Student Opposition To Romney Commencement At Liberty University

[Ryan.Samples]

Perhaps that is because that is not what is actually taught or implied by our doctrine, but merely what you have inferred through your own interpretation. However, we do not interpret it that way. All one has to do is study the description in the BoM to realize that it is not other churches, at least none that are in existence today. Unless your church is intentionally designed to lead people away from God and his laws, it is not of the Church of the Devil even if it does not have the full truth, but only teaches part of the gospel.

Mormon Doctrine was not published by the Church. If you want church doctrine, you need to find it in church publications at the very least.

This is how it is taught to us: http://www.lds.org/e...of-god?lang=eng

Yes, I know MoDoct isn't doctrine. Though there is something of a paradox in that the article you listed points readers to Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973, 3:62–64. Clearly I am not the only person who sees that a non-official work can in fact prove useful for doctrine references. MoDoct is helpful because it includes in one article several references.

[Ryan.Samples]

Unless your church is intentionally designed to lead people away from God and his laws, it is not of the Church of the Devil even if it does not have the full truth, but only teaches part of the gospel.

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours? We deny the power of Joseph Smith and the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. How much more of a basic counter-LDS position could one find?

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young. What do we do with Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 6.176?

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth. They may be called cockatrices, for they sting wherever they go. Go to their meetings in the Christian world, and mingle in their society, and you will hear them remark, “Our ministers dictate our souls' salvation;” and they are perfectly composed and resigned to trust their whole future destiny to their priests, though they durst not trust them with one single dollar beyond their salaries and a few presents. They can trust their eternal welfare in the hands of their priests, but hardly dare trust them with so much as a bushel of potatoes. Is that principle here? Yes, more or less."

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell? Yes, the JoD is not a canonized work, but if the Conference speakers see fit to quote from it then I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source (See Neal A. Maxwell's “My Servant Joseph” from the April 1992 Conference).

[Calm]

Mormon Doctrine does contain much useful information. But to weight all of its information at the same level, especially when it is based on the use of another text by the same author which is substantially different in tone and content, imo, is foolish. Best to keep to church published statements if you want to get a better idea about what the church actually teaches.

As far as what is actual doctrine, caution is needed even in working with church publications as noted by the church statement on doctrine:

Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine. The news media is increasingly asking what distinguishes the Church from other faiths, and reporters like to contrast one set of beliefs with another.

The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined.

The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context (see here and here), and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. News reporters pressed by daily deadlines often find that problematic. Therefore, as the Church continues to grow throughout the world and receive increasing media attention, a few simple principles that facilitate a better understanding may be helpful:

• Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
  
• Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.
  

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges. According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
  
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwidehumanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
  
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.
  
• Those writing or commenting on Latter-day Saint doctrine also need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions. For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment. Sometimes what some may consider an argument or dispute over doctrine is really a misunderstanding of simple differences in terminology.
  
• 
  

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

If you truly care about engaging actual LDS thought and understanding and doctrine, then it would be best not to continue to claim as a valid source something that is rejected as an official doctrinal source by LDS.

[Calm]

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours?

If your church is designed to lead people to God in the best way your members know how, then that is all that matters to me because then God can lead them where he wants them to be, including my church if that is his wish.

[Calm]

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell?

And yet BY helped with the building of the Catholic church in SLC (I think the land was donated) and ever since then, members of our faith and the Church itself have contributed to the work of other faiths through donations to their buildings, working side by side with them on their humanitarian projects, etc.

[Calm]

I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source

For what?

We have examples of BY contradicting what he said himself in a morning session. We don't view our leaders as infallible or unbiased simply because they are behind the pulpit. We also don't view our doctrine as set in stone from the moment the Church was organized, but we believe in continuing revelation....meaning that we just might have a clearer understanding of the Gospel and man's relationship to God and God's work through our more recent prophets than our past prophets.

[bluebell]

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours?

Calmoriah meant unless a church is designed to purposefully lead someone away from God, it's not the church of the devil.

You believe that by leading people away from the LDS church, you are drawing them closer to Christ (though LDS believe you are wrong). If you are trying, wrong or right, to bring people to Christ, then you can't be of the devil.

