Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[ERayR]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

I don't make that claim. Stop attributing to me claims I don't make. Knock it off!

But you do by implication. It is all over your web site.

[juliann]

Rob: However, religions that preach a false gospel and a false conception of God also do irreparable harm. What people believe matters. God is real; teaching falsehoods about him has consequences.

On the one hand, the activity of people defining themselves as a group is negative, they are by virtue of who they are not. On the other hand, those outsiders --so needed for the very self-definition of those inside the group--are also regarded as a threat to them. Ironically, the Outsider is believed to threaten the boundaries that are drawn to exclude him, the boundaries his very existence maintains. Outside by definition but always threatening to get in, the Other is poised in a delicate balance that is always off balance because fear and aggression continually weigh the scales. Identity forged against the Other inspires perpetual policing of its fragile borders.

Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Montheism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p 5.

[Rob Bowman]

I have to step away for a while. I look forward to seeing either an answer to my CFR, a withdrawal of the claim that the LDS Church has abandoned its earlier and scriptural teaching that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil, or the appropriate action if neither such response to the CFR is forthcoming.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[jwhitlock]

I don't make that claim. Stop attributing to me claims I don't make. Knock it off!

So let me get this straight.

You participate heavily in anti-Mormon behavior. Your sites make the claim that our church is false and satanic, and that it's members - despite their fruits of good works - are pretty much all going to hell. You tell us that our religion is heretical and that God condemns the kinds of falsehoods we evidently teach. You make judgments concerning the salvation of an entire people and their faith. You actively work to draw people away from Mormonism because you disagree with it.

And then you tell me that you never claimed you had any authority to do so. You admit, effectively, that you have no authority to do so.

Absolutely fascinating.

[Damien the Leper]

I have to step away for a while. I look forward to seeing either an answer to my CFR, a withdrawal of the claim that the LDS Church has abandoned its earlier and scriptural teaching that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil, or the appropriate action if neither such response to the CFR is forthcoming.

I stood behind the CFR issued to Rob. I will stand behind his CFR issued on this matter as well. I ask that the mods enforce the same ruling. I would also prefer that the response to the CFR not include "fancy footwork" of plausible deniability.

[jwhitlock]

I have to step away for a while. I look forward to seeing either an answer to my CFR, a withdrawal of the claim that the LDS Church has abandoned its earlier and scriptural teaching that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil, or the appropriate action if neither such response to the CFR is forthcoming.

My, my, my. You've been more than adequately responded to, and you're sticking your head in the sand, ignoring those responses.

It's also been pointed out that your claim that the church teaches that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil, is false.

It's not good form, Rob, to ignore responses and then claim some kind of victory.

[juliann]

We never have had the official position you describe but nice try. I'm going to use this because it demonstrates exactly that. You have now had two responses to a position that does not exist, so if you continue ignoring that and demanding proof of a negative, you are badgering which is a rule violation.

So here is something for you to reject. Cue tap dance!

B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Vol.1, p.31

I would not like; therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context--with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the. Chapter in which the expression is found--then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term "the Kingdom of Evil" as Constituting the church of the devil, in proof of which I submit the following passage from the Book of Mormon---covering both the text and the context on the subject:

Oh....here is another one for you to reject!

Reynolds and Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, p.365

If I understand the solemn truth, here revealed, correctly, it refers more particularly to the two kingdoms, the kingdom of God (also called the kingdom of Christ), and the kingdom of the adversary. This view seems to be justified by the fact that the church is sometimes referred to as the "kingdom." (I Nephi 22:22-26) These two kingdoms are both upon the earth among the children of men. Each has its own form of government, diametrically contrary to that of the other. The government of the kingdom of God is founded on the celestial principles of righteousness, common consent and equality. [p.366] The government of the adversary is founded on principles of iniquity, compulsion and despotism. These two kinds of government originated in the spiritual world before the foundations of the earth were laid; they came to the earth with the conflict between the Son of God and Lucifer. They are the only two kinds of government that exist, or can exist.

And just to keep this moving across time.....here is another for you to reject, even though the church had a hand in publishing it.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, GREAT AND ABOMINABLE CHURCH

The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi1 in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16).

So here is your problem....produce something that says anything differently that has been taught for over a century. And McConkie didn't live that long. Sorry.

[jwhitlock]

I stood behind the CFR issued to Rob. I will stand behind his CFR issued on this matter as well. I ask that the mods enforce the same ruling. I would also prefer that the response to the CFR not include "fancy footwork" of plausible deniability.

Tsk, tsk, you haven't been reading the thread, have you. Rob's been responded to. You really should take what Rob posts with a grain of salt before going out on a limb like this.

I'll note that Rob still hasn't supplied any evidence for his accusation that a campaign by unidentified Mormons was behind his claimed censorship on Facebook.

[Calm]

So let me get this straight.

You participate heavily in anti-Mormon behavior. Your sites make the claim that our church is false and satanic, and that it's members - despite their fruits of good works - are pretty much all going to hell. You tell us that our religion is heretical and that God condemns the kinds of falsehoods we evidently teach. You make judgments concerning the salvation of an entire people and their faith. You actively work to draw people away from Mormonism because you disagree with it.

And then you tell me that you never claimed you had any authority to do so. You admit, effectively, that you have no authority to do so.

Absolutely fascinating.

If they makes mistake and sin and even harm someone by their aggressive actions leading that individual away rfm God, does not God's grace cover all that?

[Calm]

I stood behind the CFR issued to Rob.

