Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[juliann]

It's a good idea to take a minute or two to get some facts before making such superficial judgments about someone.

Oh, my....you didn't just say that. LOL!!!!!

[Stargazer]

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.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about.

Rob's organization has a purpose: to prevent non-LDS from aligning with the LDS church and to draw LDS away from their church and to associate with religions that he considers to be orthodox. I'm not arguing with IRR's or Rob Bowman's purpose: that is their right. I'm not complaining.

Now, when you bring LDS proselyting into the picture, and say that this is the equivalent of IRR's efforts, I agree with you that our purpose is complementary to IRR's, or, in other words, we are trying to do the opposite of what IRR and Rob Bowman are trying to do.

The difference resides in our methodology.

Because Rob's purpose is specifically directed at LDS and potential LDS, Rob Bowman and IRR must find specfic fault with LDS doctrine and history, and must devote considerable resource to obtain their purpose. He cannot simply present evangelical protestantism and invite others to join. He MUST present negatives and what can be described as attacks on Mormonism, or else he must fail in his purpose. We are not required to resort to this, and this is our advantage.

When I was investigating the Church, I did not get the impression that the Mormons had a grudge against the Protestants and the Catholics. They were barely mentioned. I spent two years proselyting for the LDS church in Germany, from 1972 to 1974. While part of the message I presented was that God had personally revealed to Joseph Smith that the creeds that existed in 1820 (and by extension still exist) did not meet His approval, and that a restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ was necessary, I was never ever asked to do the kind of the thing that Rob routinely does, which is find detailed fault with the Protestant and Catholic churches in order to convince our investigators to reject their prior churches and become LDS. Of course it was impossible to avoid using words like "apostasy" because you can't restore what hasn't been lost. But we were never heavy-handed, and really, all we wanted was for our investigators to consider our message and prayerfully decide if what we taught was for them. Or not.

Rob is in the unfortunate position of having to present a profoundly negative message. While I am sure he is sincere, I cannot say that he does a good job of presenting it.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Stargazer

[Damien the Leper]

I'm of the opinion that 1 Nephi 14:10 isn't speaking exclusively of the LDS church. I also don't see the Book of Mormon claiming that the LDS church is the "one true church." I'm not try to be disrespectful but sharing my understanding.

[juliann]

Juliann,

You wrote:

That's just DUMB. Why would I be worried about someone scrutinizing what I believe? I've taught openly in churches and at college and university campuses all over America about what I believe. If I was worried, why would I volunteer the information about my theology, since you didn't even ask about that?

Do you guys not all get along?

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Laurence%20Justice/are_baptists_reformed.htm

Whenever a person calls himself Reformed he is actually recognizing a connection in the past with the Roman Catholic Church because the Reformers came out of that false church. Why should Baptists seek to identify with baby sprinklers, while teaching immersion themselves as the right way of baptism? It is hard to understand how Baptists who were hated and persecuted by Calvin. Luther and other Reformers could now want to be called Reformed themselves. Why should Baptists identify with the Reformers who along with the Catholics are responsible for the blood of thousands of Baptist martyrs? To call a Baptist church Reformed is confusion to those who know God’s Word and a little about history. The term "Reformed Baptist" is an oxymoron, a self contradictory term. One cannot be Reformed and Baptist at the same time as we have defined Reformed and Baptist beliefs in this message. In closing I want to say that the Scriptures nowhere call for a Reformation of the false church. Instead the Scripture says in Revelation 18:4, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

[Damien the Leper]

Are you a Calvinist, Rob? I'm just curious.

[jwhitlock]

I have already answered this misunderstanding of yours. I don't disagree that any church organization that leads people away from God and salvation is a false church. My point is that McConkie's statement, which is quoted with approval in recent LDS publications and on LDS.org, reflects the same sort of judgment that Juliann condemned as mean, nasty, reprehensible, etc., when an evangelical makes it about the LDS Church or any other religion.

In other words, you have to tell us what we really mean when we quote it, rather than taking it at face value. That way, it serves your purposes in telling us that we're actually saying it refers to all non-LDS churches. And that way, you can justify what you do.

Right.

You know, I can listen with appreciation to a Mormon who tells me he thinks I have misunderstood something. I'm open to learning from such Mormons. I have learned from such Mormons. But I have no patience with people like you who accuse me of dishonesty every time I say something with which you disagree.

Well, Rob, you certainly haven't been shy about making the same kinds of accusations about us on this thread and on your sites.

On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence at all that telling you about something you may have misunderstood gets the discussion anywhere. I've taken the opportunity to read quite a bit on the IRR site, and frankly I have very little patience for the patent dishonesty that I see displayed there.

All evangelical churches reject at least some elements of what Mormonism teaches are the "laws" of God, such as the laws of the temple. All evangelical churches deny that God the Father is a physical being with a body of flesh and bones. They all teach that God is an infinite being of spirit. The LDS Church claims to possess the "keys of the kingdom," so any church that claims otherwise would, by LDS standards, be leading people away from the kingdom of God.

