[closed] Major Changes to posting in this forum

[Edial]

I've been on LDS forums.

For example, the "LDS Fellowship" forum over on Beliefnet.com openly allows non-Mormons who wish to ask questions and hold discussions; we don't point people elsewhere unless they have a history of openly disruptive action (such as insults and false accusations).

We also have places where non-Christians ask questions.
However, I am certain in that site the majority of it is reserved for Mormons.

 

[Ran77]

I know.
Unfortunately the God LDS describes is not eternal past and once was a man.
When we say "God" it means a Biblical view of God, which is a Christian view of God. (Word "Christian" came from the Bible).

Then there really was no point in posted what you did. It isn't what you are using to make your decision.


:o

 

[Ran77]

We also have places where non-Christians ask questions.
However, I am certain in that site the majority of it is reserved for Mormons.

I popped over and took a look and that is not even close to being true.

 

[Edial]

1. CF doesn't call them Christian, they call themselves Christian. It is obvious that CF doesn't call them Christian because they are not allowed in the CO section.

CF used to call them Unorthodox Christians. Christians.
It is very confusing for new believers when CF call them Christians.

2. I was on staff for 8 years, and those complaints were few and far between. So, that reasoning doesn't fly.

Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.
I also had a number of calls in MSC where I needed to explain why we do not allow Mormons to be called non-Christians.

3. I am not sure what you are saying. That it looked like a Christian was saying that God had a wife because an LDS member had a Christian icon?

No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.
That LDS member touched too high, he said the Christian God had a wife. He said that because we allow Mormons to be called Christians, hence their God is Christian.

LDS member flamed Christian God.

That is when I understood we made a mistake by identifying Mormons as Christians.
This means CF would not be able to object to anything if Mormons says Christian God has a wife.

 

[Ironhold]

I guess the LDS sense of revenge runs deep. And, FYI, Haun's Mill massacre was in response to an uprising the Saints caused shortly before it happened.

It's been a bit of intense debate as to how much of an "uprising" there really was and how much of it was simply the locals reacting based off of an imagined uprising.

What it ultimately came down to was the fact that the church was on track to become the majority in the state, and so could have essentially taken de facto control over the state via the ballot box. Hence the Gallatin Voting Battle.

 

[Ironhold]

LDS member flamed Christian God.

Surely you have the post handy for all to see, correct?

 

[A New Dawn]

Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.

So someone was upset that they got a warning for violating the rules and wanted to find a scapegoat? They wanted to call names and you all agreed it is OK to call names? I guess I'm not understanding.

I also had a number of calls in MSC where I needed to explain why we do not allow Mormons to be called non-Christians.

And saying that it is a heart issue is too confusing??? If that is too confusing to people who call themselves Christian, then I'd say that is a teaching moment rather than a reactionary moment.

No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.
That LDS member touched too high, he said the Christian God had a wife. He said that because we allow Mormons to be called Christians, hence their God is Christian.

LDS member flamed Christian God.

That is when I understood we made a mistake by identifying Mormons as Christians.
This means CF would not be able to object to anything if Mormons says Christian God has a wife.

So saying that can be refuted in the thread isn't good enough? I'm not understanding why people are getting all bent out of shape over things that are said in a debate in an unorthodox debate forum.

 

[skylark1]

CF used to call them Unorthodox Christians. Christians.
It is very confusing for new believers when CF call them Christians.


Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.
I also had a number of calls in MSC where I needed to explain why we do not allow Mormons to be called non-Christians.

No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.
That LDS member touched too high, he said the Christian God had a wife. He said that because we allow Mormons to be called Christians, hence their God is Christian.

LDS member flamed Christian God.

That is when I understood we made a mistake by identifying Mormons as Christians.
This means CF would not be able to object to anything if Mormons says Christian God has a wife.

Sure people could object, and explain that the Bible does not teach this. People could even explain to them why God does not have a wife and that it is not accepted. Isn't that what discussion is about?

I have not noticed LDS here insisting that the Christian God has a wife. Maybe the post disappeared too fast to have read it. I think that most if not all of the regular LDS posters in this forum believe this, however I don't know of any who would have worded it this way. I haven't heard them do so in the past anyway.

 

[A New Dawn]

It's been a bit of intense debate as to how much of an "uprising" there really was and how much of it was simply the locals reacting based off of an imagined uprising.

What it ultimately came down to was the fact that the church was on track to become the majority in the state, and so could have essentially taken de facto control over the state via the ballot box. Hence the Gallatin Voting Battle.

So there is so much debate that you can't, with integrity, say that the HMM was a result of a problem that originated with the LDS, but you can say that the MMM was a result of a conflict 20 years earlier and 2 thousand miles away. Amazing what a little bias does for you.

