Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[ERayR]

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.

And that is why Joseph Smith disliked creeds. They are anathema to revelation.

[Rob Bowman]

Juliann,

You wrote:

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.

Unbelievable. You badgered me repeatedly yesterday and now you want to accuse me of doing so before I do it.

You produced three quotations and then concluded:

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.

I quoted the Book of Mormon (1830) and several statements from McConkie AND other General Authorities up into the 1990s. Let's see, that would be over 160 years. Feel free to leave out McConkie if you insist, although the numerous citations of McConkie I provided in my previous response to you prove that leaving him out is incorrect.

Now let's look at your quotations.

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:

Roberts was neither a prophet nor an apostle. His statement appears nowhere on LDS.org. But quoting him is apparently okay while quoting statements appearing on LDS.org from Bruce McConkie, an apostle, is not. Got it!

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.

Again, neither of these authors were prophets or apostles. Their statements were not made in general conference. The passage you quote is not found on LDS.org. But by the way, the above passage does not deny that specific religions are the result of Satanic deception, nor does it deny that specific churches are under the control of "the kingdom of the adversary." So this quotation does nothing to answer the CFR.

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).

You should have been here (maybe you were; I don't recall) when the howling went up over me quoting this very work with regard to the LDS view of the Holy Ghost. I was accused of being dishonest and deceptive by quoting the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to document a Mormon belief. But by the way, I see nothing in the above quotation that denies that specific churches can be or are part of the great and abominable church. Nor does it deny that specific churches are the result of Satanic deception. So this quotation also does nothing to answer the CFR.

If your position is really the LDS position, you should be able to do better than this.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

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.

1 Nephi 14:10, which is in LDS scripture.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

So let me get this straight.

I don't think that's really your intention.

You continued:

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.

Absolutely false. I did not say I had no authority to say any of those things. Wrong again.

[Rob Bowman]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

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.

Of course I have. You are free to reject my explanation of the evidence, but I have supplied evidence for my conclusion.

[Pahoran]

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.

Permit me to demonstrate how it works. In the OP, Rob wrote:

I'd like to see some comments from Mormons here either denouncing such censorship or defending it.

Why does he want to see statements defending it? You may well ask! This is known as the bait. Then along comes innocent Deborah who gives her honest opinion of Rob's anti-Mormon enterprise. That snapping sound you hear is Rob's trap shutting on her.

You see, Rob has no evidence -- none -- for his gratuitous accusation that "some Mormons" somehow got his FB posts removed. So, being the demagogue he is, he falls back on the old rhetorical trick of manufacturing evidence out of nothing. The opinions of (at most) two Mormons to the effect that his propaganda doesn't deserve an airing then becomes "proof" that "some Mormons" were "really" responsible for the "censorship" on Facebook.

This is, as I mentioned, an old trick. Any time anyone disagreed with "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy's tactics, he would instinctively denounce them as G-d-d-mned commie-nists. After all, since he was saving America from the commie-nists, wasn't it the most reasonable, plausible theory to suppose that they were behind any opposition to his methods?

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

Well there is that, too.

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.

Indeed it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

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

I sold my grandfather's copy to a used book store.

[juliann]

Of course I have. You are free to reject my explanation of the evidence, but I have supplied evidence for my conclusion.

He says after rejecting everyone else's explanations after they have supplied evidence.

Having fun yet, Rob? I am.

[Pahoran]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

1 Nephi 14:10, which is in LDS scripture.

So it is.

And since it does not say anything equivalent to "all non-LDS churches are part of the church of the devil," much less that such is the official current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, your reference rather misses the point, doesn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

jwhitlock,

You wrote:

1 Nephi 14:10, which is in LDS scripture.

If you read the entire chapter you will find that the church of the devil are those who harden their hearts and fight against the Lamb of God. The verse never specifies a contemporary denomination. Of course we believe we are a part of the church of God but other than a few unofficial statements that were repudiated by our leadership the church of the devil has never been identified as a particular denomination.

You have of course been told this many times but you refuse to acknowledge the Latter-day Saints interpretation of their own works and teachings. You would rather paint them in a negative light.

I cannot go as far as to say you have skin in the demonizing game but it sure looks bad when you refuse to acknowledge the Saints own teachings when preaching about them and to them.

[ERayR]

Permit me to demonstrate how it works. In the OP, Rob wrote:

Why does he want to see statements defending it? You may well ask! This is known as the bait. Then along comes innocent Deborah who gives her honest opinion of Rob's anti-Mormon enterprise. That snapping sound you hear is Rob's trap shutting on her.

You see, Rob has no evidence -- none -- for his gratuitous accusation that "some Mormons" somehow got his FB posts removed. So, being the demagogue he is, he falls back on the old rhetorical trick of manufacturing evidence out of nothing. The opinions of (at most) two Mormons to the effect that his propaganda doesn't deserve an airing then becomes "proof" that "some Mormons" were "really" responsible for the "censorship" on Facebook.

This is, as I mentioned, an old trick. Any time anyone disagreed with "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy's tactics, he would instinctively denounce them as G-d-d-mned commie-nists. After all, since he was saving America from the commie-nists, wasn't it the most reasonable, plausible theory to suppose that they were behind any opposition to his methods?

Well there is that, too.

Indeed it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

As my sainted (well kinda) old grandpap used to say "he is slicker than a Philadelphia lawyer". Now not having been to Philadelphia I have no idea what he was talking about but I thaought it about as pertinent as Bowman's conclusions.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ERayR

[Damien the Leper]

Permit me to demonstrate how it works. In the OP, Rob wrote:

Why does he want to see statements defending it? You may well ask! This is known as the bait. Then along comes innocent Deborah who gives her honest opinion of Rob's anti-Mormon enterprise. That snapping sound you hear is Rob's trap shutting on her.

