 'in' the RF and point a link to RF rules?

I have engaged posters in the past that did not realize they were in the RF, or that there is a special rule set governing the RF.

Considering that special case, I think the forum identification should be more noticeable than the std. means... Just sayin'...

[greyfoxx39]

From the Religion Moderator: This is a case in point. The "inmans" as they call themselves are anti-MormonISM, not anti-Mormon. Many of them have Mormon ancestors, relatives and friends.

Calling them "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."

**************************************

"Anti-mormon" is a term approved by and used by today's mormon leaders.

"anti-mormon" term used at LDS.org Click HERE

It is used to keep the "persecuted mormons" label alive and to keep the "us vs. them" attitude of the 1800s alive in the 2010s. The aim is also to gain sympathy among those ignorant of mormon doctrines and practices that would garner disapproval by those not of the faith, and it works to that end on FR as we see daily.

The use of this term, "anti-mormon" only emphasizes the "anti-Christian" daily messages spread out in the world by the 52,000 mormon missionaries.

"Anti-mormon" is a passive-aggressive slur against ALL Christians who eschew membership in the sect. The use of this term as an accusation against FReepers is no co-incidence now that Romney is a POTUS candidate.

[Religion Moderator]

I will pass along your suggested software enhancement.

[svcw]

“anti mormon” is also a term to use as deflection from the truth of mormonism.
SLC lds might as well just scream “you are a racist”, the purpose is to get the other person to be quiet and stop exposing what mormonism actually is (you are correct grey) anti-Christianity.

[greyfoxx39]

You cannot separate Mormons from Mormonism. They are too invested in it, up to their Temple Recommend. That’s why they take it so personally

I agree.

That's why I now call on ALL the Inmans and anyone else posting facts about mormons to substitute the term "mormonism teaches" for the term "mormons believe".

There. Solved.

[ansel12]

JR addressed this on another thread once.

When someone posted this (about JR)*”Jim is anti Romney, but he is not an anti-Morman bigot.”*

Jim posted this.

To: *******; ansel12
Nor is ansel12!! Thanks!!

131 posted on Sat Apr 21 2012 21:35:25 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by Jim Robinson

[AppyPappy]

But some people don’t TALK about it. They throw epic paste jobs at them which immediately kills dialog. I don’t go to my Mormon neighbor and just start throwing data at her (I just had to take her dog back to her house because she is at Pioneer Girls Camp or something). If she wants to talk about it, and she doesn’t, then I will. Same with my Mormon coworker. The same even when the little elders come by. Except I sent them packing.
I’m not interested in saving Mormons from Mormonism. I’m interested in them explaining what they believe and why they believe it. That will fix the problem. They cannot justify it although my Mormon coworker swears he can.

[AppyPappy]

Perhaps. But perhaps you should count the number of freepers who left FR because of the Mormon data deluge.

[greyfoxx39]

I’m not interested in saving Mormons from Mormonism. I’m interested in them explaining what they believe and why they believe it. That will fix the problem.

What problem?

In 2007 or thereabouts, FR was innundated with thread after thread proselytizing mormonism. That means that it was a missionary attempt to gain new members.

The Inmans started posting rebuttals against the articles, using actual copied and pasted information from approved LDS sources.

Our goal is to bring to light the non-Christian beliefs and teachings of mormonism...to whatever audience, members or NON members, posters and/or lurkers.

Im my case, if you are reading into my posts an attempt to convert mormons, that is not the case. I would like for them to become curious enough to search for themselves, (as did Sentinel) in an effort to reassure themselves that mormonism is the "one true church on the face of the earth".

My MAIN goal, given the Romney candidacy, is that everyone know just what HE believes by his own admission, before they mark their ballot for him.

[colorcountry]

We do count them. Especially among our numbers.

I am an ex-mormon, and so are many of us here.

[greyfoxx39]

Perhaps. But perhaps you should count the number of freepers who left FR because of the Mormon data deluge.

I would be very interested, since you seem to have the data....just how many NON-mormons left FR because of the data deluge???

Also, just how many mormons left of their own accord OR because they were banned? I know the Inmans lost dozens due to being banned for taking part in the mormon rebuttals.

As you say, mormonism can't be defended and I believe several mormons left because they couldn't censor the Inmans.