Part of your problem is the absolutist interpretation that you want to apply to everything you claim we believe. I'm trying to figure out if that's an inherent flaw because of your religious background, or if it's just anti-Mormon SOP. I'm leaning towards the latter.

How do you explain 1 Nephi 14:10, which says that anyone who is not part of the church of the Lamb of God is part of the great and abominable church? Don't just assert I have knocked down a straw man; show me, if you can.

See my previous response to this.

[Damien the Leper]

Do you guys not all get along?

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Laurence%20Justice/are_baptists_reformed.htm

That quote was harsh. I'm glad I wasn't on the receiving end.

[jwhitlock]

There's one thing missing from the post reproduced below: an answer. All you have done is assert I'm wrong. You haven't said what these verses in 1 Nephi actually mean.

Tell me what your supposedly Spirit-inspired reading of the text is, and I'll consider it.

I did explain the flaw in your reasoning concerning D&C 18:10, so obviously you're going to ignore that one.

As far as the quote in 1 Nephi is concerned, I'm simply going to reiterate that your interpretation that the church of the Lamb of God is equivalent to the LDS Church is false. While they do overlap, there's far more to it than that. Someone noted earlier that honest believers in Christ are not all LDS, and that concept is closer to the mark of what this means rather than your absolutist misinterpretation.

[juliann]

I did explain the flaw in your reasoning concerning D&C 18:10, so obviously you're going to ignore that one.

That ignore list is getting preeeeetttty long......

[juliann]

That quote was harsh. I'm glad I wasn't on the receiving end.

That was the fun thing about trying to understand fundamentalists. A lot of what these EV scholars were writing about was the utter nastiness displayed to each other. I even ran across a "pledge" where several leaders got together and vowed to not be vicious anymore. I'm not keeping up with current movement, but I think there is a move towards a more loving approach in the more mainstream churches, just as there has been in our church. Dr. Mouw couldn't be a better example of that. The man emanates love and spirituality.

"Fundamentalism insists on doctrinal conformity, enforced by an authoritarian leadership and reinforced by a spiritual coercion that threatens the pain of hell for any who dare to depart from the dogmatic norm. Those who, under conviction of sin, "give their hearts to Jesus" and are "born again" constitute an elite, whose spiritual and moral superiority presumably distinguishes them from all other sorts and conditions of humanity, including nonfundamentalist Christians, who were believed to be lost to God's plan of salvation because of the taint of doctrinal impurity."

(Lloyd J. Averill, Religious Right, Religious Wrong (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1989), 9-10.)

[juliann]

I did explain the flaw in your reasoning concerning D&C 18:10, so obviously you're going to ignore that one.

As far as the quote in 1 Nephi is concerned, I'm simply going to reiterate that your interpretation that the church of the Lamb of God is equivalent to the LDS Church is false. While they do overlap, there's far more to it than that. Someone noted earlier that honest believers in Christ are not all LDS, and that concept is closer to the mark of what this means rather than your absolutist misinterpretation.

I've given him two quotes that explain it perfectly. It is obvious he can't ever, ever, ever put himself in a position of accepting information that might compromise his false teachings about other religions. (See above quote)

[Damien the Leper]

I love Richard Mouw. I like the praise he gave the Toscanos for their "Strangers in Paradox".

[Stargazer]

I cannot understand why this mess was put into the Social Hall. I've seen knock-down-drag-out fights in General Discussions with far less friction be closed by the mods for excessive roughness.

[jwhitlock]

I've given him two quotes that explain it perfectly. It is obvious he can't ever, ever, ever put himself in a position of accepting information that might compromise his false teachings about other religions. (See above quote)

Good stuff. The Reformed Baptist link was very interesting.

I've seen in my neck of the woods (on the East Coast) that cooperation and love are far more productive and Christian than the attack-dog negativity that is the hallmark of some so-called ministries.

[jwhitlock]

I cannot understand why this mess was put into the Social Hall. I've seen knock-down-drag-out fights in General Discussions with far less friction be closed by the mods for excessive roughness.

It is a bit odd; Rob originally posted in the Social Hall, and it was closed. He re-posted in the General Discussions section, and it was moved back to the Social Hall.

On the other hand, there's a certain satisfaction in exposing anti-Mormonism for what it is. Despite being rough, it's been rather instructive - at least to me.

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote:

When I first came online, we had McConkie quotes thrown at us 24/7. It has only been recently that I've realized he has pretty much disappeared except in manuals that are reprinted (and he has been quietly removed from that in some instances). I grew up in that period and the harsh, uncompromising rhetoric was uncomfortable. God bless Pres. Hinckley!

