Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[Sleeper Cell]

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).

As one whose formal education includes a degree in Physics and who has actually performed forensic investigations, I am stunned. At best, this type of reasoning may be used to formulate a (very tentative) preliminary working hypothesis, but beyond that … you got to be kidding!

You have essentially admitted that you don’t really know (“we have a ‘mystery’ with no direct explanation”), and you have insufficient data to test your preliminary hypothesis (“the best explanation we can come up with for the facts we have“).

Absent further verification, what you call “an inference to the best explanation” is the sort of reasoning that was generally ridiculed as “hand waving” or a “snow job” in my freshman physics class. I leave to your imagination what this sort of thing was called by engineering students.

When I perform a forensic investigation, one of the first things I do is insist on seeing all the data. In this case, that would include all of your posts on FB for the last year, all the FB posts made over the last year by the “several evangelical ministers” to whom you refer, and all of the communications between each of you and FB for that period.. Surely, you have these posts, since you say that you guys have all read them carefully and concluded that they do not violate any FB standard that you can determine. If these posts really do not violate any FB policy, the best way to make your case is to let everybody see them. Why not honor the multiple CFRs?

BTW, occasionally a forensic investigation concludes that there is insufficient evidence to prove any of the proposed hypotheses (even by the “preponderance” standard). I was involved in one such case, myself.

[MorningStar]

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).

But you come here and expect us to denounce the people who supposedly flagged your comments, causing them to be deleted when we don't know what was said or who was offended by it. If we don't have the whole story, don't expect any sympathy. It's pointless anyway. Do you think the church is going to make a statement that Mormons shouldn't flag comments from anti-Mormons because Facebook might take away their posting privileges?

[Damien the Leper]

Thanks for satisfying the CFR, Rob.

[HairBear]

HairBear,

You wrote:

"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.

How do you KNOW? Do you know who it is that is flagging your posts or don't you? I think if you had evidence to your claim then you'd probably get a fair amount of support, and condemnation of the act, from those of us on this board.

I mean, really, to give this kind of reply to a post which I have already admitted, and you have acknowledged, was a bit tongue-in-cheek, is kind of surprising to me. And leads me to only one conclusion; I think thou protests too much

[jwhitlock]

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).

This is a bunch of malarkey. An accusation is an accusation, and it doesn't matter whether it's leveled at an individual or group, or whether they're individually known to the accuser. In this case, you accused a known group (Mormons, in case you need to be reminded) of a "campaign" (a word you conveniently left out above) against you. It doesn't matter that it was just "some" Mormons; your SOP is guilt by association, and your whole attack point was to make sure it was clear that Mormons are capable of such things - Mormons, by the way, who are also obviously non-Christian, which was another gratuitous point of your OP.

Evidently, to use your own word, you really want this particular accusation to stick, which is why you're trying to tap dance around it with this rather absurd post of yours, claiming it wasn't really an accusation. Not only can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't prove it at all, and yet you still refuse to retract it. Others on this thread have mentioned at least two other possibilities, which you dismiss, because it obviously has to be Mormons, doesn't it.

I'll address your misunderstanding of generalizations later.

[Saints Alive]

Rob

It's real easy to cherry-pick "removed comment" and post them here, I'm not accusing you but your post proves nothing. Why are you seeking our validation? Do you want us to admit that some Mormons behave badly? You could get that without the Facebook story. Does a few bad apples prove Mormonism is false? If so the EVs are in more trouble than us.

[ERayR]

You have been at your malicious campaign against other religions for how long? Yes malicious, but suave. Now when someone holds you accountable by insisting you abide the rules of a social media site you cry like a spoiled child. I don't, for a minute, believe that the moderators at FB are so simple minded as to remove posts or ban you for something innocuous. The flagging of your post is not the problem. The complaint must be reviewed by a moderator. It seems that at least one moderator has found your content objectionable. Take it up with FACEBOOK.

Who me I am the nicest guy you will ever know. I didn't do anything. Just minding my own business. Its starting to ring hollow.

By the way your tactics remind me of a bully I once knew.

[jwhitlock]

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.

This misrepresentation by Rob of generalizations needs an additional response.

You apparently don't understand that the term "anti-Mormon" describes primarily a behavior, not a belief system. If you're an anti-Mormon, you engage in certain negative behaviors towards Mormonism, some of which have been demonstrated in your OP. If you don't engage in those behaviors, and just disagree, then you're not an anti-Mormon. If you do engage in those behaviors, then you are, by definition, an anti-Mormon. Hence, when you misrepresent me as generalizing about anti-Mormons, you don't seem to grasp that I am merely describing a behavior that all anti-Mormons engage in - because it is the behavior that defines someone who is an anti-Mormon.

You clearly fit the behaviors, so the term applies.

