Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 Gohan,Thanks so much. I appreciate your comments very much.First post on this thread that's actually been worth a rep point. Rob, Sorry to hear about the problems that your Facebook pages is having. I've got issues with the way they handle censorship and penalties. My personal profile was temporarily shut down as a 'spam profile' because too many people added me immediately after I returned from my mission. And my appeal to the people of Facebook didn't matter a bit, they essentially said it was my fault for being gone for two years.So, despite out inevitable disagreements on matters of doctrine and belief, I feel for you man.
Popular Post juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Popular Post Posted December 30, 2012 I find such an accusation highly offensive.And we find your accusations highly offensive. 6
ERayR Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 KevinG,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.So you think that someone is persecuting you because of your beliefs? Now nobody ever does that to anyone. Do they? 2
juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 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. How convenient. Take a stab at reconstructing them.SHOWUS THE OTHER POSTS 1
juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 The FB pages that are under attack are not the problem. They are civil, courteous, and friendly pages.Prove it.SHOWUS THE OTHER POSTS 3
Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 jwhitlock,You wrote:This, of course, is ridiculous. If this is Rob's only rationale for claiming that "Mormon's did it", then it speaks volumes about the low regard that he has for members of the church in general. They're always guilty on the slightest of pretenses.But then again, that's what anti-Mormonism is all about, isn't it.Good grief.I have made it clear that I don't think Mormons in general would behave this way. I have had several Mormons in this very thread express sympathy and support for my concern even as they acknowledge that they strongly disagree with my view of Mormonism. My problem is not with Mormons in general, though I do have a problem with some Mormons, as this thread also shows.Once again, I note that those who are the most hostile to me in this thread and who have the harshest comments about my complaint offer no better explanation for the censoring on FB.Ironically, the one who is engaged in hasty generalizations about a group here is not me; it's you. You generalize about all "anti-Mormons" in a way that displays prejudice and animus. Other Mormons are not so. I don't make such generalizations about Mormons, nor do I assume that a Mormon must be acting from insincere or evil motives if he happens to disagree with me. Some people -- and this includes some evangelicals, some Mormons, and some people of pretty much every belief system -- never learn this lesson.
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted December 30, 2012 Popular Post Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Maybe I'm missing something here ... I certainly haven't read the now-thirteen-page thread in its entirety, and perhaps I simply don't know how Facebook works. I have an account, but I rarely visit unless I receive an e-mail notification that, e.g., someone has postedon my wall. Let's grant, for the sake of discussion, that some/many of us eeeeee-vuhl Mer-mans are responsible for the persecution of some (perfectly reasonable!) counter-cult ministries, such as Rob's. Every cyber-venture I've been a part of (and I've never been any type of a moderator), while there is a way for me to flag content I believe is objectionable for some reason, the final decision about what to do about that allegedly-objectionable content rests with a moderator. Whatever my beef, if a moderator doesn't happen to share my opinion about the objectionable nature of the content, s/he shrugs and moves on, allowing it to stand.How is it that we Mormons have such power over Facebook moderators that we can not only flag content as objectionable, we can actually get it removed, even if none of us are moderators? Is it a Priesthood key or something? Is there a cabal of Mormons on Facebook? Edited December 30, 2012 by Kenngo1969 6
juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Hence your comparison of our opposition to Mormonism with people saying mean and nasty things about blacks, Jews, and gays is fallacious. Rob, pay attention. It is FACEBOOK that puts that considers it equivalent. Hello? Anybody home? If you are going to complain about FB policies, read their TOS so you can have a coherent discussion about it.. . . we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.See that? All in the same sentence? Would another run by help you? we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.Here is your real conflict with FB.....There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.Notice they have not given you an exemption to attack religions. 3
