Other Mormon Discussion Forums

[inquiringmind]

Has anyone heard of the LDS Freedom Forum?

The title might lead you to believe it's an ex or anti site, but I don't think it is.

It seems much more conservative than one other Mormon Discussion Forum I know of (where most of the active participants seem to be ex or anti Mormons--judging from the replies I've seen.)

Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone here has heard of it?

[ExAntiMormon]

Yes, it sadly is not a good place for the average normal LDS. Most of the participants there are Alex Jones and conspiracy theorist followers rather than good Conservatives. Most there believe in every conspiracy, be it 9/11 was an inside job, Skull & Bones, U.S. building concentration camps, etc., name the conspiracy, and most of them believe it. They falsely condemn other conservatives such as Allen West, Glenn Beck, etc. They call standard conservatives "neo-con", when they are the actual conservatives that are off the reservation. They are big Ron Paul supporters.

[inquiringmind]

Never heard of Alex Jones.

But even if I agreed with Ron Paul, the fact that he's running for the Republican nomination with his stated foreign policy would make me question his sanity.

(I mean, if he really expects to win the Republican nomination by saying that Islamic suicide bombers "attack us because we bomb them," we shouldn't be "overly concerned" about Iran getting the atomic bomb, and he'd "cut off all aid to Israel," how sane can he be--and would you really want him to have control of our nuclear arsenal?)

BTW: I liked George W., but a joke he made when he was asked about the skull and bones during an interview ("if I answered that I'd have to kill you"), and the fact that Al Gore (his political opponent at the time) was also a a skull and bones man, really gave me the creeps.

I realize it's no real evidence of anything, but it just seems like the deck is stacked (or could too easily be stacked) when both party's candidates (in a presidential election) belong to the same elite club.

Edited January 22, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

P.S. Wikipedia told me all I want to know about Alex Jones.

(Sounds like he has a lot in common with Rosie O'donald.)

Thank you.

[ExAntiMormon]

Yes, it's all very unfortunate. Good and smart LDS, good Constitutionalists and even Patriots, yet they believe all the conspiracy's.

It made me very sad that I lost a good LDS friend on Youtube. He made great LDS videos, mostly debunking anti-mormon claims, and he liked my comments and we got to be friends. But, he also is one of these kinds of mormons, and sadly when he didn't like what I had to say about some of these kinds of views, he simply banned me and removed my subscription to his videos, called me all kinds of names etc. All for no other reason than simply I had different views. Sadly this seems common with them. I was banned also a couple of times at LDS Freedom Forum (the forum we are speaking about) simply because I had contrary views than theirs.

What is interesting to me is that they interpret scripture concerning war the way liberal LDS do. Yet they call us standard conservatives the "neo-conservative" when it is actually they who take liberal positions on some issues such as war, drug legalization, etc.

Anyway, I don't think we are supposed to talk politics here right? So we should likely not comment on this anymore?

[mercyngrace]

That forum was actually the first "Mormon" discussion board I found online.

I posted there for a while, mostly on threads concerning doctrine because politically I just didn't fit in with majority of the board members. There are some very nice people there - and some who are more moderate than others - but over time it became evident that, as is the case with most discussion boards, the loudest, angriest, most prolific posters ruled the conversation. There was no point in posting dissenting opinions because your faithfulness (or sanity) would be questioned and you would be insulted. If I didn't express the same level of disgust and disdain for those individuals the board's self-appointed morality police disliked, my loyalty to Christ and the Church was called into question.

Of course, those things have happened to me here also.

It's the internet, Inquiring Mind, caveat emptor.

[selek1]

There are some very nice people there - and some who are more moderate than others - but over time it became evident that, as is the case with most discussion boards, the loudest, angriest, most prolific posters ruled the conversation.

And why was I not invited to play there?

Oh, yeah- the guv'ment stole my tin-foil hat.

There was no point in posting dissenting opinions because your faithfulness (or sanity) would be questioned and you would be insulted. If I didn't express the same level of disgust and disdain for those individuals the board's self-appointed morality police disliked, my loyalty to Christ and the Church was called into question.

Don't worry MnG- I'l vouch for you

Edited January 22, 2012 by selek1

[mercyngrace]

And why was I not invited to play there?