On the other hand, when you make your generalizations about Mormons - again as demonstrated in your OP - you're attacking a belief system and not a behavior. As a rule, such generalizations that are not behavior driven are invalid.

It is a misrepresentation by you to claim that the behavior-based characteristics that qualify anti-Mormons as such are generalizations in the same category as those you make against the church and its members. They're not, and the comparison is invalid. I also reject your claim of innocence that you don't make such generalizations. The format of what you say and how you say it is intended to convey a particular negative impression about Mormons and their faith. It's contained in the way you phrased your OP, it's contained in the articles on your web site, and its contained in the "testimonies" of people on your web site that demean and slander members of the church.

Interestingly enough, one anti-Mormon behavior is what you have demonstrated above, which is accusing those who you attack of the very things that you do to them, while feigning innocence and "sincere" motivations. I remember one particular anti-Mormon, Granny Geer, telling me that her Mormon neighbors know she loved them, while she was constantly being attacked by Mormons. And she said it with such hatred and venom in her voice and in her face that you couldn't miss what her true attitudes was. Anti-Mormons are always telling us how much love they have for us, but what they say certainly doesn't demonstrate that love.

That's the real spirit of anti-Mormons and that's the same spirit that I sense when I read what's on your web site. It's why I find it ironic when you use terms such as prejudice and animus in your attacks on us. Those of us who know you for what you really are aren't fooled.

[Deborah]

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.

Since Mormons like me probably don't bother reading such tripe I doubt it very much. I didn't even know your FB page existed and I can promise I won't visit it.

[jwhitlock]

Since Mormons like me probably don't bother reading such tripe I doubt it very much. I didn't even know your FB page existed and I can promise I won't visit it.

I re-read your post that he was responding to with this, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how he could use it as confirmation for his claim that Mormons are behind his supposed censorship on Facebook.

Unless, of course, the simple fact that you're a Mormon is sufficient to convict you of anything he wants to accuse you of.

The more Rob posts, the clearer it becomes that there is a significant disconnect between what he claims to be doing, and what he's really doing. Rob really has some negative feelings about Mormons, and using your post as a knee-jerk justification that Mormons are responsible for his "woes" makes that painfully evident.

[ERayR]

I re-read your post that he was responding to with this, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how he could use it as confirmation for his claim that Mormons are behind his supposed censorship on Facebook.

Unless, of course, the simple fact that you're a Mormon is sufficient to convict you of anything he wants to accuse you of.

The more Rob posts, the clearer it becomes that there is a significant disconnect between what he claims to be doing, and what he's really doing. Rob really has some negative feelings about Mormons, and using your post as a knee-jerk justification that Mormons are responsible for his "woes" makes that painfully evident.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ERayR

[juliann]

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).

And you wonder why so many do not believe much of what you say. It is apparent we are going to get a very calculated display of what FB is supposedly removing. So I held my nose and went to the IRR page.....here is that hate speech that hasn't been removed...and just what is immediately visible when opening the page.

A recent "thank you" note: "Dear IRR, Thank you so much for letting me borrow this material about Jehovah's Witnesses. It has been very helpful in witnessing to them. I was able to meet with them many times, but unfortunately they are still blinded by Satan. ... Thank you again. I really appreciate what you do."

I believe, based on many conversation with Mormons, that the only way a lie can seem to have any merit is to take things out of context.

How blind are the hearts and minds of Mormons?...

So you host a page to target members of religion as blind, lying, and in league with Satan and just can't for the life of you understand why FB might have a problem with enforcing their own TOS which explicitly forbids targeting religions.

Based on this quick look, I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of examples if you still don't get it.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

This is a bunch of malarkey. An accusation is an accusation, and it doesn't matter whether it's leveled at an individual or group, or whether they're individually known to the accuser. In this case, you accused a known group (Mormons, in case you need to be reminded) of a "campaign" (a word you conveniently left out above) against you. It doesn't matter that it was just "some" Mormons; your SOP is guilt by association, and your whole attack point was to make sure it was clear that Mormons are capable of such things - Mormons, by the way, who are also obviously non-Christian, which was another gratuitous point of your OP.

It must be fun to read things into other people's statements that they explicitly deny and feel that you can actually get away with it.

My point was not "that Mormons are capable of such things." People associated with virtually any religion are capable of such things. Members of evangelical churches are capable of such things. I have no agenda of broad-brushing all Mormons over this issue. If you are denying that there are any Mormons capable of such things, well, enjoy your naive view of your religious community.

I stated explicitly in the opening post what the point of the thread was, and instead of dealing honestly with the issue you are attacking me for things I did not say and even things I have explicitly denied. The "guilt by association" fallacy is one used by some Mormons in this forum recently; two Mormons used it to attack me in the thread on the witnesses for the plates and the Resurrection. It is a fallacy I understand all too well and do my very best to avoid.

