Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[juliann]

Juliann,

You asked:

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.

Ah, it becomes clearer. Losing the right to fight religion on FB can damage your income. Love and lightness doesn't sell like darkness and satan.

[juliann]

I see no signs that anything has been chopped up on the FB site, as one would expect if it was being "censored". The conversations I am reading are continuous.

People who group together to fight religion, no matter what platform they stand on to do it, are responsible for the growing disgust toward all religion. Bowman is leading a suicide mission in his zeal to stamp out religions he doesn't like. He seems to have no awareness that his religion is subject to the same invective he [cordially] heaps upon others. It is no accident that the fundamentalists are increasingly having to hang out in protected spaces, what they do repels people. Just as Huckabee announcing children were killed because God was removed from schools and having to be told how revolting that is...not to mention the incoherency in expressing a belief in a Trinity that by definition is everywhere. It is a very interesting philosophical conundrum to start declaring that God can be removed from anything.

Anyway, Bowman's hateful double standards hurt all religion no matter how civilly he thinks he can deliver the bad news we are liars who follow satan.

[Stargazer]

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 IRR's purpose is what Rob says it is, then he CAN'T just put up a FB page that proclaims his own faith. His own faith isn't the purpose of IRR, it is to draw as many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as possible away from their churches, and into what Rob considers the RIGHT path, which is evangelical protestantism. He can't fulfill his mission if he is only permitted to proclaim the right path.

And misusing and misquoting one's sources for one's own purposes is a time-honored tradition. I don't know why you're complaining about it.

[ChristKnight]

folks don't worry, some of us, even after reading IRR's website, are able to see through it all and still come to Biblical Christianity-Mormonism.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ChristKnight

[jwhitlock]

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.

More tap dancing, Rob? You have never admitted - though you have no proof - that your accusation that even "some" Mormons were behind it was off base. In fact, it was an organized "campaign" - again, according to your own word - that "some" Mormons were engaged in. You made an absurd attempt at justifying your accusation via what Deborah posted. You made a deliberate differentiation between Mormons and "Christians" in your OP. It all adds up to a very specific impression that you want to make about Mormons.

Tell you what. You haven't explicitly denied anything at this point of any substance. In the absence of any hard proof, you can retract your accusations that Mormons were behind this and then your phrase "explicitly deny" might have at least a modicum of substance to it.

In the meantime, Juliann is doing a great job of pointing out the kind of stuff that's actually being posted that you condone. It paints a very different picture of what you're actually doing than what you claim.

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.

Nice attempt at misdirection, Rob. Let's get back to your original accusation of a campaign by Mormons against you, bolstered by your broad-brush differentiation of Mormons not being "Christian" in the OP, and not dishonestly accuse me of things I've never said.

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.

This is getting tiresome, Rob. Perhaps you can specifically state what I have accused you of that you have explicitly denied. I'll even make it easy for you since I'll list some here:

- The purpose of your OP was to specifically paint Mormons as capable of campaigns of censorship against you, to condemn them as guilty of this particular campaign of "censorship" on Facebook (despite the lack of any evidence for it), and that it should be obvious that Mormons were responsible because they are not "Christian".

- You condone generalizations demeaning Mormons by allowing "testimonies" to be submitted and posted to your sites that do just that. That way you can "claim" that you don't make such generalizations, while letting others do your dirty work. Juliann has posted some excellent examples of this.

- Your web site characterizes the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being secretive and of being engaged in conspiracies.

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!

You said, more accurately, that there was a "campaign" by some Mormons to censor you. You did it without proof. You made a baseless accusation against Mormons in order to make a specific impression about what Mormons are capable of because they are not "Christian". It's all there in how you phrase things and the impression you want to give. Since you continue to insist that at least some Mormons are obviously behind this, and since you continue to tap dance around the real issues of this by instead accusing me and others falsely, I'm confident that I've hit fairly close to home.

Finally, I'll add this. Your claims that you treat Mormons and their faith with civility, fairness, and balance are simply garbage. I know of at least two individuals, not members of our church, who were acquaintances of mine until they went to your site. After that, they would have nothing to do with me, because they now knew what "Mormons were really like". That's the real world impression that your site conveys, and those are the real world results of the kind of garbage that you disseminate. I don't buy into your feigned innocence about what you claim to be doing; I know far too well from the real world what your kind of anti-Mormon dishonesty really breeds.