Jesus Himself declared that the devil can't do good (the devil couldn't cast himself out, trying to trick people, for example). Trying to sincerely lead people to Christ can never be labeled as evil, even if desire is misguided.

[Calm]

Brigham Young was 30 years old when he encountered the newly formed LDS faith. Like him, all the earliest leaders were born and bred in other faiths prior to joining and one can trace the habits and ideas they brought along as baggage, including that particular style of discourse RS found (perhaps on some anti-mormon site as I highly doubt he's spent much time reading the Journals themselves and it isn't one of the verses thought highly of among LDS to be quoted here and there though it's beloved by those who like to criticize the Church and find justification for their own attacks on our faith.)

Thankfully as time has gone on, we've developed our own church character that does not need such bombastic language to communicate what we think is most important to proclaim, the Atonement of our Lord and Saviour and his invitation to all to come to him, accept his gift of life and his gift of blessings and his gift of his commandments and receive salvation and become exalted by becoming one with him and his Father.

As Joseph Smith said:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

[Ryan.Samples]

Mormon Doctrine does contain much useful information.

That's all I was getting at.

As far as what is actual doctrine, caution is needed even in working with church publications as noted by the church statement on doctrine

That's the problem, isn't it? Which sources can one trust and which can be ignored?

including that particular style of discourse RS found (perhaps on some anti-mormon site as I highly doubt he's spent much time reading the Journals themselves

Yes, of course I haven't ever read any of these things before. Clearly I just Google all this and then come on to message boards so I can get you all riled up. Obviously I'm not asking these questions for the purpose of exploration. If you're only logging in to insult me, I suspect your time is better spent elsewhere. I am amazed that you invite non-Mormons to explore your faith and then we do, with earnestness, we're anti-Mormon. Fabulous. Perhaps your time is best spent ignoring any and all of my future posts.

[Calm]

I have not said that you have never read those comments before coming here to post. In fact I would be surprised if you had not. Most posters who post such things in my experience have a long time familiarity with those types of quotes.

What I said it is highly unlikely that you read them from the Journal itself, at least when you first encountered them. If you went to the original source to read them in context at least, I applaud you. Most posters using such things do not.

I have no idea why you are here on the board and have made no conclusions about it. I've got to wonder though why you are jumping to conclusions about me. And if I have called you "anti-mormon" please point it out to me.

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy

But I bet you would be somewhat surprised to find out what the context actually is.

[volgadon]

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young.

The phrase "hatched in Hell" was part and parcel of Protestant-Catholic polemics. But, are you really trying to say that you stand in direct succession to things like this:

So Mormonism, in order to make progress in a Christian community, puts on the garb of righteousness, and many are really made to believe it the fulness of the gospel. How can the truths of Christianity be thus used to build up the devil's kingdom?

Stripping off its mantle of hypocrisy, Mormonism stands forth in the following cardinal positions...

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA234&dq=mormons+ministers+of+the+devil&ei=rUqcT8jqD8fiiALk5KRJ&id=lZsoAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Calm]

That's the problem, isn't it? Which sources can one trust and which can be ignored?

Not much of a problem in my view, the newsroom description is pretty clear for how the Church chooses to view its sources of doctrine.

[Log]

Not much of a problem in my view, the newsroom description is pretty clear for how the Church chooses to view its sources of doctrine.

Which sources are pretty much only those which are canonized. Therefore, I feel no need to defend any particular statement from the KFD, JoD, Mormon Doctrine, or even this month's edition of the Ensign.

[BCSpace]

Which sources are pretty much only those which are canonized.

That is an incorrect or incomplete representation. The doctrine is published by the Church and merely resides in the Standard Works et. al. You cannot open any of the Stadard Works and point to verses and tell someone else what the doctrine is in most cases without referring to some other work published by the Church. For example, you do not know that the water in John 3:5 means water baptism as opposed to the evangelical interpretation of physical birth. Another example is the doctrine that those who do not have opportunity to marry in this life will have such an opportunity in the next. Or abortion being like unto murder. Etc.

The upshot is that it takes modern prophets and apostles to establish the doctrine out of the scriptures as well as continuing revelation (which is rarely canonized). It is then officially published in a manual, or magazine, and yes, even artwork, al of which the Church lists of sources for us to use in teaching the doctrine, keeping it pure, and as the voice of the Church.