The fact is that I did not characterize "Mormons" as doing anything. I said that evidently "some" Mormons did it. You say this doesn't matter; of course it does! It matters because my qualifications were intended to avoid the very false generalization of which you are accusing me!

[juliann]

How much money do you make out of disseminating this noxious stuff, Rob? I only ask because of your expressed concern about secrecy in the LDS church.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

It's real easy to cherry-pick "removed comment" and post them here, I'm not accusing you but your post proves nothing.

I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was asked for documentation, and I gave the documentation I had available to me.

You wrote:

Why are you seeking our validation? Do you want us to admit that some Mormons behave badly? You could get that without the Facebook story. Does a few bad apples prove Mormonism is false? If so the EVs are in more trouble than us.

No, a few bad apples do not prove Mormonism is false. I stated up front in the opening post what I wanted. Why is it that so many of you are ignoring the stated purpose of the thread?

[ERayR]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

It must be fun to read things into other people's statements that they explicitly deny and feel that you can actually get away with it.

Pardon me but your actions are shouting so loudly that I can't hear what you are saying. Your sophistry does shine forth.

[juliann]

Ohhhh.....new fav! We are spitting in Heavenly Father's face!

However, if we are right, and Joseph Smith and every subsequent LDS leader is wrong, then LDS people - even the hardest working of them- have by their very efforts, spit in Heavenly Father's face, . . .

If this passes FB's TOS, I can only imagine what they are having to remove....

[juliann]

And if we would join in Rob's public denunciation of religion, we can boastfully and pridefully demean other followers of Christ.... in great humility. I have to admit this is better than anything I have ever heard coming from a Mormon's mouth and we are pretty good at the self-righteous aggrandizing if I don't say so myself. Rob is right, we could learn something from him!

Oh, actually I do have something to lose with biblical Christianity - I lose my ability to boast and any sense of personal accomplishment or contribution to my ultimate eternal state. So it is true I lose any opportunity to look at my own effort, my own striving and a sense of what I've accomplished by my effort to follow external commandments, or achieve a sense of worthiness. But if the price I pay is the total death of any pride or personal self-worth, I'm willing, with the Apostle Paul to count it all as loss. I'm willing to be nothing but humbly grateful and eternally indebted to Jesus. He is my Master, I am His slave and I'm learning more and more how to be good with that.

[ERayR]

This whole thread because FB called a bully to toe the mark and he is trying to get his sycophants to rescue him.

[juliann]

the LDS God that grades on the curve

Now why does Rob bother with fancy talk when he can just let his friends define Mormon belief on FB in a way that people can understand. I'm going to use this in my next Sacrament meeting talk. Thanks again, Rob! Learning lots from you....but mostly about you!

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

This misrepresentation by Rob of generalizations needs an additional response.

You apparently don't understand that the term "anti-Mormon" describes primarily a behavior, not a belief system. If you're an anti-Mormon, you engage in certain negative behaviors towards Mormonism, some of which have been demonstrated in your OP. If you don't engage in those behaviors, and just disagree, then you're not an anti-Mormon. If you do engage in those behaviors, then you are, by definition, an anti-Mormon. Hence, when you misrepresent me as generalizing about anti-Mormons, you don't seem to grasp that I am merely describing a behavior that all anti-Mormons engage in - because it is the behavior that defines someone who is an anti-Mormon.

You clearly fit the behaviors, so the term applies.

You've got things turned inside out here. Let's review your post, shall we? 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.

As I have pointed out to you, the opening post to which you were taking exception in the above post says nothing about Mormons in general. It says that some Mormons evidently are involved somehow in censoring Facebook posts of evangelical ministries that are critical of Mormonism. My opening post then asks the Mormons here to offer their comments on this behavior, which again is specified as evidently the work of some Mormons, not most or all. So my opening post made no generalizations about Mormons at all.

You, then, twisted what I said into a false accusation that I was making such generalizations -- and then revealed your own prejudicial stereotype of critics of Mormonism by saying that such generalizations (which I did not make!) were "what anti-Mormonism is all about."

Now, if you care to do so, you can clear this up by stating for the record that you do not think all evangelical critics of Mormonism are "anti-Mormons" in your stipulated sense of the term, preferably with naming a couple such evangelical critics who manage in your estimation to avoid such "anti-Mormonism." But I don't think you will do this. It looks to me that you view all evangelicals who publicly criticize Mormonism as "anti-Mormons" with all of the pejorative baggage that term carries for you.

