Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[go_utes01]

I don't understand how you violating FB's policies, that you agree to by posting on THEIR privately-owned website, as evidenced by FB (notice not the LDS Church's or "some Mormons") removing your post and suspending your FREE access to THEIR website, has anything to do with anybody on this separate website. If you have a problem with FB, or its policies, you are free to take it up with FB or remove yourself/page from THEIR website. It is a free country after all. Nobody is forcing you to have a presence on FB. If you want to be on FB, you need to abide by their rules. If you think their rules need to be changed, again bring it up with them. Generally speaking, I am against censorship, as I believe in the marketplace of ideas and the best response to bad information is more information, not less. But, I am also in favor of private companies being allowed to run their businesses and their websites however they feel best. Apparently FB does not agree with Rob Bowman on this one. That is FB's right.

Edited December 29, 2012 by go_utes01

[Hamilton Porter]

Some of my FB friends have reported pages critical of the church. I told them not to do that.

The only pages that should be reported are the ones masquerading as Mormon sites. There used to a page called, "Lds missionaries" that was actually an anti- site would bait Mormons into reading.

Your site is not a fake or malicious site.

[Damien the Leper]

Seriously, folks. The church has come under deserved criticism for the anti-gay and anti-black language its language enabled. Those of you who express outrage at that and yet come here and sympathize with the same kind of vilifying and provocative language this guy uses while putting love in the same sentence have lost credibility....and my respect.

Whatever FBs reasons for censorship, I recognize its right to do so as it is a self governing entity. I did not question FBs judgement, I only wished for a positive outcome where things would be sorted and resolved.

Also, I'm not familiar with IRR or its purpose/agenda.

[juliann]

(Note that challenging an institution and its ideas is acceptable, while attacking others based on religion is not. IRR does the former, not the latter.)

Oh, please. Your own mission statement on your FB page is an outright attack. And the silly claim that only sweet talking little Christian soldiers play on your FB page is beyond absurd.

[Stargazer]

I don't see how any groups who's soul goal is to tear apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion has any place anywhere on the Internet.

And there we have the crux of the problem.

One man's proselyting is another man's "tearing apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion." You want this regulated by government? If yes, then we might as well take down every single religion's website. Because by arguing FOR one religion we are automatically arguing AGAINST every other.

This is actually satanic, don't you know? Taken to its logical conclusion we may not speak except that which is approved in advance. It's called mind-control. Totalitarianism.

It's bad.

[Sky]

Also, I'm not familiar with IRR or its purpose/agenda.

It's purpose is quite clear from their FB page:

Our mission to develop and disseminate resources is four-fold:

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

- Defend and explain biblical Christianity

- Mentor people to relationship with Jesus, spiritual maturity and assimilation into an evangelical church

- Educate and equip churches worldwide enabling them for a discerning response to groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

[HairBear]

The only plausible explanation is that one or more Mormons are causing this to happen, probably by flagging random posts on our pages as objectionable in order to censor us. If you have an alternative plausible explanation, preferably not one involving the CIA or extraterrestrials, I'm open to hearing it.

It is a 'False Flag' operation by some members of IRR to create another reason for Mormons to be protrayed as the bad guys.

There's your alternative plausible explanation with the same amount of evidence you have to claim that Mormons are flagging your posts on Facebook.

[juliann]

Also, I'm not familiar with IRR or its purpose/agenda.

Since this is a violation of FB TOS, you do need to understand IRR's purpose to make any judgment. The language that sets up its purpose, as has been posted here, is ugly and asks for participants to attack "reveal". That is as comical as pretending surprise when you invite the world to a drinking party and there is drunkenness.

What I find most telling is that Rob could tone down the language to something resembling cordial and civil yet he keeps the harsh and mean stuff.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

This mean spirited and malicious speech is what needs to be denounced,

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

You cannot use this demeaning vocabulary and still claim you are interested in anything but doing exactly what you say you are doing. And that is not cordial nor is it civil. It is just as much a sabotage of free expression as whatever you accusing Mormons of.

How about the following? Do you find the language of the following statements "demeaning," or do you think it is perfectly "cordial" and "civil"?

“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.

“I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is ‘an abomination in the sight of God,’ and I shall mention it but briefly…. There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has ‘no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.’ That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say ‘he sits on the top of a topless throne.’ How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written…. Moses knew that this condition would prevail, because when he went to lead the children of Israel into the promised land, he told them that they would not remain there long but that they would be scattered among the nations and ‘there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.’ (Deut. 4:28.) That is exactly the kind of a god the whole Christian world was worshiping when Joseph Smith had that glorious vision which revealed the true and living God.” LeGrand Richards, “Strange Creeds of Christendom,” Ensign, Jan. 1973.

“There is only one way provided by the Lord for man to gain salvation and eternal life in the kingdom of God and that is by and through the living, personal Jesus Christ, and by knowing and living his commandments. We cannot obtain salvation and eternal life by worshipping fake Christs or by living the doctrines and commandments of men…. The belief that God has no body, parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain.” Bernard P. Brockbank, “The Living Christ,” Ensign, May 1977.