ERayR Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Maybe I'm missing something here ... I certainly haven't read the now-thirteen-page thread in its entirety, and perhaps I simply don't know how Facebook works. I have an account, but I rarely visit unless I receive an e-mail notification that, e.g., someone has postedon my wall. Let's grant, for the sake of discussion, that some/many of us eeeeee-vuhl Mer-mans are responsible for the persecution of some (perfectly reasonable!) counter-cult ministries, such as Rob's. Every cyber-venture I've been a part of (and I've never been any type of a moderator), while there is a way for me to flag content I believe is objectionable for some reason, the final decision about what to do about that allegedly-objectionable content rests with a moderator. Whatever my beef, if a moderator doesn't happen to share my opinion about the objectionable nature of the content, s/he shrugs and moves on, allowing it to stand.How is it that we Mormons have such power over Facebook moderators that we can not only flag content as objectionable, we can actually get it removed, even if none of us are moderators? Is it a Priesthood key or something? Is there a cabal of Mormons on Facebook? What I can not understand is how Rob thinks that anybody would attack someone just because of their sincerely held beliefs. (tongue firmly planted in cheek) 1
Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 juliann,Frankly, this is obnoxious. There have been over 250 posts in this thread in just one day. I have been reading through the last hundred or so posts and responding to as many as I can as fast as I can. I have posted ten separate posts in just the past 70 minutes or so. In one of those posts I acknowledged your demand and said I would post something in response to it. Meanwhile, you have attacked me without justification, making all sorts of accusations against me that are baseless and offensive, and I have responded to you without reciprocation. Ironically, the reality is that in this post you have been bullying me.There was just one group of posts that were censored for which I have a copy on my computer (my associates may have more), so I cannot provide copies of all of the posts that were censored. As I already stated in an earlier post, I didn't save the posts from the first couple of incidents because the posts weren't themselves particularly important. It was only the time before last that I realized the censorship would be ongoing and that I needed to keep copies of everything. So even if I wanted to comply with your demand I could not do so completely because I didn't save everything at first.I could, of course, post the FB messages from the previous incident. However, it's late, I've posted quite a lot tonight, and I have other things to do. More to the point, I do not respond well to bullying. I will not reward it. I'm going to stop posting for the night, and wait until tomorrow and see if I think it is worth even continuing this thread. You could help matters yourself by backing off a little. You might even try to bring yourself to apologize for your unwarranted accusations. I realize that's probably asking too much. But if the bullying doesn't stop, I will not comply with your demands, even though the other posts I saved would not embarrass me in the slightest. They are an exchange with a Mormon who happens to be a personal friend of mine. So to some extent whether you get to see those posts may depend on you.I'll check in sometime tomorrow.Prove it.SHOWUS THE OTHER POSTS
Damien the Leper Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Rob, please answer the CFR that Ares, the moderator, requested of you. I want to put this behind us. This thread is getting tiresome. 2
Calm Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Whatever my beef, if a moderator doesn't happen to share my opinion about the objectionable nature of the content, s/he shrugs and moves on, allowing it to stand.Which allows for transition to another cliched demand appropriate for this thread: Where's the BEEF?!!!??? (I so hated that commercial and all the spinoffs, can't believe I am the one bringing it up, but it seems so appropriate due to Mr. Bowman's past posts.) 1
juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 I could, of course, post the FB messages from the previous incident. However, it's late, I've posted quite a lot tonight, and I have other things to do. More to the point, I do not respond well to bullying. I will not reward it. I'm going to stop posting for the night, and wait until tomorrow and see if I think it is worth even continuing this thread. You could help matters yourself by backing off a little. You might even try to bring yourself to apologize for your unwarranted accusations.You are so cloaked in your self-righteous, self-imposed victimhood you may suffocate. When are you going to back off disgusting attacks on other religions? You complain about some posts? You dedicate your life to bullying people to the point Facebook is taking action against you! So now you attack Facebook. Good luck with that. Meantime,SHOWUS THE OTHER POSTS 2