You see, Rob has no evidence -- none -- for his gratuitous accusation that "some Mormons" somehow got his FB posts removed. So, being the demagogue he is, he falls back on the old rhetorical trick of manufacturing evidence out of nothing. The opinions of (at most) two Mormons to the effect that his propaganda doesn't deserve an airing then becomes "proof" that "some Mormons" were "really" responsible for the "censorship" on Facebook.

This is, as I mentioned, an old trick. Any time anyone disagreed with "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy's tactics, he would instinctively denounce them as G-d-d-mned commie-nists. After all, since he was saving America from the commie-nists, wasn't it the most reasonable, plausible theory to suppose that they were behind any opposition to his methods?

Well there is that, too.

Indeed it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hey you! Where have you been? I feel like I haven't seen you post in a while. How have you been?

[jwhitlock]

1 Nephi 14:10, which is in LDS scripture.

Sorry Rob. It doesn't say that, as has already been explained.

Try again.

[Calm]

Light bedtime reading: http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Believe-Robert-Bowman/dp/0830837701

[ERayR]

Well for me this is beginning to feel like insanity so I will bow out for awhile. But it is amusing to see a demagogue in action.

[KevinG]

I have invited Rob to attend LDS services repeatedly and learn what we teach in Sunday school and over the pulpit in our Sacrament meetings. I don't know if he has done that yet. It seems very poor scholarship to me to be digging about in the writings about Mormonism while ignoring the application of our teachings in real life. Of course I may be more of an anthropologist than an archaeologist in approaching an understanding of a people or culture.

The practice of taking selected utterances of Mormons on line and in print is also seemingly bad scholarship when used to portray a picture of a belief system that the faithful adherents of that system would not recognize.

[bluebell]

If someone is not part of the church of the Lamb of God, according to the above statement, he is part of the great and abominable church. So how can there be whole churches separate from the church of the Lamb of God (=the LDS Church, according to Mormonism) that are not part of "that great church, which is the mother of abominations"?

The answer is provided in the quote that i have already given.

Just as there are members of the LDS church who are a part of the church of the devil, there are members of other churches who are a part of the church of the Lamb. It's about who has your heart more than who has your records.

[Pahoran]

Hey you! Where have you been? I feel like I haven't seen you post in a while. How have you been?

Hi Val. Just stopped in for a quick look. I'm on my way out the door to the airport, and I won't be back for a while.

Best greetings of the season, and a happy and prosperous new year to all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Absolutely false. I did not say I had no authority to say any of those things. Wrong again.

Well, Rob, either you have authority to judge us or you don't. You're being purposely obtuse in your sidestepping here - and your misrepresentations of what I actually said.

In the absence of any cogent answer from you, I'll just go ahead and assume you have no authority to condemn us.

[Rob Bowman]

Valentinus,

You wrote:

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.

The LDS Church's leaders most definitely taught this for at least a very long time:

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270)

"Since the Church with its authority and power has been caught away from the earth, the great mother of harlots with all her descendants has blasphemously assumed the authority of administering some of the sacred ordinances of the gospel. They have blasphemed the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by using it without authority in their ministrations. They have dishonored the name of Christ, by calling their powerless, apostate, filthy and most abominable churches, the Church of Christ. The whole Romish, Greek and Protestant ministry, from the pope down through every grade of office, are as destitute of authority from God, as the devil and his angels. The Almighty abhors all their wicked pretensions, as He does the very gates of hell." Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, 18-19.

"We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense ...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 6:167).

"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, 324). (Note: Juliann said she had a quotation from Cannon, but I don't think she has produced it yet. So now I have given one!)

These are just a few examples.

[jwhitlock]

Of course I have. You are free to reject my explanation of the evidence, but I have supplied evidence for my conclusion.

Bull. You've supplied rationalizations, but no evidence. Don't conflate the two.

[KevinG]

Rob has failed to ask the question "who is the church of the Lamb of God and who is the church of the devil" in an LDS classroom. I have experienced rich discussions that ended in a consensus that the verses referred to are not about specific denominations so much as they are about which groups bring people closer to Christ vs those that pull them away (such as secular materialism and atheism).

Once again his scholarship, being limited to debate club tactics and rehash of old anti-Mormon traditions fails to achieve a grasp of what is really going on in the hearts and minds of the living Mormon community. The shame of it is he could learn a lot by digesting what is explained here instead of trying to argue each and every point like it was a high school debate.

[Damien the Leper]

Hi Val. Just stopped in for a quick look. I'm on my way out the door to the airport, and I won't be back for a while.

Best greetings of the season, and a happy and prosperous new year to all.

Regards,

Pahoran

Be safe and happy holidays!

[juliann]

I have invited Rob to attend LDS services repeatedly and learn what we teach in Sunday school and over the pulpit in our Sacrament meetings. I don't know if he has done that yet. It seems very poor scholarship to me to be digging about in the writings about Mormonism while ignoring the application of our teachings in real life.

Rob is happily oblivious to his own application. He is bent on establishing a falsehood to justify his own behavior because in his religion "If they do it unto thee, do it right back unto them!". Interesting application of biblical teachings, Rob. This is what you teach?

[ChristKnight]

Light bedtime reading: http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Believe-Robert-Bowman/dp/0830837701

Ah yes, I saw that after he said he's written some books. I'm surprised it isn't called "What Mormons REALLY Believe".