Oh, yeah- the guv'ment stole my tin-foil hat.

I think I used my hat to cover a roast.

Don't worry MnG- I'l vouch for you

[selek1]

I think I used my hat to cover a roast.

Heathen!

Heretic!

Don't you know that a slow-cooker is the only true and doctrinal way to cook a roast!?!?!

[morgan.deane]

Has anyone heard of the LDS Freedom Forum?

The title might lead you to believe it's an ex or anti site, but I don't think it is.

It seems much more conservative than one other Mormon Discussion Forum I know of (where most of the active participants seem to be ex or anti Mormons--judging from the replies I've seen.)

Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone here has heard of it?

In my experience most of the mormon blogs or websites with "freedom" in the title are extreme Ron Paul type sites. They believe they are the only true and living Republicans as they pugnaciously advance their viewpoints. I find their arrogance is only matched by their ignorance of history and the 200 years worth of precedent in applying the Constitution. They also have an uncommon ability to troll the internet and spam online polls.

[thesometimesaint]

The pharisees are always with us.

I posted there a few times under a different screen name, but lost interest when it went all conspiratorial.

Edited January 22, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[iamse7en]

I've been posting there for almost 2 years now. I have over 1,000 posts. There is good and bad with any forum, but there are many good people on there with great wisdom and spirit. I have yet to find a better place to have a great conversation regarding LDS history and doctrine.

What is wrong with believing in conspiracies? Do you believe in the Book of Mormon? "This most correct book on earth states that the downfall of two great American civilizations came as a result of secret conspiracies whose desire was to overthrow the freedom of the people...There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon — it is a conspiracy fact."

Not everyone on there "believes 9/11 was an inside job," but most have noticed the official story does not explain (nor even acknowledge, in many cases) the facts. Labeling entire communities as extreme or insane with no basis of fact or substance probably says more about the name-callers.

And most support Ron Paul because we actually follow the 1st Presidency's counsel to support political candidates "who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers." (Deseret News, November 2, 1964) Who qualifies in that prerequisite more than Ron Paul?

[thesometimesaint]

iamse7en:

I just didn't care for the site. But if someone likes it. It's no skin off of my nose.

Not every action or lack there of is involved with conspiracy. You have to be able to separate the real conspiracy from the normal human incompetence.

Scapegoating is older than recorded human history.

Pahoran, of the BoM, believed the rumors(Conspirarcy Theories of his day) floating around in his day. The trouble was they just weren't true.

There is plenty to not like about Ron Pauls' political ideas. We'll not discuss his now infamous newsletters on race.

Edited January 23, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jeff K.]

Are there LDS forums with a Harry Reid like flavor to them?

[selek1]

Are there LDS forums with a Harry Reid like flavor to them?

Only The Shady Rest, AFAICT

[volgadon]

What is wrong with believing in conspiracies? Do you believe in the Book of Mormon? "This most correct book on earth states that the downfall of two great American civilizations came as a result of secret conspiracies whose desire was to overthrow the freedom of the people...There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon — it is a conspiracy fact."

Which is far from meaning that the majority of conspiracy theories in vogue are actually true rather than being thinly-veiled offshoots of early 20th c. Antisemitic canards.

[Jeff K.]

Protocols of Zion anyone?

[CQUIRK]

I'm on their facebook page.

Most of the people there seem sincere and rational in their arguments and postings- while people right here on this thread that bash and criticize it are certainly the opposite.

BTW, if there's no such thing as a conspiracy, then there's no such thing as a Gadianton Robber.

[CQUIRK]

What is interesting to me is that they interpret scripture concerning war the way liberal LDS do. Yet they call us standard conservatives the "neo-conservative" when it is actually they who take liberal positions on some issues such as war, drug legalization, etc.

Gosh! I didn't realize that actually supporting the Tenth Amendment & our Constitution literally word-by-word, and advocating for a foreign policy that George Washington and many of the old-school conservative politicians have called for is "liberal"!

What next, are you going to say that grass isn't green?

You know, with the way the LDS Freedom forum has been talked about in this thread so far, I'm wondering if we have some CARM posters in here.

Edited January 24, 2012 by CQUIRK

[Stargazer]

I've been posting there for almost 2 years now. I have over 1,000 posts. There is good and bad with any forum, but there are many good people on there with great wisdom and spirit. I have yet to find a better place to have a great conversation regarding LDS history and doctrine.