[Deborah]

I really fail to understand why Rob would come here of all places to accuse members of the church of making complaints that got some of his statements got removed from FB. Did he really expect sympathy after the many vile things he's said about the church just here?

[Tacenda]

If IRR's purpose is what Rob says it is, then he CAN'T just put up a FB page that proclaims his own faith. His own faith isn't the purpose of IRR, it is to draw as many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as possible away from their churches, and into what Rob considers the RIGHT path, which is evangelical protestantism. He can't fulfill his mission if he is only permitted to proclaim the right path.

And misusing and misquoting one's sources for one's own purposes is a time-honored tradition. I don't know why you're complaining about it.

What about LDS and missionary work. What about that and their message to non LDS Christians? Aren't we pulling them from their faith as Rob is trying to do with LDS. We are both trying to show the other the right way. Juliann, you and several on here, don't you realize this? They might be doing some underhanded things, not saying Rob is, but they are certainly not equipped as the LDS with money to purchase billboards, make films, build temples, visitor's centers and now more missionaries than ever before. Maybe they do things out of desperation. I'm not seeing the type of behaviour common to LDS. As in turn the other cheek.

[juliann]

What about LDS and missionary work. What about that and their message to non LDS Christians? Aren't we pulling them from their faith as Rob is trying to do with LDS. We are both trying to show the other the right way. Juliann, you and several on here, don't you realize this? They might be doing some underhanded things, not saying Rob is, but they are certainly not equipped as the LDS with money to purchase billboards, make films, build temples, visitor's centers and now more missionaries than ever before. Maybe they do things out of desperation. I'm not seeing the type of behaviour common to LDS. As in turn the other cheek.

Shame on you. You show me ONE website coming from Mormons, doesn't even have to be official, that is dedicated to tearing down another religion. I cannot believe you said such a thing. I mean it, you produce a LDS website that says another religion lies or is run by Satan.

I support all religion. Anyone who wants to advertise about their own religion (or religion in general) has my full support. If that was even close to what Bowman does, he would have my full support.

[ERayR]

What about LDS and missionary work. What about that and their message to non LDS Christians? Aren't we pulling them from their faith as Rob is trying to do with LDS. We are both trying to show the other the right way. Juliann, you and several on here, don't you realize this? They might be doing some underhanded things, not saying Rob is, but they are certainly not equipped as the LDS with money to purchase billboards, make films, build temples, visitor's centers and now more missionaries than ever before. Maybe they do things out of desperation. I'm not seeing the type of behaviour common to LDS. As in turn the other cheek.

Tacenda, Tacenda can you really not see the difference? Rob has made a life and ministry of deceit and destruction. LDS missionaries do not attack Rob and his church. They go out and say to people This is what we offer would you care to join us. Juliann is correct when she said Rob's approach will destroy him in the long run.

Again look behind the sophistry of his words. He is very suave but what he says does not align with his actions.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ERayR

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Ah, it becomes clearer. Losing the right to fight religion on FB can damage your income. Love and lightness doesn't sell like darkness and satan.

Wrong again. What is happening on FB poses absolutely no thread to my income, such as it is.

The term Satan generates 3,918 results and the term devil 2,827 results on LDS.org, but only 63 and 53 results respectively on IRR's website (admittedly a smaller site, but not that much smaller). According to the Scripture search function on LDS.org, the terms Satan and devil appear 96 times in the New Testament alone. I don't see anything to embarrass me in the fact that there are references to Satan on IRR's website. Again, as I have documented for you, LDS.org includes articles that characterize all Christian churches other than its own as controlled by Satan. If you want to claim that isn't its current position, then please cite for me a more recent article in which the LDS Church has officially repudiated its earlier view.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, Tacenda can you really not see the difference? Rob has made a life and ministry of deceit and destruction. LDS missionaries do not attack Rob and his church. They go out and say to people This is what we offer would you care to join us. Juliann is correct when she said Rob's approach will destroy him in the long run.

Agasin look behind the sophistry of his words. He is very suave but what he says does not align with his actions.

I guess I haven't really read IRR, shock of all shocks, in my hey day. I just wish we could turn the other cheek. And ignore. It's not the first time LDS have been persecuted. They say that is what makes the church grow, seeing members react so vehemently won't.