"the church was on track to become the majority in the state" comes from which piece of church history? Or is that part of the whitewashed history the church teaches? Because, really, the church was not that big at the time. Nauvoo, that would be a different story, but Hauns Mill? No.

 

[Ironhold]

So there is so much debate that you can't, with integrity, say that the HMM was a result of a problem that originated with the LDS, but you can say that the MMM was a result of a conflict 20 years earlier and 2 thousand miles away. Amazing what a little bias does for you.

"the church was on track to become the majority in the state" comes from which piece of church history? Or is that part of the whitewashed history the church teaches? Because, really, the church was not that big at the time. Nauvoo, that would be a different story, but Hauns Mill? No.

Did I already give you the citation for Furniss' "The Mormon Conflict"?

I do recall him going into a fair bit of discussion of the Missouri period as a prelude to the Utah War.

We had a fire at church today (one of the air conditioner units overheated; we got it before it spread), and so I'm in a bit of a haze.

 

[He is Risen 72]

LDS temples have so little internal space that most such events usually only have a handful of members in the first place.

However, anyone and everyone can walk into an LDS chapel and sit in on the proceedings.

The Salt Lake Temple is 253,015 square feet.

 

[A New Dawn]

Did I already give you the citation for Furniss' "The Mormon Conflict"?

I do recall him going into a fair bit of discussion of the Missouri period as a prelude to the Utah War.

We had a fire at church today (one of the air conditioner units overheated; we got it before it spread), and so I'm in a bit of a haze.

No, I don't think I've heard of that book(?). Is it an historical writing?

Sorry to hear about your fire, glad you got it under control quickly.

 

[Ironhold]

The Salt Lake Temple is 253,015 square feet.

You'd be surprised how small the individual rooms can be due to how many all need to be crammed in there.

For example, the celestial room in the Lubbock, Texas temple is not much bigger than my living room.

 

[A New Dawn]

The Salt Lake Temple is 253,015 square feet.

If I'm not mistaken, the Salt Lake temple follows the design of the Kirtland Temple (I believe that BY followed that design while he was president of the LDS church), which has 2 large sanctuaries and very little room for the other functions that the LDS temples offer (which the Kirtland Temple did not offer.)

 

[Ironhold]

No, I don't think I've heard of that book(?). Is it an historical writing?

Sorry to hear about your fire, glad you got it under control quickly.

"The Mormon Conflict: 1850 to 1859" by Norman F. Furniss

It's the most neutral work I can find on the period, with Furniss calling out both sides of the issue for their misdeeds.

And it's by Yale University Press, so I doubt anyone can honestly claim a biased source.

 

[Edial]

Surely you have the post handy for all to see, correct?

Definitely not.
I have it, but you would need to take my word for it.

 

[Edial]

Sure people could object, and explain that the Bible does not teach this. People could even explain to them why God does not have a wife and that it is not accepted. Isn't that what discussion is about?

I have not noticed LDS here insisting that the Christian God has a wife. Maybe the post disappeared too fast to have read it. I think that most if not all of the regular LDS posters in this forum believe this, however I don't know of any who would have worded it this way. I haven't heard them do so in the past anyway.

That what happened as a way to get at one of the Christian posters.
I understand the back and forth in a heat of a battle, but this went too far.

This together with other reasons contributed to finding a Bible based separation line defining what set of beliefs makes one faith group a Christian.
Deity of Christ became that separation line.

And then everyone who does not accept that definition is moved into a non-Christian group.

 

[Edial]

So someone was upset that they got a warning for violating the rules and wanted to find a scapegoat? They wanted to call names and you all agreed it is OK to call names? I guess I'm not understanding.

Dawn, did I say all that? Am I a novice at MSC?
Christians are complaining that we are calling non-Christians Christians.

And saying that it is a heart issue is too confusing??? If that is too confusing to people who call themselves Christian, then I'd say that is a teaching moment rather than a reactionary moment.

Yes, it is a teaching moment for a new believer when we call LDS and JWs set of beliefs non-Christian.

When new believers see that CF call LDS and JW Christian, yes, it is confusing. And they would certainly keep in back of their mind it is an OK place to be, since CF identifies them Christian.

So saying that can be refuted in the thread isn't good enough? I'm not understanding why people are getting all bent out of shape over things that are said in a debate in an unorthodox debate forum.

This was not something that is refuted because the poster knew perfectly well he flamed it that way. He flamed Yahweh God Himself by saying Christian God has a wife.
He did that on purpose. Played on words because he is allowed to be called a Christian.

This is no longer allowed.

I would need to close this thread for the night.

 

[Edial]

Closed for the night.

 

[Edial]

reopened ...