A scripture only view does nothing but deny the prophets and apostles and the need thereof and is in complete opposition to how the Church sees it's own doctrine.

Elder Christofferson's recent GC talk is an excellent illustration of this even though it concentrated more on the establishment side than the publication side (though he did give an example of such).

Therefore, I feel no need to defend any particular statement from the KFD, JoD, Mormon Doctrine, or even this month's edition of the Ensign.

Not being published by the Church, one can indeed safely ignore the JoD or BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" etc. However, items from those are often found in works published by the Church and those items are therefore official doctrine because of that.

[Pahoran]

If yours is the only true church, and mine says yours isn't, is it not logical to conclude my church is essentially designed to lead people away from yours? We deny the power of Joseph Smith and the accuracy of the Book of Mormon. How much more of a basic counter-LDS position could one find?

The non-Mormon congregations today stand in direct succession of practices and beliefs as those congregations present in the days of Smith and Young. What do we do with Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 6.176?

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth. They may be called cockatrices, for they sting wherever they go. Go to their meetings in the Christian world, and mingle in their society, and you will hear them remark, “Our ministers dictate our souls' salvation;” and they are perfectly composed and resigned to trust their whole future destiny to their priests, though they durst not trust them with one single dollar beyond their salaries and a few presents. They can trust their eternal welfare in the hands of their priests, but hardly dare trust them with so much as a bushel of potatoes. Is that principle here? Yes, more or less."

Clearly the context is about something other than the apostasy, but what do we read above if not a very blunt statement that every church but the LDS church comes straight from the mouth of hell? Yes, the JoD is not a canonized work, but if the Conference speakers see fit to quote from it then I feel confident we can cite it as a trustworthy source (See Neal A. Maxwell's “My Servant Joseph” from the April 1992 Conference).

Ryan,

For someone who describes himself as being "interested in broadening my understanding of LDS theology" etc, you certainly seem to have a fair number of standard anti-Mormon prooftexts at your fingertips.

If you're actually here to discuss our faith with us, then you will do us the very common and rather minimal courtesy of permitting us to speak for our faith. To throw out these standard anti-Mormon note-cards and then insist that you know better than we do what our Church "really" teaches is rather astonishingly presumptuous.

Not only that, but it starts to look like you are really here to tell us what's wrong with our beliefs, and to keep your own "nderstanding as narrow as possible.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ryan.Samples]

That is an incorrect or incomplete representation. The doctrine is published by the Church and merely resides in the Standard Works et. al. You cannot open any of the Stadard Works and point to verses and tell someone else what the doctrine is in most cases without referring to some other work published by the Church. For example, you do not know that the water in John 3:5 means water baptism as opposed to the evangelical interpretation of physical birth. Another example is the doctrine that those who do not have opportunity to marry in this life will have such an opportunity in the next. Or abortion being like unto murder. Etc.

The upshot is that it takes modern prophets and apostles to establish the doctrine out of the scriptures as well as continuing revelation (which is rarely canonized). It is then officially published in a manual, or magazine, and yes, even artwork, al of which the Church lists of sources for us to use in teaching the doctrine, keeping it pure, and as the voice of the Church.

A scripture only view does nothing but deny the prophets and apostles and the need thereof and is in complete opposition to how the Church sees it's own doctrine.

Elder Christofferson's recent GC talk is an excellent illustration of this even though it concentrated more on the establishment side than the publication side (though he did give an example of such).

Not being published by the Church, one can indeed safely ignore the JoD or BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" etc. However, items from those are often found in works published by the Church and those items are therefore official doctrine because of that.

There's another ongoing thread that discusses how the Word of Wisdom was at first essentially a "suggestion" but under Grant (if I recall correctly!?) it became doctrine. If that development proves accurate, it would seemingly prove an example of "doctrine" found not in the standard works.

The JoD has always proven an interesting discussion point for me. At some point in the near future I'll throw a new thread out there so I can get some wider feedback from the forum members. I know LDS folks who never look at them (either because they don't seem super relevant to their personal growth in this age or because they essentially have suspect publication origins as described above), whereas others throw themselves into detailed study of the Journal (Journals, plural is more correct?).