[ERayR]

I guess I haven't really read IRR, shock of all shocks, in my hey day. I just wish we could turn the other cheek. And ignore. It's not the first time LDS have been persecuted. They say that is what makes the church grow, seeing members react so vehemently won't.

Just rolling over and playing dead does not accomplish any thing. One must recognize and rebut. Just because the words are smooth and the public face smiling does not mean it is not dangerous. Don't climb in bed with snakes it is dangerous.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ERayR

[juliann]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Wrong again. What is happening on FB poses absolutely no thread to my income, such as it is.

The term Satan generates 3,918 results and the term devil 2,827 results on LDS.org, but only 63 and 53 results respectively on IRR's website (admittedly a smaller site, but not that much smaller). According to the Scripture search function on LDS.org, the terms Satan and devil appear 96 times in the New Testament alone. I don't see anything to embarrass me in the fact that there are references to Satan on IRR's website. Again, as I have documented for you, LDS.org includes articles that characterize all Christian churches other than its own as controlled by Satan. If you want to claim that isn't its current position, then please cite for me a more recent article in which the LDS Church has officially repudiated its earlier view.

Change topic! Cue spin machine! Most posters I know avoid your threads like the plague because this is what you do when you back yourself into a corner. Here is a fun search for you....how many mentions of CFR can you find in any thread that you participate in?

[juliann]

I guess I haven't really read IRR, shock of all shocks, in my hey day. I just wish we could turn the other cheek. And ignore. It's not the first time LDS have been persecuted. They say that is what makes the church grow, seeing members react so vehemently won't.

The church doesn't ignore and hasn't for quite a long time. How much should we "ignore", Tacenda? How many people have to run from religion before you think what Bowman does to it matters? Have you seen the stats recently? Do you care?

[Tacenda]

Just rolling over and playing dead does not accomplish any thing. One must recognize and rebut. Just because the words are smooth and the public face smiling does not mean it is not dangerous. Don't climb in bed with snakes it is dangerous.

I won't, not going there. I guess I don't like contention. But think you've every right to defend!

[juliann]

A comment following one of Bowman's videos spreading misinformation about Mormonism. This is what he likely wants FB to host:

A bad tree will never produce good fruit. Larceny, theocracy, adultery and Mountain Meadows were the first fruits of Mormonism.

[ERayR]

I won't, not going there. I guess I don't like contention. But think you've every right to defend!

You don't have to contend just don't be deceived by the sophistry. Look behind the mask.

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote to Tacenda, a fellow Mormon:

I mean it, you produce a LDS website that says another religion lies or is run by Satan.

I'll do one better: I'll cite for you LDS scripture that says this:

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.

5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it. (1 Nephi 13:4-6)

Whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

According to official LDS teaching, the correct interpretation of these passages is not that only one church out there somewhere was founded by the devil, but that MANY churches are founded by the devil:

• 
  Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great and abominable church: “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all … organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).
  
• One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:
  “Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures; it must have slain the Saints of God, including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views; it must have dominion over all the earth; it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality; and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.…
  “Can we, then, identify the historical agency that acted as the great and abominable church in earliest Christianity? Such an agent would have had its origins in the second half of the first century and would have done much of its work by the middle of the second century.
  “This period might be called the blind spot in Christian history, for it is here that the fewest primary historical sources have been preserved. We have good sources for New Testament Christianity; then the lights go out, so to speak, and we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture and Christianity has become something very different from what it was in the beginning” (Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 38–39).
  

Book of Mormon Student Manual (2009), 26–33.

Obviously, if we non-Mormons are not part of the church of the lamb, then according to 1 Nephi 14:10 we must be part of the church of the devil.

By the way, here is a more complete quotation of McConkie, also found on LDS.org:

“The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 137–38.)

See also the following quotations, which I provided for you earlier:

“Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God. To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to say that all that is in it is satanic. Indeed, Latter-day Saints should rejoice—as the heavens undoubtedly do—at the great works of righteousness and faith, and the leavening influence on the world, of those whose lives are touched in any degree by Him whose gospel the Saints enjoy in its fulness. Still, ‘the power of God unto salvation’ (Rom. 1:16) is absent from all but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord himself has proclaimed to be ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth’ (D&C 1:30). Satan’s goal of hindering many of God’s children from returning to their Father’s glory is thus realized. How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía.” Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, Dec. 1984.

