Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[jwhitlock]

Like passive aggression?

Possibly, though that accusation is sometimes made by those with limited understanding.

[Damien the Leper]

Don't make the UMW nag you. Terrible things happen when we nag.

Ha! No one believes in that superstitious woman-cult. LOL

[ERayR]

Ha! No one believes in that superstitious woman-cult. LOL

Wrong! The Danites believe.

[MorningStar]

Did you know that nagging lowers your testosterone level? I don't think you want to go through that.

[MorningStar]

SHOW

US

THE

OTHER

POSTS

[Damien the Leper]

Wrong! The Danites believe.

That's just a superstitious man-cult.

[jwhitlock]

Did you know that nagging lowers your testosterone level? I don't think you want to go through that.

Please tell me you're referring to the person being nagged, and not the person doing the nagging...

[Damien the Leper]

SHOW

US

THE

OTHER

POSTS

Yikes! I remember demands by mother made in the same way but for different reasons. This would then result in her throwing her flimsy flip-flop at us kids which would then in turn result with us laughing at her because she missed. Good times!

[juliann]

SHOW

US

THE

OTHER

POSTS

What she said.

[Calm]

What she said she said.

[Calm]

Put up the other posts that have been removed "for days" and stop playing us.

Looks like he's not interested in playing any more.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is a 'False Flag' operation by some members of IRR to create another reason for Mormons to be protrayed as the bad guys.

There's your alternative plausible explanation with the same amount of evidence you have to claim that Mormons are flagging your posts on Facebook.

Are you suggesting that some well-intentioned IRR associate or sympathizer is acting as an agent provocateur by pretending to be a Mormon, or simply pretending to be an interested third party who doesn't want to see some group (in this case the LDS religion) pilloried unfairly, and thus reports inappropriate posting on Facebook, or other social media? Forfend!!

I recall this same thing being done by members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) years ago: In addition to engaging in terrorism against Arabs, they committed vandalism, graffiti, and the like against some Jewish institutions so that their enemies would be blamed for it, but they got caught. Very embarrassing. Their leader committed suicide while in Federal detention in Los Angeles.

[Rob Bowman]

HairBear,

You wrote:

I didn't say in was implausable, I just said that your suggestion and my suggestion on who is flagging your posts are just as plausable as each other. Unless you truly know who is doing it, and what religion they are, it could be anyone doing it.

"It could be" is not epistemically equivalent to "it is just as likely to be." Your suggestion that we are flagging our own posts is not only preposterous, it happens to be flat-out false. That much I KNOW. So I can rule your suggestion out definitively. If you choose not to accept what I say, then it will be difficult to make any headway in the discussion, as it is basic to civil discourse that one accepts what the other person says he did or did not do unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You wrote:

Though, perhaps Rob needs to tone down the rhetoric in his Facebook presence? And keep the hard-hitting stuff on his own site where FB can't touch him.

There is no "hard-hitting stuff" on our FB page, and if there were, it seems to have been missed by the censors. The posts that they have removed did not have rhetoric that needed to be "toned down." I gave the most recent example, which is actually so obviously benign as to make the whole business farcical. I see that some of your fellow LDS are demanding that I post here the other posts that FB took down. We didn't keep copies of the posts from the first couple of incidents, but I started to keep copies the time before this one. I will comment further in a separate post.

[Robert F. Smith]

juliann,

You wrote:

I said so in the opening post:

"We have had content removed from our FB page that cannot by any reasonable standard be considered violations of FB's community standards. The penalties have been getting stiffer even as the censorship of "objectionable content" has gotten more absurd. Here is the most recent post that was removed from the Facebook page of the Institute for Religious Research...."

You wrote:

I'd speculate that you can't read well enough to follow what's being said, but obviously that isn't the case. I can only conclude that you are making such statements with reckless disregard for the facts.

What's sad and telling is that your remark earned two rep points, which suggests that others share your disregard for truth.

Either that or several members here feel that we are not in possession of all the facts, and that accusations against the Mormons (for having caused IRR material to be taken down) have been made recklessly. Rep points may have been given for bringing out that aspect of the discussion.

Would you say that the moderators on this Board have been much fairer than those at Facebook?

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

My problem with him is that he tries to create this fairy tale about what a loving Christian guy he is when he is just downright nasty in major things like his mission statement. He can put it where ever he can get away with it. It is still talking about other religions in a mean and nasty manner that no one would put up with if it was about Jews, blacks or gays. )

Your comments now are getting so over the top that I don't even think you are sincere. There is nothing "downright nasty" about our mission statement. Granted, you don't like the fact that we consider Mormonism heretical and that we publish resources explaining why, but that isn't mean, nasty, bullying, or anything of the kind.