In any case, as I have demonstrated, your accusation that I "fit the behaviors" you associate with "anti-Mormonism" is false. I don't make such hasty generalizations about Mormons. My opening post did not make or imply any such generalizations. If there is any generalization one can extract from my opening post, it is, as I have said, that there are people in virtually any religious community capable of bad behavior. You yourself have admitted as much. Given that admission, there should be nothing left on which to base your false accusation against me. That is, since I made no negative generalizations about Mormons in my opening post, the following statement you made about me is simply false:

On the other hand, when you make your generalizations about Mormons - again as demonstrated in your OP - you're attacking a belief system and not a behavior.

You wrote:

I also reject your claim of innocence that you don't make such generalizations. The format of what you say and how you say it is intended to convey a particular negative impression about Mormons and their faith. It's contained in the way you phrased your OP, it's contained in the articles on your web site, and its contained in the "testimonies" of people on your web site that demean and slander members of the church.

Now we see that it really isn't anything specific in my opening post that you can identify that commits the negative generalization you want to claim I committed. Instead you are now arguing that my opening post should be read in a suspicious manner based on the fact that there are articles on IRR's website that are critical of Mormonism and that "convey a particular negative impression about Mormons and their faith." In other words, you are trying the rhetorical trick of claiming that I somehow "convey a particular negative impression" of Mormons and Mormonism without ever expressing that negative view either in the opening post or in any specific article on IRR's website. "I get the impression," which is essentially what you are saying, is not an argument. It is an expression of your feeling, not of any objective or verifiable fact.

You wrote:

Interestingly enough, one anti-Mormon behavior is what you have demonstrated above, which is accusing those who you attack of the very things that you do to them, while feigning innocence and "sincere" motivations. I remember one particular anti-Mormon, Granny Geer, telling me that her Mormon neighbors know she loved them, while she was constantly being attacked by Mormons. And she said it with such hatred and venom in her voice and in her face that you couldn't miss what her true attitudes was. Anti-Mormons are always telling us how much love they have for us, but what they say certainly doesn't demonstrate that love.

There you go again, attempting to convey guilt by association. You can't make your case from anything I have said, so you are forced to make your case against me based on comparing your impression of me with your impression of someone else (who is not even around).

You wrote:

Those of us who know you for what you really are aren't fooled

I have attended several meetings in the past couple of years with Mormons, including the FAIR conference and the SBL "Latter-day Saints and the Bible" sessions (two years running now for the latter). When I was speaking at an evangelical conference in the SLC area over a year ago I met with a couple of members of this forum for lunch. When people really meet me in person, they generally come away with a different impression than you have. Then again, such Mormons who are willing to meet with me don't come with the prejudiced preconceptions that you have and so are open to the possibility that someone who does what I do is motivated by sincere concern for others. Every Mormon I have met in these encounters, with only one exception, has been extremely cordial and friendly. We at IRR have Mormon friends, including one who has known some of our staff for about 20 years, and they recognize our good intentions even though they don't agree with our position. So your claim to know me for who I am is simply false.

[CV75]

sabotage our free expression.

PLEASE!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Irr/101199043276338

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You asked:

How much money do you make out of disseminating this noxious stuff, Rob? I only ask because of your expressed concern about secrecy in the LDS church.

I make no money disseminating anything noxious.

As to how much money I personally make, that is none of your business, but I can assure you that I am far below the level of being rich. I drive a 2006 Toyota Corolla (our only vehicle), live in a decent suburban house, buy the family's clothes at places ranging from thrift stores and Walmart to (occasionally) JC Penney's, and am still trying to pay off student loans from over twenty years ago.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

I'm guessing this was an attempt at humor. Should I laugh?

PLEASE!

http://www.facebook....101199043276338

[juliann]

I have attended several meetings in the past couple of years with Mormons, including the FAIR conference and the SBL "Latter-day Saints and the Bible" sessions (two years running now for the latter). When I was speaking at an evangelical conference in the SLC area over a year ago I met with a couple of members of this forum for lunch. When people really meet me in person, they generally come away with a different impression than you have. Then again, such Mormons who are willing to meet with me don't come with the prejudiced preconceptions that you have and so are open to the possibility that someone who does what I do is motivated by sincere concern for others. Every Mormon I have met in these encounters, with only one exception, has been extremely cordial and friendly. We at IRR have Mormon friends, including one who has known some of our staff for about 20 years, and they recognize our good intentions even though they don't agree with our position. So your claim to know me for who I am is simply false.

Oh, I get it. You think that because we spit in Heavenly Father's face, we would spit in yours, your being his voice and all. You have a pretty fractured view of reality. We have all kinds of visitors at FAIR conferences, even a picketer. (I brought him out an extra lunch and he disappeared). It is apparently really hard for you to understand that it is about your unChristian activities that even FB has had enough of... not you. As one of your FB friends said with such disgust, we do believe there is a place of glory for even Richard Hitchens. I don't see much difference between the two of you, actually....you both are out to damage religion.

Now don't be secretive....how much money are you making off of your activities? Hitchens did quite well.