Bruce McConkie (specifically his book Mormon Doctrine) is quoted with approval in very recent General Conference addresses and other articles in Ensign, as well as in extremely recent manuals:

Experiencing a Change of Heart, 2008

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2008

Celestial Marriage, 2008

God Loves and Helps All of His Children, 2008

The Blessings of Sacrifice, 2009

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2009

The Privilege of Prayer, 2011

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 67–69 (quoted three times)

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 115–17 (quoted four times)

(McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is quoted in 15 additional chapters in the above manual)

Enter into the Rest of the Lord, 2012

Facts can just wreck beautiful theories, can't they?

[juliann]

I cannot understand why this mess was put into the Social Hall. I've seen knock-down-drag-out fights in General Discussions with far less friction be closed by the mods for excessive roughness.

Nemesis might have had too much Christmas punch. There is something quite humorous about someone going to a Mormon forum to accuse Mormons of controlling FB. Why would anyone want to shut that down.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

You wrote:

See below, I think jwhitlock provided a reasonable response to your CFR, anxiously awaiting your response.

Done.

[ERayR]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Bruce McConkie (specifically his book Mormon Doctrine) is quoted with approval in very recent General Conference addresses and other articles in Ensign, as well as in extremely recent manuals:

Experiencing a Change of Heart, 2008

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2008

Celestial Marriage, 2008

God Loves and Helps All of His Children, 2008

The Blessings of Sacrifice, 2009

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2009

The Privilege of Prayer, 2011

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 67–69 (quoted three times)

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 115–17 (quoted four times)

(McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is quoted in 15 additional chapters in the above manual)

Enter into the Rest of the Lord, 2012

Facts can just wreck beautiful theories, can't they?

not all McConkie said or wrote was bad. You ought to take the time to listen to his final conference talk.

[juliann]

Juliann,

You wrote:

Bruce McConkie (specifically his book Mormon Doctrine) is quoted with approval in very recent General Conference addresses and other articles in Ensign, as well as in extremely recent manuals:

Experiencing a Change of Heart, 2008

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 2008

Celestial Marriage, 2008

God Loves and Helps All of His Children, 2008

The Blessings of Sacrifice, 2009

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2009

The Privilege of Prayer, 2011

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 67–69 (quoted three times)

Doctrines of the Gospel Teacher Manual (2011), 115–17 (quoted four times)

(McConkie's Mormon Doctrine is quoted in 15 additional chapters in the above manual)

Enter into the Rest of the Lord, 2012

Facts can just wreck beautiful theories, can't they?

Well, you sure don't let facts interfere with anything. But this is just another example of how little you know about Mormonism aside from your bumper sticker mess you make of our theology. Mormon Doctrine was in our ward libraries, it was brought to lessons. So yes, Rob....I can say that he has pretty much disappeared. Only a fundamentalist would have to make that be an all or nothing proposition. But of course you would have no idea of what we do.

[juliann]

not all McConkie said or wrote was bad. You ought to take the time to listen to his final conference talk.

My comments were referencing my first sentence, i.e., the quotes the antis were throwing at us. He gave them some great ammo. He also wrote a beautiful hymn but that isn't the stuff they throw at us.

[Calm]

I cannot understand why this mess was put into the Social Hall. I've seen knock-down-drag-out fights in General Discussions with far less friction be closed by the mods for excessive roughness.

Welll.....it's a personal thread and there was no substance to the opening post....where else could it actually go...

And if it had been locked down as originally intended, more evidence for Mr. Bowman about Mormons' relentless attack on his free speech(I was about to say 'attack on his proselyting', but I see his work as an attempt to spread what he sees as the Bad News, and not the joyful work of spreading the Good News of our Lord).

Edited December 31, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Well, you sure don't let facts interfere with anything. But this is just another example of how little you know about Mormonism aside from your bumper sticker mess you make of our theology. Mormon Doctrine was in our ward libraries, it was brought to lessons. So yes, Rob....I can say that he has pretty much disappeared. Only a fundamentalist would have to make that be an all or nothing proposition. But of course you would have no idea of what we do.

I still have it in my library. I treat it as apocryphal.

[ERayR]

My comments were referencing my first sentence, i.e., the quotes the antis were throwing at us. He gave them some great ammo. He also wrote a beautiful hymn but that isn't the stuff they throw at us.

I know. My comment was meant for Bowman.

[jwhitlock]

My comments were referencing my first sentence, i.e., the quotes the antis were throwing at us. He gave them some great ammo. He also wrote a beautiful hymn but that isn't the stuff they throw at us.

This kind of absolutist attitude on Rob's part is quite interesting. McConkie has to have been all right or all wrong; there is no in between. Generally, there's quite a bit of grey area in any belief system. Someone like Rob who can't seem to understand that concept is never going to be able to properly comprehend something like Mormonism. Everything must have a pat answer.

And those pat answers, as demonstrated by Rob's sites, are typically going to be wrong.