Absurd Censorship Attacks On Irr'S Facebook Page

[Hamilton Porter]

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.

There are sites critical of Judaism and Catholicism.

There was a very crude site called "Challenging Mormon Apologetics" what was taken down because they were straight up calling Mormons dumb and posting misleading photoshopped stuff. We reported that page and took it down.

There was another called "Lds missionaries" that was an anti- site disguised as a missionaries site. That was reported and taken down.

If we report every anti- site, then when it comes time to take down sites like these, FB is going to think we are crying wolf.

[juliann]

More to the point, Rob....we could bury you in positive comments from the LDS church that are actually current ....can you provide us with a few from your end that praise the religions you so openly despise? The church has had to make changes and will have to make many more. What is discouraging is to see your side hunkered down in the same mean spirited attack mentality we saw in the mid 90s. Do you need to make some changes in how you approach other religions, Rob?

[ERayR]

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.

No one has disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express whatever he wants. What is being pointed out is that if he wants to post on FB then he has to abide FB rules. On his own website he makes the rules and can post what he wants but not on FB.

[Stargazer]

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?

You missed the point. The post I was replying to kind of implied that there should be some kind of censorship. I was arguing against it. I suggest you read the rest of what I have posted here on the subject.

[TAO]

No one has disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express whatever he wants. What is being pointed out is that if he wants to post on FB then he has to abide FB rules. On his own website he makes the rules and can post what he wants but not on FB.

Naturally. I am just cautious... hesitant, persay... of too many rules on large public sites like Facebook. Controlling the sources of information is very dangerous to good debate. It is well within FB's right, they are private, but I hope it is not exerted in excess in any case. I don't know enough about the situation to make any judgement other than that it is an issue between Facebook and Rob, and that we cannot be blamed over it to any degree.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TAO

[juliann]

If we report every anti- site, then when it comes time to take down sites like these, FB is going to think we are crying wolf.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked.

"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."

[TAO]

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked.

"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."

Correct, it doesn't have to do with it. People are more sensitive to comments about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, and Gays. It's the way the world is right now. People, unfortunately, have the right to be hypocrites, me included.

[Damien the Leper]

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

I was under the impression that HairBear was joking and not taking a jab.

[ERayR]

Correct, it doesn't have to do with it. People are more sensitive to comments about Jews, Muslims, Blacks, and Gays. It's the way the world is right now. People, unfortunately, have the right to be hypocrites, me included.

And people have the right to expose and oppose said hypocrisy.

[TAO]

And people have the right to expose and oppose said hypocrisy.

That too, indeed! One just has to be careful not to be too hypocritical when pointing out hypocrisy. I sometimes have that problem myself... but yeah XD.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TAO

[ERayR]

I was under the impression that HairBear was joking and not taking a jab.

That is the trouble with these sites, it is hard to tell. I took him as being serious.

Edited December 29, 2012 by ERayR

[Stargazer]

No one has disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express whatever he wants. What is being pointed out is that if he wants to post on FB then he has to abide FB rules. On his own website he makes the rules and can post what he wants but not on FB.

Sorry, but some here have disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express himself, because he doesn't say it nicely enough. In case you missed it, I said several times that as far as this particular discussion is concerned, it is FB vs RB and not a matter of censorship, but a matter of following FB rules.

The thing Rob is trying to get off his chest (yes, I think he is posting this here by way of venting, since FB is being implacable), is that he thinks some Mormons (and why not some JWs?) are misusing FB's processes to unfairly attack his FB page. And he is apparently hoping to get some moral support from some of us. After all, we can't DO anything about it. Of course some of us might be quite cheered up by what is going on the IRR's FB page.

But ultimately, unless Rob thinks that Mark Zuckerberg lurks here from time to time I don't know why he thinks it is an efficacious thing to bring the matter to this board.

[juliann]

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.

To the first statement, irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right kind of thing....or just plain red herring. The topic is what is being said on FB.

To the second, it is all about "taste". The gospel cannot be delivered in ugly, mean rhetoric. Defenders of the church have had to learn not to respond in kind, a lesson still being learned. Apologists have been held up to scorn (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) for the meanness Rob displays in his attack language. Just claiming it is loving or civil is no longer convincing in our culture.

So again, I am seeing a huge, huge....and really disappointing, actually....credibility gap with those that are defending Bowman's provocative attack language while playing along with his whitewash of his own ugly rhetoric. Even FB seems to get it ....but not those who regularly (and rightfully) criticize LDS for exactly what Bowman is doing.

[Rob Bowman]

juliann,

You wrote:

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.

If these quotations are not representative of LDS teaching, why are they on LDS.org? By the way, "the last century" ended just twelve years ago. Talk about a lame response.

But if you want quotations from the twenty-first century, I am happy to oblige:

“The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy. Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance. These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are His children. They did not understand the purpose of life.” Gospel Principles (2009), 92.

“The most fundamental doctrine of true Christianity is the divine birth of the child Jesus. It is a doctrine not comprehended by the world, misinterpreted by the so-called Christian churches, and even misunderstood by some members of the true church…. From the time of His heaven-heralded birth there have crept into the Church heresies which are intended to dilute or undermine the pure doctrines of the gospel. These heresies are, by and large, sponsored by the philosophies of man, and in many instances are advocated by so-called Christian scholars.” President Ezra Taft Benson, “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ,” New Era, Dec. 1980; Ensign, Dec. 2001.