[Ryan.Samples]

Thought the crowd might be interested to see the email Liberty students received on this topic. I'm not going to edit the paragraph breaks, etc, so it's just a copy and paste deal.

Dear Ryan,

My office has received hundreds of messages from students and 2012 graduates who are thrilled and honored that the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States will be our Commencement speaker. Some graduates have also inquired about Liberty’s policies regarding the doctrinal beliefs of graduation speakers. These same questions seem to surface every spring and I am writing you in response to those inquiries.

First of all, it is important to remember that Liberty actually has two Commencement speakers each year. Long ago, most universities ceased their practice of including a Baccalaureate service during their Commencement weekend, but we have insisted on keeping this service as a demonstration of our Christian commitment to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

This year our Baccalaureate speaker is Luis Palau. Dr. Palau is an evangelist who has preached the Gospel to a billion people. Palau is often considered second only to Billy Graham in his influence for the Gospel, and, as is our tradition, he will be clearly delivering the Gospel at Baccalaureate.

For twenty-five years Liberty has traditionally had leaders from the worlds of politics, business, and entertainment speak during the Commencement ceremony on Saturday. Most of these leaders have not traditionally shared Liberty’s doctrinal convictions. In the last few years, our Commencement speakers have included an evangelical filmmaker (Randall Wallace), a Mormon commentator (Glenn Beck), a Jewish economist (Ben Stein), an evangelical actor and athlete (Chuck Norris), an evangelical - now Catholic - politician (Newt Gingrich), a Catholic commentator (Sean Hannity), a Southern Baptist senator (John McCain), and an Episcopalian chief of staff to President Bush (Karl Rove). In all, at least 20 of Liberty's 38 Commencement speakers have fit in this category.

My father's vision for Liberty University was both a theological and a cultural vision. Theologically, it was to found the world's preeminent Christian university where every faculty member professed faith in Jesus Christ, agreed with our doctrinal statement, and sought to fulfill the Great Commission and live the Great Commandment. Culturally, it was to found a university that held in high regard our nation's founding principles of limited government, the free enterprise system, and individual liberty. Liberty's tradition has been to focus on the first part of this vision during the Friday night ceremony and the second part on Saturday morning.

Liberty's commitment to an annual Baccalaureate service has ensured that we have never held a Commencement that did not include a strong gospel message from an evangelical leader.

I am sure that members of the Liberty University community will treat Gov. Romney with the respect he deserves, regardless of whether they agree with his religious or political beliefs.

When my father traveled the nation speaking at many secular universities, he was often met with boos and hisses by those who held different theological beliefs than he. I am so proud that Liberty students have gained a reputation for treating those whose beliefs are different than their own in a Christ-like manner. They have shown respect to speakers as divergent from Liberty's worldview as Ted Kennedy, Bob Beckel, and Tim Kaine.

Gov. Romney is a man who has excelled in business, governed a state, and even managed the Olympic games. He has been faithfully married to his wife, Ann, for 43 years, and they have 5 sons and 16 grandchildren. Gov. Romney is a leader of global significance, who might eventually be the leader of the free world, and we are honored that he accepted our invitation.

An invitation to speak at Commencement is not an ad-hoc endorsement of a presidential candidate or even of that particular speaker’s religious or political views. The ultimate purpose of having a prominent Commencement speaker is not to promote the speaker or his views but rather to inspire and challenge the graduates and showcase Liberty and its mission.

My prayer is that having the presumptive Republican nominee as our speaker will cause many who have never heard of Liberty to take notice of what Liberty is doing to train a generation of Champions for Christ. Perhaps, many of them will consider a Christian education over the secular alternative.

Sincerely,

Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Chancellor and President

[Ryan.Samples]

Nobody disputes the fact that LDS General Conference is strictly a religious event. Of course, people expect religious speakers at a strictly religious event. I fail to see any analogy with commencement. Even you admit that Commencement isn’t a religious event, per se, even at an Evangelical school. (The fact that you feel it should be is an admission that it isn’t). It seems to me that if you wanted LU to make commencement a strictly religious event, you should have not waited until Romney was invited.

I will attribute your “communist” remark to the lateness of the hour.