What is wrong with believing in conspiracies? Do you believe in the Book of Mormon? "This most correct book on earth states that the downfall of two great American civilizations came as a result of secret conspiracies whose desire was to overthrow the freedom of the people...There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon — it is a conspiracy fact."

Yes, but not everything in the Book of Mormon is a conspiracy. There were the Gadiantons, yes, but who else?

I don't disbelieve that there are conspiracies out there. I could get into which ones I think are nutty as fruitcakes and which ones I think have something factual behind them. I won't do this right now because that would seriously derail the thread.

But I used to hang out with folks who are really into these conspiracies. One man of my acquaintance, a very smart man otherwise, seemed to believe that EVERYTHING was a conspiracy. There was nothing that came across his desk, so to speak, that he couldn't label a conspiracy of some sort. I was on the same page with him on some things, but not on most, and I got very tired of it.

There was bupkis you could do about these conspiracies (if they were factual) anyway, so why ruin your life obsessing about them? I have a hard enough time living in righteousness thank you very much.

And Ron Paul has zero chance against Barack Obama and if he were to win the Republican nomination then there would be celebrations in the White House. And one of the reasons this is so, is because he like conspiracies and likes talking them up.

[CQUIRK]

You're picking out maybe one or two bad apples from the LDS Freedom Forum, while the majority of the posters and members on there are quite sane and rational about politics and the church.

Sorry but the ad homenim attacks are really making you guys look like something from CARM.

Some of you also forget that Ezra Taft Benson and a few leaders in the Church are part of this crowd, and yet they were capable leaders and outstanding Latter Day Saints, and more then correct on the things that they have spoken about.

And Ron Paul has zero chance against Barack Obama and if he were to win the Republican nomination then there would be celebrations in the White House. And one of the reasons this is so, is because he like conspiracies and likes talking them up.

Oh really? Well its funny that in a few recent polls done, he was in a rather close match-up with Obama that was within the margin of error, and has already done well in the primaries.

But the most important thing about his candidacy and why people like me support him is because- besides him being the only candidate that's telling it like it is, IMO. The ideas and policies that he advocates for are moving more and more into the political mainstream, thanks to the spotlight on him.

[inquiringmind]

Gosh! I didn't realize that actually supporting the Tenth Amendment & our Constitution literally word-by-word, and advocating for a foreign policy that George Washington and many of the old-school conservative politicians have called for is "liberal"!

What next, are you going to say that grass isn't green?

You know, with the way the LDS Freedom forum has been talked about in this thread so far, I'm wondering if we have some CARM posters in here.

I'm more interested in doctrinal views than political issues, and I have nothing against the folks at LDS Freedom Forum.

(I've found their comments helpful, and this is only observation I recall making about their forum.)

It seems much more conservative than one other Mormon Discussion Forum I know of (where most of the active participants seem to be ex or anti Mormons--judging from the replies I've seen.)

But I must confess that I don't understand Ron Paul or his supporters.

From comments I've heard him make in the debates I've seen, he does seem to be isolationist.

Do you really think it would be best for the United States to relinquish all it's post WWII Superpower responsibilities?

Not too long ago (with North Korea testing atomic weapons and pursuing it's weapons program) there was talk of Japan changing it's constitution.

Japan hasn't really had a military (only a "defense force") since WWII, but it could develop offensive nuclear weapons (and advanced delivery systems) within a matter of weeks.

Would it be a good thing if Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union all developed their own nuclear deterrents?

Not too long ago, Israel bought some Dolphin class submarines (that could easily be converted into nuclear subs) from Germany.

Would the world be a safer place if we let them know they were entirely on their own. and if we stopped trying to keep Iran from pursuing it's nuclear program, and let Saudi Arabia and it's neighbors know they'd better start thinking about how to defend themselves against Iran?

Is that really the world that Ron Paul and his supporters want?

(I only ask because he sounds like he's saying we shouldn't be concerned about anything beyond our own boarders sometimes, and I don't understand why that doesn't frighten everyone.)

Edited January 24, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CQUIRK]

I'm more interested in doctrinal views than political issues, and I have nothing against the folks at LDS Freedom Forum.