[ERayR]

Sorry, but some here have disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express himself, because he doesn't say it nicely enough. In case you missed it, I said several times that as far as this particular discussion is concerned, it is FB vs RB and not a matter of censorship, but a matter of following FB rules.

The thing Rob is trying to get off his chest (yes, I think he is posting this here by way of venting, since FB is being implacable), is that he thinks some Mormons (and why not some JWs?) are misusing FB's processes to unfairly attack his FB page. And he is apparently hoping to get some moral support from some of us. After all, we can't DO anything about it. Of course some of us might be quite cheered up by what is going on the IRR's FB page.

But ultimately, unless Rob thinks that Mark Zuckerberg lurks here from time to time I don't know why he thinks it is an efficacious thing to bring the matter to this board.

I haven't seen anybody disputing his right to express himself on his own site but rather there is some dispute as to rather he has the right to express himself on another site in violation of that sites rules.

[TAO]

To the first statement, irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right kind of thing....or just plain red herring. The topic is what is being said on FB.

To the second, it is all about "taste". The gospel cannot be delivered in ugly, mean rhetoric. Defenders of the church have had to learn not to respond in kind, a lesson still being learned. Apologists have been held up to scorn (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) for the meanness Rob displays in his attack language. Just claiming it is loving or civil is no longer convincing in our culture.

So again, I am seeing a huge, huge....and really disappointing, actually....credibility gap with those that are defending Bowman's provocative attack language while playing along with his whitewash of his own ugly rhetoric. Even FB seems to get it ....but not those who regularly (and rightfully) criticize LDS for exactly what Bowman is doing.

Uh... you quoted the wrong person... I think that was Stargazer... I didn't post that XD.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TAO

[HairBear]

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.

My suggestion was ridiculous, and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is also just as plausable as your claim, Rob, that "one or more Mormons are causing this to happen". And it didn't include involvement by the CIA or extraterrestrials

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

No one has disputed Mr. Bowman's right to express whatever he wants. What is being pointed out is that if he wants to post on FB then he has to abide FB rules. On his own website he makes the rules and can post what he wants but not on FB.

What you are not getting is that we do abide by FB rules. They are removing posts that have no objectionable content in them whatsoever and banning us for days without even a semblance of a case that the posts are really objectionable.

[Rob Bowman]

HairBear,

Thanks for acknowledging that your suggestion was in fact tongue-in-cheek, as I suggested. But come on...there is nothing implausible or ridiculous about the explanation that one or more Mormons are in some way responsible for the censorship of several ministries known for their theological critiques of Mormonism.

But I grant that you did manage to keep the CIA and ET out of it.

My suggestion was ridiculous, and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is also just as plausable as your claim, Rob, that "one or more Mormons are causing this to happen". And it didn't include involvement by the CIA or extraterrestrials

[juliann]

The thing Rob is trying to get off his chest (yes, I think he is posting this here by way of venting, since FB is being implacable), is that he thinks some Mormons (and why not some JWs?) are misusing FB's processes to unfairly attack his FB page.

Chances are that he is on some JW message board accusing them.

BTW, the Witnesses and Mormons ended up defending each other against the Bowmans on AOL. I've had a soft spot for them ever since. They were soooo good at making them look petty with humor...not the cheap shot kind but rather involved stories that left you laughing out loud. Hard to explain. It also made me aware of how bible based they actually are....the only thing I found that couldn't be supported somewhere was the blood thing.

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

What you are not getting is that we do abide by FB rules. They are removing posts that have no objectionable content in them whatsoever and banning us for days without even a semblance of a case that the posts are really objectionable.

What you are not getting is that it is not your call as to what is objectionable, it is FB call to make.

[juliann]

ERayR,

You wrote:

What you are not getting is that we do abide by FB rules. They are removing posts that have no objectionable content in them whatsoever and banning us for days without even a semblance of a case that the posts are really objectionable.

Yeah, and your invitation to all comers on your FB is cordial and civil. NOT.

[ERayR]

Question for Rob. Why did you think your dispute with FB should be aired on this board?

[juliann]

juliann,

You wrote:

If these quotations are not representative of LDS teaching, why are they on LDS.org? By the way, "the last century" ended just twelve years ago. Talk about a lame response.

Ah, text book response. If they weren't on LDS.org it would be an accusation they were hiding it. Win win! And yup, that apostasy stuff is offensive. BUT they aren't on a FB page asking their minions to "reveal" the distortions and misuse of history of your religion. Has FB already censored the LDS version of what you are doing? Please link to it or get back on your own topic.

As suspected, you cannot match the statements from the church praising or defending all religion. That is telling.

[juliann]

ERayR,

You wrote:

What you are not getting is that we do abide by FB rules. They are removing posts that have no objectionable content in them whatsoever and banning us for days without even a semblance of a case that the posts are really objectionable.

Aha, so they have removed much more than the only post you have disclosed. They have been removing them for days, even. Gee, why do I get the feeling we are being played?