“The historical abominable church of the devil is that apostate church that replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries, teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in the church and replaced him with man by denying the principle of revelation and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its creeds were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men worshipping the creations, not of their own hands, but of their own minds.” Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan. 1988.

“There is nothing more important to us—having first discovered who God our Father is—than to know about Christ and the salvation that is in him. The heresy and perversion of this truth is the common sectarian concept that people are saved by grace alone, without works.” Bruce R. McConkie, “This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” Ensign, June 1980.

Such examples could be multiplied. These all come from LDS.org, the LDS Church's official website.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

Thanks very much. I know that there are honorable Mormons like you, and I appreciate your comments greatly. You have also confirmed that there are Mormons who mistakenly think they are doing a good thing by trying to get FB to censor pages critical of Mormonism. The evidence shows that they are having at least some effect.

Some of my FB friends have reported pages critical of the church. I told them not to do that.

The only pages that should be reported are the ones masquerading as Mormon sites. There used to a page called, "Lds missionaries" that was actually an anti- site would bait Mormons into reading.

Your site is not a fake or malicious site.

[Stargazer]

Apparently Rob, you have no friends here, that would blink and eye at your downfall. But at least you now a standard by which comment on conduct...that standard is since a punishment was dealt guilt is a certainty. So take that for what it is worth.

Rob has lots of friends here. Even some people who oppose his viewpoints care about him, and wish him well, in general.

I disagree with Rob on many matters relating to religion, but I have a great deal of respect for him, and that he is doing what he believes is right (even if it isn't right, not really), and he is mostly respectful in his disagreements with those of us who are believing LDS.

I think it is possible that he is getting a bum deal on Facebook, and it's possible that some LDS are working overtime to fight his organization's presence there, or at least how they argue. As I have said, that is a matter between Facebook and its users.

But Juliann makes an absolutely valid point that on AOL it was the other side of the question (Rob's side, btw), and they exerted themselves assiduously to assure that the message of Mormonism was suppressed, distorted, and lied about, and perhaps this is Karma -- although I don't know if it was IRR on AOL that was attempting to control the debate in that lopsided manner..

But if you think it was wrong for the anti-LDS on AOL to suppress LDS speech on AOL, it would seem somewhat (or more than somewhat) hypocritical to cheer the same behavior when it happens in reverse on Facebook. Just sayin'.

[ERayR]

And there we have the crux of the problem.

One man's proselyting is another man's "tearing apart the beliefs of another peaceful religion." You want this regulated by government? If yes, then we might as well take down every single religion's website. Because by arguing FOR one religion we are automatically arguing AGAINST every other.

This is actually satanic, don't you know? Taken to its logical conclusion we may not speak except that which is approved in advance. It's called mind-control. Totalitarianism.

It's bad.

This is not being regulated by government. It is FB enforcing their own rules. Would you also say that this board has no right to regulate the content posted here?

[juliann]

Your site is not a fake or malicious site.

Change the wording in his mission statement to Jew, Muslim, black, gay....and then go on record saying that the words are not malicious. I'd actually like to see what kind of people we are dealing with on this message board.

[Damien the Leper]

It's purpose is quite clear from their FB page:

Our mission to develop and disseminate resources is four-fold:

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

- Defend and explain biblical Christianity

- Mentor people to relationship with Jesus, spiritual maturity and assimilation into an evangelical church

- Educate and equip churches worldwide enabling them for a discerning response to groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses

Sounds like Evangelical apologetics.

[Rob Bowman]

HairBear,

You wrote:

It is a 'False Flag' operation by some members of IRR to create another reason for Mormons to be protrayed as the bad guys.

There's your alternative plausible explanation with the same amount of evidence you have to claim that Mormons are flagging your posts on Facebook.

[ERayR]

HairBear,

You wrote:

Now that is a nice friendly, loving response.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

Thanks for your kind comments.

AOL was before my time as far as participation on Internet forums, so I have no knowledge at all of the situation you mention. I do know that IRR's staff are not the kind of people that would ever have been involved in trying to censor pr suppress Mormon participation online.

Rob has lots of friends here. Even some people who oppose his viewpoints care about him, and wish him well, in general.

I disagree with Rob on many matters relating to religion, but I have a great deal of respect for him, and that he is doing what he believes is right (even if it isn't right, not really), and he is mostly respectful in his disagreements with those of us who are believing LDS.

I think it is possible that he is getting a bum deal on Facebook, and it's possible that some LDS are working overtime to fight his organization's presence there, or at least how they argue. As I have said, that is a matter between Facebook and its users.

But Juliann makes an absolutely valid point that on AOL it was the other side of the question (Rob's side, btw), and they exerted themselves assiduously to assure that the message of Mormonism was suppressed, distorted, and lied about, and perhaps this is Karma -- although I don't know if it was IRR on AOL that was attempting to control the debate in that lopsided manner..