It is of course possible to be mean and nasty about almost anything. We could be putting things on the website about Mormonism that are nasty, such as pictures of people wearing Mormon sacred garments with vicious wisecracks as captions. We could be making mean-spirited comments about all Mormons being mind-numbed robots following their Prophet. But you won't find anything like this on our website. Instead, you will find respectful, to the point historical, biblical, and theological criticisms of LDS claims, doctrines, and religious practices.

If we had a website focused on defending the historic Christian, biblical view of marriage as the union of a man and a woman against alternative views of marriage, we would have materials critiquing gay marriage and explaining why homosexual activity is immoral. But that wouldn't be mean or nasty; it would be perfectly legitimate. Your own religion opposes homosexual activity and same-sex marriage for basically the same reasons that we evangelicals do. I don't think you would view our materials as mean and nasty if we happened to be agreeing with you. It is because we view Mormonism as heretical and dare to explain why that you are reacting to us as you are. Again, if we were focused on the homosexuality issue it would be quite possible for us to handle it in a mean and nasty way, as I'm sure you know some people do, but that isn't what we would do (I happen to have written a fair amount on the topic myself) and it isn't what we are doing on the subject of Mormonism. Hence your comparison of our opposition to Mormonism with people saying mean and nasty things about blacks, Jews, and gays is fallacious. As a faithful Mormon (I assume), you should not be lumping theological and moral criticisms with racist ideologies.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

There is a difference between attacking Jews, Muslims, Christians, gays etc., and attacking Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Calvinism etc. on doctrinal or theological grounds; or denouncing homosexual practices on moral grounds. And there is no justification for attacking blacks just because they are black on any grounds. Let's try and keep things in proper perspective.

Bravo. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

Thanks very much for these comments. I like it very much when people who strongly disagree with one another can also be respectful of one another.

I don't agree with it. Censorship is bad, whether it tilts the playing field against the Mormons or against the Evangelicals. I think it is beneficial to the LDS Church that there is a conversation going on on the Internet about Mormonism, even if part of that conversation happens to be critical. The Lord has said, "Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord." (D&C 71:7-8 ) It doesn't say, "Use underhand tactics to censor your enemies." Those who prefer censorship to debate are usually people who do not have the intellectual/spiritual wherewithal to address the criticisms, so they choose censorship as the easier option.

[Robert F. Smith]

juliann,

Another false, baseless, and indefensible comment.

The fact is that JWs have not been an active subject on the FB page, whereas Mormonism has been. Furthermore, many Mormons share the opinion, which more than one Mormon has already expressed in this very thread, that a group like IRR should not be allowed on FB or even the Internet. It would be an extremely rare JW who expressed such an opinion. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to infer that one or more Mormons are behind the censorship attacks.

I'm not sure of the logic in those premises (enthymeme) and conclusion, Rob. It is less like a good syllogism than a fallacy. How would you feel to be on the receiving end of such inferences? One way to deal with such perceived misconduct, is to demand that your own associates and friends abide by very high-minded and agreed-upon principles of conduct. One might do this by calling for a meeting of like-minded evangelicals, perhaps with Richard Mouw as Chairman. Once such principles have been outlined, it might be nice to forward a copy to interested parties within other, targeted groups (such as the LDS religion), and to place it on discussion boards such as this one. I'd be happy to act in an advisory capacity within such a broad discussion. We might even make some inroads in keeping our coreligionists honest and civil.

What say ye, good buddy?

Edited December 30, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

If I had my way I'd ban the entire page from FB because it's sole purpose appears to be to tear down other faiths, particularly the LDS faith. If Rob wanted to go on there to proclaim his own faith no problem but when he deliberately quotes from LDS sources and then misconstrues them that is totally inappropriate.

If FB tried to censor everyone there who misquoted someone else's sources, or everyone whose quotations someone out there thought was misconstrued, they'd need an army of people to do nothing else and would never catch up.

I do appreciate you confirming that there are Mormons who feel as you do. It confirms the plausibility of my belief that it is probably one or more Mormons who are responsible in some way for censoring FB pages of several evangelical ministries that critique Mormonism as part or all of what they do.

Your claim that I "deliberately" misconstrue LDS sources is absolutely false. I find such an accusation highly offensive. The fact is that I work very hard to read material in context, to seek the best and fairest construction of what is said, and to use quotations properly and accurately. If I don't do this perfectly, or even to your satisfaction, it is not because I am deliberately seeking to misconstrue what LDS sources say. Unfortunately, the mere fact that I present quotations of LDS sources and then argue that those quotations express doctrinal or historical error is enough to convince people like you that I am acting with sinister motives. There's probably nothing I can do to change such a prejudiced opinion of me.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would contend that Facebook is probably adhering to a policy of not allowing a particular religious group to be hounded, defamed or critiqued. If you have access to a case where they have handled defamation of any other religious group differently then please provide it.

An interesting surmise, Kevin, and equally as plausible as Rob's sincere belief that the Mormons did it!!