The communist remark didn't have anything to do with the hour. If the school largely invites only pro-capitalism speakers, then true diversity would include inviting other kinds (read: not Republicans, not capitalists, etc) of speakers.

You can and should discard the other part of my post. I had a good comparison in mind and it got all jumbled up. One should not try to play in the deep end of the pool when tired. I apologize for that negligence...

[ERayR]

The communist remark didn't have anything to do with the hour. If the school largely invites only pro-capitalism speakers, then true diversity would include inviting other kinds (read: not Republicans, not capitalists, etc) of speakers.

Liberty U normally invites speakers who share their basic values. IMNSHO a communist would be about as far from Liberty's basic values as you could get.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And why exactly do you applaud the school for inviting him?

Seriously? I get the feeling you are trolling me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sometimes it takes a generation. Jerry Sr. was a liar, but he was lied to as well. I like to think that he's been brought up to speed by now.

Nice to see you man. I hope all is well. Interesting story.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Chancellor and President

Thanks for sharing.

[Ryan.Samples]

Thanks for sharing.

Not especially insightful, but I figured "why not?"

[selek1]

Where does the LDS church say that?

It doesn't.

Ryan is trying for the trite "you do it toooo!" defense, despite the fact that he can't provide any evidence to back it up.

Even his appeal to the First Vision and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine are fallacious as he seriously (and deliberately) misrepresents both works and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ryan's position (however obliquely stated) has been that the radical fringe at Liberty University are perfectly justified in their views and behavior.

Of course, were one to substitute "Jew" or "African American" for "Mormon" it would be an entirely different ballgame.

Ryan knows this- and so he must attempt to shift the ground from an obvious and palpable wrong to the theoretical sins of Mormonism.

This is a tactic that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know well- he should be proud to be following so adroitly in their foot steps.

Of course, the first casualty in any such attempt is intellectual honesty.

Liberty bills itself as a center of higher learning- and a place in which to think erudite thoughts and to explore ideas with an open mind.

And yet a minority of Liberty students (and internet cheerleaders such as RS) are attempting to impose a homogeneity of thought- an orthodoxy beyond which no dissent or discussion is permitted.

Such an effort is at odds both with free speech and free thought and with Liberty's mission overall.

Such tactics are, of course, just as American and just as defensible as Massachussets in 1692, Mississippi in June 1964, and Terry Jones in 2011.

While their methods are different- the underlying goal and mission remain the same.

Conservative Christians often decry this sort of on-campus abuse and ideological purity when practiced by Leftist Secularists.

The minority at Liberty and their on-line cheerleaders seem to be in a stampede to become they very thing they would normally decry.

[Ryan.Samples]

It doesn't.

Ryan is trying for the trite "you do it toooo!" defense, despite the fact that he can't provide any evidence to back it up.

Even his appeal to the First Vision and McConkie's Mormon Doctrine are fallacious as he seriously (and deliberately) misrepresents both works and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Ryan's position (however obliquely stated) has been that the radical fringe at Liberty University are perfectly justified in their views and behavior.

Of course, were one to substitute "Jew" or "African American" for "Mormon" it would be an entirely different ballgame.

Ryan knows this- and so he must attempt to shift the ground from an obvious and palpable wrong to the theoretical sins of Mormonism.

This is a tactic that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know well- he should be proud to be following so adroitly in their foot steps.

Of course, the first casualty in any such attempt is intellectual honesty.

Liberty bills itself as a center of higher learning- and a place in which to think erudite thoughts and to explore ideas with an open mind.

And yet a minority of Liberty students (and internet cheerleaders such as RS) are attempting to impose a homogeneity of thought- an orthodoxy beyond which no dissent or discussion is permitted.

Such an effort is at odds both with free speech and free thought and with Liberty's mission overall.

Such tactics are, of course, just as American and just as defensible as Massachussets in 1692, Mississippi in June 1964, and Terry Jones in 2011.

While their methods are different- the underlying goal and mission remain the same.

Conservative Christians often decry this sort of on-campus abuse and ideological purity when practiced by Leftist Secularists.

The minority at Liberty and their on-line cheerleaders seem to be in a stampede to become they very thing they would normally decry.

Folks really shouldn't refer to me as RS. Surely I'm not the only one who reads a remark and inserts Relief Society into the paragraph?