jwhitlock Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 I have made it clear that I don't think Mormons in general would behave this way. I have had several Mormons in this very thread express sympathy and support for my concern even as they acknowledge that they strongly disagree with my view of Mormonism. My problem is not with Mormons in general, though I do have a problem with some Mormons, as this thread also shows.Given our past exchanges, it is abundantly clear that you do have a problem with Mormons in general. Otherwise you would not be trying so hard to destroy their faith. Trying to mask it as "concern" doesn't hid your real attitude - which was to automatically blame your perceived Facebook censorship on a campaign by "some" Mormons as the only possible culprits. As I posted earlier, I find your OP revealing about your true attitude towards us, right down to your deliberate separation of Mormons and "Christians".Once again, I note that those who are the most hostile to me in this thread and who have the harshest comments about my complaint offer no better explanation for the censoring on FB.You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we're under some responsibility for providing an explanation for your "censoring". It's not our problem; it's yours.Rather, you need to supply some hard evidence for your currently unfounded accusation, which was evidently calculated to generate hostility due to its inflammatory nature.Ironically, the one who is engaged in hasty generalizations about a group here is not me; it's you. You generalize about all "anti-Mormons" in a way that displays prejudice and animus. Other Mormons are not so. I don't make such generalizations about Mormons, nor do I assume that a Mormon must be acting from insincere or evil motives if he happens to disagree with me. Some people -- and this includes some evangelicals, some Mormons, and some people of pretty much every belief system -- never learn this lesson.The proof of what you are and your attitude towards us is on your web site, which defines the standard for prejudice and animus.As far as you claiming not to make generalizations about Mormons, that's part of your carefully crafted front. Instead, you are more than willing to allow others to do so while you tacitly condone such negative stereotypes on your web site. A perusal of the "testimonies" you post on your site of those who have left the church make that very clear, along with some of the articles written by others on the site.Feel free to continue to act as offended as you want, but I have no problem pointing out exactly what you do and exactly what your motivations are. What you really write and say contradicts your protestations of innocence. 1
ERayR Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Rob, please answer the CFR that Ares, the moderator, requested of you. I want to put this behind us. This thread is getting tiresome.But to be honest Rob's threads get tiresome to me . It is his penchant for ignoring what his opposition posts. His posts project a feeling that he is somewhat of an elitist here to educate the Mormons in their wrong headed ways. You don't discuss with him you listen. Edited December 30, 2012 by ERayR
juliann Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 But if the bullying doesn't stop, I will not comply with your demands, even though the other posts I saved would not embarrass me in the slightest. They are an exchange with a Mormon who happens to be a personal friend of mine. So to some extent whether you get to see those posts may depend on you.He finally manufactures a means of escape from his own dilemma. 1
Ares Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Rob,You have failed to provide evidence for baseless accusations. Don't use this board to vent your frustrations with other internet forums.This thread is closed.
Chaos Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 He needs to respond to the calls for information. It is a misuse of this board to make accusations and refuse to support them.
Calm Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 juliann,Frankly, this is obnoxious. There have been over 250 posts in this thread in just one day.If you didn't want a discussion, why did you start the thread? However, it's late, I've posted quite a lot tonight, and I have other things to do.Apparently one of these is complaining about how LDS are mistreating you...you seem to always have time for that.