What, for example, would happen if the Jews were constantly being defamed on Facebook? Even short of blood libel. The ADL would be making demands in a jiffy, and the bosses at Facebook already knows that, and are likely to take preemptive measures.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[ERayR]

Your claim that I "deliberately" misconstrue LDS sources is absolutely false. I find such an accusation highly offensive. The fact is that I work very hard to read material in context, to seek the best and fairest construction of what is said, and to use quotations properly and accurately. If I don't do this perfectly, or even to your satisfaction, it is not because I am deliberately seeking to misconstrue what LDS sources say. Unfortunately, the mere fact that I present quotations of LDS sources and then argue that those quotations express doctrinal or historical error is enough to convince people like you that I am acting with sinister motives. There's probably nothing I can do to change such a prejudiced opinion of me.

I and others can only construe it as deliberate as you have been corrected many times and continue to ignore the corrections you have been given.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

Always nice to hear from you, my friend.

You wrote:

I'm not sure of the logic in those premises (enthymeme) and conclusion, Rob. It is less like a good syllogism than a fallacy.

It is neither. The argument does not pretend to be deductive in form. Rather, the argument is what is known as an inference to the best explanation. This type of reasoning is used constantly in forensics, in the physical sciences, and in many other contexts. We have a "mystery," with no direct explanation at hand, and we want to decide what is the best explanation we can come up with for the facts we have. In this case, here are the facts. Around the same time, roughly a year or so ago (sorry I don't know the exact date off the top of my head), several evangelical ministries specializing in Mormonism began having their posts removed and their accounts blocked on FB. First one, then another, then another, all within a short period of time. Then it started happening to IRR as well. The only information FB ever gives us is that the posts were removed for violating their community standards. The posts themselves don't actually violate any FB standards that we can determine (and we've all read them carefully). Now, what is the best explanation for this series of incidents? The best explanation I can think of is that one or more Mormons are flagging posts as objectionable on FB pages of evangelicals who are critical of Mormonism. The fact that this has happened to several other organizations that focus exclusively on Mormonism renders as highly implausible the hypothesis that it is a Jehovah's Witness. It also renders highly implausible the hypothesis that it is some random glitch in the FB system or that it is some random guy flagging posts on various random pages just to be mischievous. Sorry, but the best explanation seems to be that one or more Mormons are in some way responsible. Again, if anyone has a more likely explanation, I'm open to hearing it, but so far no one has offered even an equally plausible explanation.

You wrote:

How would you feel to be on the receiving end of such inferences?

No one here is on the receiving end of my inference. My inference is not about all or even most Mormons. If someone in a similar situation had similar evidence that one or more evangelicals were behaving badly, I would not take it personally. I know some badly behaved evangelicals myself.

You wrote:

One way to deal with such perceived misconduct, is to demand that your own associates and friends abide by very high-minded and agreed-upon principles of conduct.

We already do.

You wrote:

One might do this by calling for a meeting of like-minded evangelicals, perhaps with Richard Mouw as Chairman.

Unfortunately, Dr. Mouw is not like-minded. That's a subject for another day.

You wrote:

Once such principles have been outlined, it might be nice to forward a copy to interested parties within other, targeted groups (such as the LDS religion), and to place it on discussion boards such as this one. I'd be happy to act in an advisory capacity within such a broad discussion. We might even make some inroads in keeping our coreligionists honest and civil.

What say ye, good buddy?

I'm afraid your proposal approaches the problem from the wrong end. The FB pages that are under attack are not the problem. They are civil, courteous, and friendly pages. The problem is the person or persons who are attacking our pages out of spite. If they were sincere persons who genuinely felt offended by our FB pages, they would contact us and point out the offending posts. They aren't doing that. I've never received even one complaint about our FB page (except in this thread!). So the individuals who are lacking high-minded principles of conduct are those who are trying to censor us.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

I would contend that Facebook is probably adhering to a policy of not allowing a particular religious group to be hounded, defamed or critiqued.

Bob seems to think your hypothesis is as good as mine:

An interesting surmise, Kevin, and equally as plausible as Rob's sincere belief that the Mormons did it!!

What, for example, would happen if the Jews were constantly being defamed on Facebook? Even short of blood libel. The ADL would be making demands in a jiffy, and the bosses at Facebook already knows that, and are likely to take preemptive measures.

This is not a plausible hypothesis, and the reason is obvious: If FB considered our page as such objectionable, they would either tell us to make changes or they would simply take it down. They aren't doing either of those things. Instead we are getting apparently random posts from our FB page censored and our personal FB accounts blocked with threats of worse reprisals, even though the censored posts are not offensive and in some cases have no critical comments at all, as is the case with the one I quoted in the opening post.

[juliann]

SHOW

US

THE

OTHER

POSTS