But if you think it was wrong for the anti-LDS on AOL to suppress LDS speech on AOL, it would seem somewhat (or more than somewhat) hypocritical to cheer the same behavior when it happens in reverse on Facebook. Just sayin'.

[Sky]

juliann,

You wrote:

How about the following? Do you find the language of the following statements "demeaning," or do you think it is perfectly "cordial" and "civil"?

“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.

“I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is ‘an abomination in the sight of God,’ and I shall mention it but briefly…. There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has ‘no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.’ That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say ‘he sits on the top of a topless throne.’ How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written…. Moses knew that this condition would prevail, because when he went to lead the children of Israel into the promised land, he told them that they would not remain there long but that they would be scattered among the nations and ‘there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.’ (Deut. 4:28.) That is exactly the kind of a god the whole Christian world was worshiping when Joseph Smith had that glorious vision which revealed the true and living God.” LeGrand Richards, “Strange Creeds of Christendom,” Ensign, Jan. 1973.

“There is only one way provided by the Lord for man to gain salvation and eternal life in the kingdom of God and that is by and through the living, personal Jesus Christ, and by knowing and living his commandments. We cannot obtain salvation and eternal life by worshipping fake Christs or by living the doctrines and commandments of men…. The belief that God has no body, parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain.” Bernard P. Brockbank, “The Living Christ,” Ensign, May 1977.

“The historical abominable church of the devil is that apostate church that replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries, teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in the church and replaced him with man by denying the principle of revelation and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its creeds were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men worshipping the creations, not of their own hands, but of their own minds.” Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan. 1988.

“There is nothing more important to us—having first discovered who God our Father is—than to know about Christ and the salvation that is in him. The heresy and perversion of this truth is the common sectarian concept that people are saved by grace alone, without works.” Bruce R. McConkie, “This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” Ensign, June 1980.

Such examples could be multiplied. These all come from LDS.org, the LDS Church's official website.

As long as you're quoting LDS Church leaders, don't forget this one by President Hinckley:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

[mfbukowski]

[juliann]

juliann,

Such examples could be multiplied. These all come from LDS.org, the LDS Church's official website.

And they are all from the last century and the church isn't on FB asking for people to "reveal" the flaws of other religions with ugly provocative lead ins.

Wow, lame.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Now that is a nice friendly, loving response.

Come on. HairBear's suggestion was ridiculous and anyone with a smidgen of objectivity can see that. Laughing at it was absolutely appropriate. The laughter was not malicious. I wouldn't be surprised if HB was presenting the suggestion tongue-in-cheek; it's often hard to tell what people are really thinking online.

[Rob Bowman]

Sky,

You wrote:

As long as you're quoting LDS Church leaders, don't forget this one by President Hinckley:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

Yes, by all means. And while we're at it, my critics might want to quote some of the many, many positive things that are said about Mormons on IRR's website. But they don't do this. They do the opposite: they claim that all IRR does is try to attack Mormons and tear down everything they believe, which is simply false.

[Damien the Leper]

As long as you're quoting LDS Church leaders, don't forget this one by President Hinckley:

“Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service” (meeting, Nairobi, Kenya, 17 Feb. 1998).

While I applaud and agree with Hinckley's statement, it does little to nothing to remedy or negate the harsh opinions and teachings demonstrated in the quotes Mr. Bowman provided.

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

Come on. HairBear's suggestion was ridiculous and anyone with a smidgen of objectivity can see that. Laughing at it was absolutely appropriate. The laughter was not malicious. I wouldn't be surprised if HB was presenting the suggestion tongue-in-cheek; it's often hard to tell what people are really thinking online.

So you have gently put your arm around his shoulder in love and fellowship. I see.

[Stargazer]

- Reveal how the Mormon Church and similar groups deny and distort biblical teaching and misuse history

You cannot use this demeaning vocabulary and still claim you are interested in anything but doing exactly what you say you are doing. And that is not cordial nor is it civil. It is just as much a sabotage of free expression as whatever you accusing Mormons of.

Juliann, I don't agree with him any more than you. However, if he sincerely believes that the Mormon church denies and distorts biblical teachings, which teachings he considers important, then why does he not have the right to express that belief? Like Tao, I consider this mostly a matter between IRR and Facebook, but if we are permitted to express ourselves to the point that Joseph Smith received a vision from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that the creeds of the corrupt ministers of Christendom, as they existed in the 1820's, why may not IRR be permitted to express themselve to the opposite point, namely that the Mormon Church is wrong about many of its teachings, and that Joseph really didn't have a vision from God?

And I can understand that some might consider that our assertion that God said their creeds were an abomination to Him is somewhat less than cordial.

We are not dealing with matters of taste, after all, but with matters of eternal salvation. As long as it doesn't come to physical conflict, then I am grateful for that much cordiality, at least.