Damien the Leper Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 He needs to respond to the calls for information. It is a misuse of this board to make accusations and refuse to support them.And if he doesn't comply?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 Robert F. Smith, on 29 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said: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.In other words, you have a hunch, and a good one. The problem is that this is not proof. What we lack is good forensic investigation and examination of the facts.At the same time, I understand that you are approaching this as a matter of probability, and I have no problem with that, as long as we all bear in mind that an untested hypothesis is being presented. We could even apply Bayesian tests of probability, with their obvious limitations.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.I am sure that you and your associates try hard to do so. However, I am thinking of a more formal procedure in which Mormons and evangelicals sit down and reach an amicable, written agreement on how we should treat one another in a broad range of circumstances. This begins by our demanding of ourselves and our coreligionists very high standards indeed.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.We need him as chairman precisely because he has both status and credibility in seeking rapprochement among evangelicals and Mormons, not because he is of like-mind with some particular wing of evangelicalism. No one questions his deep commitment to Christianity.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. You are thinking only of the instant case. There will be others.How can we reach out to our co-religionists (in your case fellow evangelicals) and hold them to very high standards, if we have not already hammered out very clear and acceptable standards of conduct and obtained the agreement of both sides? How can we approach our coreligionists with the credible demand that they comply (even if they were not signatories) precisely because it works to the good of everyone.Today you are annoyed by censorship on Facebook, which you suspect is caused by Mormons, while on another occasion it may be a complaint from Mormons that the evangelicals have done something untoward online or in a published source. A mutually beneficial agreement might very well motivate the opposing sides to go to bat for the aggrieved party, e.g., in this case Mormons could rally with you against the seemingly ridiculous actions by a faceless Facebook. It might be quite unnerving for Facebook to find the defamed "victims" defending their erstwhile "enemies." But it only works if we swear to ride herd on our respective kith & kin.I would characterize it as following the teachings of Jesus Christ (the Golden Rule and all that). Others might see it as being unequally yoked. You decide.
Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 Ares,You wrote:Rob please provide evidence or withdraw your statements. This is a fair CFR.I just saw this, and only because I decided I should take a quick look at the thread before retiring for the night. As I explained to Juliann, I haven't even finished reading through all of the posts in the thread, of which there have been more than 250 in just one day. So I was not aware of your CFR until just now.I have also explained to Juliann that I didn't save the posts that were censored the first couple of times it happened because the posts themselves were not important and there was certainly nothing inflammatory or offensive about them. I don't remember the contents of most of them, but one that I do remember somewhat was a very brief post about the time that a church meeting (or something like that) was going to be held. The post didn't even mention anything about Mormonism, and it wasn't even a post I had written! But it had appeared on IRR's FB page, and because I have admin status there I was blocked from posting on FB for a day because of a post that had nothing whatsoever offensive in it.When the censorship happened again on December 7, I realized the censorship would be ongoing and that I needed to keep a record of it. Below is the full content of the page telling me of content that was removed on December 7. I have omitted nothing and changed nothing.We removed content you postedWe removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:commentRob here. Garth, you wrote: "I appreciate your clarification of your premise, that 'it need not have been' a revelation from God. I'll grant you the right to view it that way, and frankly, what choice do you have since you don't believe it is possible anyway. I can buy that you must seek an alternate explanation...." You're still trying to shift the burden of proof to our side. The evidence shows it isn't likely to have been a revelation from God; the burden of proof is on you to show that it is, not on me to show that it can't be.commentGarth, this is Rob. Nothing in your post in any way deals with what my article actually says. Nowhere, for example, did I claim that the LDS Church teaches that its members should have no respect for others' beliefs. Nor did I claim that the LDS Church consigns people of all other churches to "damnation," as you keep saying. Nor does the article complain about us being "put upon" by Mormons. Garth, I'm not "trying to make a point of divisiveness." We are in fact already divided, whether you acknowledge that fact or not. My article simply documents the fact that the LDS Church itself strongly asserts that divide. So far you have had an awful lot of time to say a lot against the announcement of the article, and now against the article, but no time to address the specific points made in the article. Instead of addressing what the article does say, you keep insisting on accusing me of saying things that the article does NOT say. Face it, Garth: the article is factual in what it says.postSome encouragement from our Inbox today:"My whole family is Mormon and although my parents never attended the church when I was