How can one show evidence of a nonexistent teaching being changed?

[juliann]

I stood behind the CFR issued to Rob. I will stand behind his CFR issued on this matter as well. I ask that the mods enforce the same ruling. I would also prefer that the response to the CFR not include "fancy footwork" of plausible deniability.

He really does have to produce the official position he describes before demanding a response to something that doesn't exist. Now watch him deny the validity of whatever is produced regardless.

[bluebell]

I have to step away for a while. I look forward to seeing either an answer to my CFR, a withdrawal of the claim that the LDS Church has abandoned its earlier and scriptural teaching that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil, or the appropriate action if neither such response to the CFR is forthcoming.

D&C 18:20 teaches-

"Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."

Obviously, such a teaching makes absolutely no sense if all churches are part of the church of the devil.

Also, the Jan. 1988 Ensign taught in an article by Stephen Robinson what the church of the devil is. The article specifically deals with understanding Nephi 13 and 14 properly. I believe the magazine counts as an official source since it is run by the church.

"In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.

In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records."

[Damien the Leper]

Rob likes really old quotes. Are George Q. Cannon and B.H. Roberts out of date enough to be perfect candidates for you, Rob?

Has the church come forward to recant those quotes as no longer part of general church opinion? If not, then i see nothing wrong with old quotes. Afterall, we do quote scripture, ECFs, dead theologians, etc.

[jwhitlock]

He really does have to produce the official position he describes before demanding a response to something that doesn't exist. Now watch him deny the validity of whatever is produced regardless.

Well, that's the answer, then.

ROB - CFR for an LDS document that tells us that it is the official current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil. And it has to state specifically that, without any of the usual spin and misinterpretation by you.

If you can't provide one, then your CFRs (which we have already responded to, by the way), are invalid.

[Damien the Leper]

Tsk, tsk, you haven't been reading the thread, have you. Rob's been responded to. You really should take what Rob posts with a grain of salt before going out on a limb like this.

I'll note that Rob still hasn't supplied any evidence for his accusation that a campaign by unidentified Mormons was behind his claimed censorship on Facebook.

Then the church has not nor has ever held the position that other Christian churches were "of the devil"? If that is true then I will withdraw any negative comment on the matter.

As for the second part, I agree. It does seem a blind assertion.

[jwhitlock]

Has the church come forward to recant those quotes as no longer part of general church opinion? If not, then i see nothing wrong with old quotes. Afterall, we do quote scripture, ECFs, dead theologians, etc.

What on earth is there to recant? Rob's twisted interpretation, or what they really were saying?

[Damien the Leper]

How can one show evidence of a nonexistent teaching being changed?

So the church never taught or held a grain of opinion that other Christian churches were "of the devil"? If this is true, then I will withdraw any negative comments.

[jwhitlock]

Then the church has not nor has ever held the position that other Christian churches were "of the devil"? If that is true then I will withdraw any negative comment on the matter.

As for the second part, I agree. It does seem a blind assertion.

You'll note that Rob claimed that we believe that all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil. That's false. While I believe that some are (Westboro Baptist, anyone?), a careful reading of McConkie's statement tells us exactly what constitutes an organization being part of the church of the devil - which is the same church described in the book of Revelation in the New Testament.

[Damien the Leper]

He really does have to produce the official position he describes before demanding a response to something that doesn't exist. Now watch him deny the validity of whatever is produced regardless.

Fair enough.

[juliann]

If they makes mistake and sin and even harm someone by their aggressive actions leading that individual away rfm God, does not God's grace cover all that?

Fundamentalists are very works oriented when it comes to grace. One must do the proper things. Bowman represents a rather ugly little corner of a good religion.

“On the other hand, we are now witnessing a malignant mutation of the tabloid-truth trend in the emergence of a techno populist form of evangelical witch hunting . . .With the use of email, fax machines, and desktop publishing as well as radio and television, what were once the “rent-a-mob: propaganda tactics of the left-wing can now be marshaled against any Christian leader, speaker, or writer with whom one disagrees. In the process a genuine Christian concern for truth, orthodoxy, fidelity, and accountability has degenerated into vile campaigns of rumor, slander, disinformation, and vilification.’ (p. 118-19).

Os Guinness, Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to do About It. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994).

[Damien the Leper]

What on earth is there to recant? Rob's twisted interpretation, or what they really were saying?

I'm honestly not sure what to think. I apologize and withdraw any and all accusations and negative comments on the matter. The CFR included.

[jwhitlock]

I'm honestly not sure what to think. I apologize and withdraw any and all accusations and negative comments on the matter. The CFR included.

Fair enough.

[juliann]

So the church never taught or held a grain of opinion that other Christian churches were "of the devil"? If this is true, then I will withdraw any negative comments.

Unfortunately for Rob, I researched this quite awhile ago, albeit in a cursory manner. I think it was McConkie who started the Catholics are the church of the devil stuff. I put up the older quotes to demonstrate that this is not an early belief that had to be corrected. I think we did kind of become the Church of McConkie at one point and have had to do some clean-up. But it only puts us back to original teachings on this topic. Which Bowman will never acknowledge.

[jwhitlock]

Fundamentalists are very works oriented when it comes to grace. One must do the proper things. Bowman represents a rather ugly little corner of a good religion.

I like the quotes you're coming up with. You're correct in stating that there is a fair amount of religious self-destruction going on currently, and that Rob's brand of anti-Mormon negativity ultimately harms far more than his intended audience.

[juliann]

Anybody know exactly what religion Bowman affiliates with?