(I've found their comments helpful, and this is only observation I recall making about their forum.)

Ok. Good.

From comments I've heard him make in the debates I've seen, he does seem to be isolationist.

So? Isolationism isn't as taboo as it used to be. Plus acting as the 'policeman of the world' hasn't exactly made the world a safer place, for starters- need I further elaborate?

Do you really think it would be best for the United States to relinquish all it's post WWII Superpower responsibilities?

Not too long ago (with North Korea testing atomic weapons and pursuing it's weapons program) there was talk of Japan changing it's constitution.

Japan hasn't really had a military (only a "defense force") since WWII, but it could develop offensive nuclear weapons (and advanced delivery systems) within a matter of weeks.

Would it be a good thing if Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union all developed their own nuclear deterrents?

Not too long ago, Israel bought some Dolphin class submarines (that could easily be converted into nuclear subs) from Germany.

Would the world be a safer place if we let them know they were entirely on their own. and if we stopped trying to keep Iran from pursuing it's nuclear program, and let Saudi Arabia and it's neighbors know they'd better start thinking about how to defend themselves against Iran?

Is that really the world that Ron Paul and his supporters want?

(I only ask because he sounds like he's saying we shouldn't be concerned about anything beyond our own boarders sometimes, and I don't understand why that doesn't frighten everyone.)

Three words for you: Marque and Reprisal -Ron Paul advocates for it. Plus we also have the missile defense shield too.

So having a isolationist policy would work.

I won't push Ron Paul on here; I know the rules, but I'll still defend him.

[thesometimesaint]

JS; "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such". I supported ETB as prophet not his political ideas.

[selek1]

For the record, IM- I agree with you that Ron Paul isolationism is a strikingly bad idea, and that for better or worse, the U.S. has both duty and obligations on the world stage.

That having been said, your specific arguments are as seriously flawed as Paul's.

Japan hasn't really had a military (only a "defense force") since WWII, but it could develop offensive nuclear weapons (and advanced delivery systems) within a matter of weeks.

First and foremost, you are quite correct to put scare quotes around the phrase "defense force". The only difference between a defensive military force and an offensive force is a fuzzy-line in the minds of amatuers, politicians, and other arm-chair admirals.

In terms of the quality of ships, training, manpower, and the quality of weapons, the Japanese Maritime Defense Force is the second most formidable force in the western Pacific (the first being the United States).

On the other hand, the idea that the Japanese could develop and field offensive nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems in a matter of weeks is (hands-down) the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on these boards (which is quite an acheivement in and of itself).

The assertion demonstrates a frightening ignorance of military logistics, of the vaguaries of research and development, and a profound ignorance of the Japanese mindset towards weapons of mass destruction.

Would it be a good thing if Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union all developed their own nuclear deterrents?

Technically, the EU already has. France and Britain (both EU members in good standing) already possess such deterrents.

Not too long ago, Israel bought some Dolphin class submarines (that could easily be converted into nuclear subs) from Germany.

Could you be a tad more specific here? Are you referring to weapons or propulsion?

Rumors abound that the Dolphin class is capable of fielding nuclear arms- but such capability depends wholly upon the size of the weapon and the means by which it is to be delivered.

To date, Israel has done no testing of nuclear weapons or of the delivery systems necessary to make such a weapon practical (or survivable) in a maritime environment.

If you refer to nuclear propulsion, I will point out that the Israeli Navy has neither the need nor the budget to do any such thing. As such, this assertion fails the snicker test for the same reasons as the claims about the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force.

Would the world be a safer place if we let them know they were entirely on their own. and if we stopped trying to keep Iran from pursuing it's nuclear program, and let Saudi Arabia and it's neighbors know they'd better start thinking about how to defend themselves against Iran?

Is that really the world that Ron Paul and his supporters want?

(I only ask because he sounds like he's saying we shouldn't be concerned about anything beyond our own boarders sometimes, and I don't understand why that doesn't frighten everyone.)

Paul's isolationist stance is -to be perfectly frank- reckless, foolish, short-sighted, and profoundly detrimental to the safety and security of the United States.

It is the polar opposite of the excessive "nation-building" exercises in which we've been engaged, but is no less extreme nor any wiser simply because of the its contrast.