“Latter-day Saints hardly need to be told that the father of all apostasy is Satan.” Andrew C. Skinner, “Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith,” Ensign, Dec. 1995.

As I challenged you earlier, if you don't think this is the current doctrine of the LDS Church, please provide a reference showing that the LDS Church has officially repudiated its teaching that all apostate churches are of the devil.

[jwhitlock]

The term Satan generates 3,918 results and the term devil 2,827 results on LDS.org, but only 63 and 53 results respectively on IRR's website (admittedly a smaller site, but not that much smaller). According to the Scripture search function on LDS.org, the terms Satan and devil appear 96 times in the New Testament alone. I don't see anything to embarrass me in the fact that there are references to Satan on IRR's website. Again, as I have documented for you, LDS.org includes articles that characterize all Christian churches other than its own as controlled by Satan. If you want to claim that isn't its current position, then please cite for me a more recent article in which the LDS Church has officially repudiated its earlier view.

Rob, I think you know precisely what the church's current view is concerning other churches. We work with them and want to work with them wherever possible. Taking LDS quotes from an earlier era when Mormons were actively being persecuted by other churches, and things were much more polarized, and claiming they represent current thinking is simply dishonest.

On the other hand, here's a nice little quote from the IRR website (see the page "How the other woman led me to Christ"):

When I read for myself the almost word for word similarities between the temple endowment oaths and the oaths taken in Masonic rites and Satanic rituals...

Lovely stuff concerning that which Latter-day Saints hold most sacred, isn't it. Civil and respectful, isn't it. Not intended to leave any negative impression, isn't it.

Bull.

[juliann]

Here is Bowman's webpage that he cuts and pastes from. You will note that his real beef is that we proselyte Christians. But to make his point he engages in intellectually dishonest practices such as only using decades old quotes and none that represent current church teachings.

http://mit.irr.org/what-lds-church-says-about-traditional-christianity

[juliann]

As I challenged you earlier, if you don't think this is the current doctrine of the LDS Church, please provide a reference showing that the LDS Church has officially repudiated its teaching that all apostate churches are of the devil.

Will you update your webpages with them, Rob? Or just deny that they are really teachings. Like we don't know the answer to that one.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

Rob, I think you know precisely what the church's current view is concerning other churches. We work with them and want to work with them wherever possible. Taking LDS quotes from an earlier era when Mormons were actively being persecuted by other churches, and things were much more polarized, and claiming they represent current thinking is simply dishonest.

I didn't know that Mormons were being actively persecuted by other churches in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Please enlighten me as to how things were so much worse then between Mormons and other churches than they are now. Frankly, I think your comment is simply dishonest, to use your own words.

I give you the same challenge I gave Juliann, but now as an official call for references. CFR that the LDS Church has officially repudiated its earlier position that all churches other than itself are part of the church of the devil.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Will you update your webpages with them, Rob? Or just deny that they are really teachings. Like we don't know the answer to that one.

Stop with the speculations as to what I will do, and answer the question. It is now an official CFR. If you can provide documentation showing that the LDS Church has officially repudiated its earlier teaching (i.e., its teaching as recent as the 1990s!), I will absolutely include this information on our website.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Tacenda]

The church doesn't ignore and hasn't for quite a long time. How much should we "ignore", Tacenda? How many people have to run from religion before you think what Bowman does to it matters? Have you seen the stats recently? Do you care?

Are you saying members are leaving because of people like Rob and their websites? Is that what you mean by "have you seen the stats recently?".

[jwhitlock]

“Latter-day Saints hardly need to be told that the father of all apostasy is Satan.” Andrew C. Skinner, “Apostasy, Restoration, and Lessons in Faith,” Ensign, Dec. 1995.

Amid the continuing misdirection by Rob, this was actually rather interesting.

It appears that Rob disagrees with the statement that Satan is the father of all apostasy, which is rather surprising to me. Perhaps Rob thinks that God is the father of all apostasy, or that there is really no such thing as apostasy. The Bible doesn't seem to treat apostasy as something coming from God, or as something that isn't a problem, so maybe Rob has some kind of un-biblical belief that causes him to take issue with this rather common sense and clear statement.