growing up my dad said the Mormon church was the only true church and so now 4 out of the 6 of us are practicing Mormons. ... I would not have been able to prove to myself that the Mormon church was wrong without the help of your website. I have spent hundreds of hours on your website and have researched almost everything you have written pertaining to the Mormon church.Thank you for this service. I believe it has helped save not only me but my wife and my child."Oh, and he now considers himself a true believer and attends a Bible teaching church. :-)We are truly grateful for God's work in this man's life and for all those who pray for us and donate to us. We realize the only reason we are able to help people like this man and his family is because caring and generous people support this ministry. We love you all. Merry Christmas. Rog, Rob, Thaddaeus, Lori and JoelcommentGarth, this is Rob again. I've got the May 2011 Ensign right here on my desk. The "Church Auditing Department report, 2010" on page 28 gives absolutely no figures of any kind. All it says is that the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that the LDS Church has followed proper accounting practices and Church policies. is this the "audit summary" to which you refer? If it is, it is absolutely useless to anyone who wants to know where the money goes.commentGarth, this is Rob. The SBC makes all of its financial statements available to the public. See pages 248-374 of the following PDF document, the Annual of the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention (this was the most recent one I happened to find in a hurry): http://www.sbcec.org/bor/2008/2008SBCAnnual.pdf.commentGarth, Rob here. Can you point me to where LDS Church members can see how their money is being spent? I think we'd all like to know. I'm not alleging malfeasance--I'm alleging non-disclosure, non-transparency.My point about the "fire insurance" was not that Mormons take the fire literally, but that they do use this language in reference to a coming judgment that the LDS Church teaches is to be avoided by tithing (among other things, of course). You may think this is a minor point, but it is "on the books" as part of your religion's doctrine.You are temporarily blockedThis is your second warning for violating Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. You are now blocked from posting content on Facebook for 24 hours.If you continue to abuse Facebook's features, your account could be permanently disabled.Allow me to make some observations. (1) None of the Mormon's posts that were part of my exchange with him (Garth, who as I have mentioned is a personal friend of mine) were removed. Only my posts, and one that was posted for the whole staff, were removed. That proves beyond reasonable doubt that the flagging of the posts was not random. (2) There is nothing in any of these posts that violates FB standards. One of the posts simply cites the Southern Baptists' financial report as an example of transparency in church accounting!Other evangelical ministries have experienced the same kinds of censorship on Facebook. See the following:Silencing Christian Critics of MormonismMinistries that I can name off the top of my head that have had this happen include IRR, Mormonism Research Ministry, and Utah Lighthouse Ministry.Again, it's late (now even later) on Saturday night, and I have already stated that there is more documentation available than what I have on my computer at home. But what I have provided is adequate documentation to support my conclusion as a reasonable inference from the known facts.
Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 calmoriah,I wrote to Juliann,"Frankly, this is obnoxious. There have been over 250 posts in this thread in just one day."You commented:If you didn't want a discussion, why did you start the thread?Arggh. Cal, you usually follow the discussions much better than this. I wasn't complaining about the number of posts. I was complaining about Juliann's harassment and bullying, repeatedly demanding in large letters that I answer her demand to provide copies of all of the censored posts, posting the same demand over and over, even while it was clear that I was busily answering as many posts as I could.
Rob Bowman Posted December 30, 2012 Author Posted December 30, 2012 A point of clarification and correction: I made no "accusations." "Accusations" would entail me pointing a finger at some specific person or persons and saying that he or they were responsible for some wrongdoing. What I said was that "evidently...some Mormons" were behind the censorship. I carefully qualified my statement with the word "evidently" because I have no direct proof (that is, I cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt), and I merely said "some Mormons." No one's reputation was called into question. The statement made no generalization about all or even most Mormons (a point I have also made more than once).
Tacenda Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) A point of clarification and correction: I made no "accusations." "Accusations" would entail me pointing a finger at some specific person or persons and saying that he or they were responsible for some wrongdoing. What I said was that "evidently...some Mormons" were behind the censorship. I carefully qualified my statement with the word "evidently" because I have no direct proof (that is, I cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt), and I merely said "some Mormons." No one's reputation was called into question. The statement made no generalization about all or even most Mormons (a point I have also made more than once). I get why both religions are at an impasse. They both don't want the other to take a loved one away from their belief. You've got IRR and the like, they've got over 50 thousand missionaries knocking on doors, two or three bibles, living prophet, ad campaigns, etc. I see why there is a problem. That or they're both trying to save the other. Ain't religion fun. Edited December 30, 2012 by Tacenda 1
Recommended Posts