Questions for Mormons..

[why_me]

Actually there was. In fact, this has been going on for quite some time (years). In that thread, we repeatedly showed how LDS beliefs are incompatible with Catholicism, and how it is not possible for a Catholic to be a Mormon at the same time. Yes, you have a right to believe that if you want. We also have a right to show how it is wrong to do so, and impossible to be Catholic and Mormon, especially in one claiming that Catholicism is the “primary” religion. But you can go ahead and believe that. We’ve shown that a Catholic should never partake in the communion of any other church, or partake in anything offered by any other religion, including the Sacrament of Mormonism. Yet you claim that since Catholics don’t believe that Mormons are Christian, it’s okay, because it’s just like having bread and water. That misses the point. You may as well say that it’s okay for a Catholic to go to a Hindu temple and partake in the food that is offered to their gods, since we believe they are non-Christian, it’s just like eating regular food. We show you over and over, you choose not to listen.

Again, no one has shown me anything. What I did experience was direct attacks on my person. Most threads have been a monster bash toward my statement of being both catholic and mormon. I have seen no love or mercy. Only mocking. And that is fine as long as you recognize it and not water it all down to a ‘showing’.

And again, it is not up to you to condemn me for taking the mormon sacrament when I am with my children. It is up to me and the choices that I make and how I feel around my children. And I have said, I think that god is perfectly okay with it. And my children have benefited too. They have nothing against me attending Mass and they also enjoy meeting the sisters and we are a peaceful family. I am not going to overturn the apple cart.

If I sin, I will be responsible for my own sinning. (by the way, my mom used to give the communion to my daughters when they were small during the catholic mass. She would save a small piece of the communion. My ex and I let our daughters go to catholic mass on saturday when visiting my mom) But her heart was in the right place. Will god condemn a grandmother for doing it when she just wanted her granddaughters to have the body of christ? Was it technically wrong, yes but…it was human.

The letter of the law sometimes does not always work in all situations.

 

[Religio71]

First, your first paragraph: I have no problem with mormon threads that enlist discussion. However, I do have a problem with threads that begin with inflammatory statements, designed to mormon bash. Also, even when a ‘nice’ mormon thread begins there are certain members of the forum who come on and make inflammatory and outageous statements. These are unchristian. The tone can be disrespectful to people of the mormon faith and they certainly do not further good discussion.

Let’s remember, this is a Catholic forum, where most of us are Catholics, and discuss religion from the Catholic perspective. From the Catholic perspective, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, the Book of Mormon (and the other unique texts) are not scriptures, and unique LDS beliefs are false. If this is a problem, feel free to not post anymore.

Second, if a catholic poster brings up an event in mormon history and tries to do a shock therepy, I think that it is perfectly correct for a mormon or anyone else to bring up events in catholic history. Something that you have had a problem about.

No, what I have a problem with is when someone brings up a completely irrelevant event to subtly dig at someone else. For example, the Inquisition has nothing to do with anything here, yet you bring it up. A very great example of the way in which you demean your own Church is this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3417026&postcount=187

Completely irrelevant. You can’t even let someone feel sorry for innocent parishoners.

On the catholic threads we have had many mormons come and go and in most cases they go because of disrespect, mocking and bashing. But they certainly do not leave because of discussion.

Judging again. People can stay or leave, it’s up to them. Likewise, people can choose to respond or not to respond to whatever they want to here.

Again, discuss away…it is wonderful to do so, but once people begin to derail the thread by inflammatory remarks, then it is up to moderators to step in or other catholic posters to put the thread back on track.

If you feel something is offensive, alert the moderators. They don’t sit around reading every post, that’s why they have a button for you to do that.

And yes, derailing a thread with inflammatory remarks:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3417026&postcount=187

Among many others.

To speak with love and mercy is catholic, to inflame, mock or bash is uncatholic in my humble opinion.

 

[Religio71]

Again, no one has shown me anything. What I did experience was direct attacks on my person. Most threads have been a monster bash toward my statement of being both catholic and mormon. I have seen no love or mercy. Only mocking. And that is fine as long as you recognize it and water it all down to a ‘showing’.

No, you continue to not pay attention to the MANY ways, over the last few years, that Catholics have shown you how it’s not possible to be Catholic and Mormon at the same time. Here are just a few, let’s see if you acknowledge anything:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5544797&postcount=24
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5546137&postcount=50
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5546213&postcount=54
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5547778&postcount=93

Among dozens of others.

Many of us are frankly disturbed and disgusted with cafeteria Catholics that pick and choose what doctrines to believe, just like Nancy Pelosi. Sound familiar?

And again, it is not up to you to condemn me for taking the mormon sacrament when I am with my children**. It is up to me and the choices that I make and how I feel** around my children.

Actually it is not up to you. Do you or do you not accept the Divine authority (in our view) of the Catholic Church. If you did, you wouldn’t partake in the sacraments and ordinances of another religion, Christian or not, since they are clear on that. But clearly the authority of the Catholic Church is not a concern for you, yet you attempt to invoke it by calling for Pelosi’s excommunication. Try and keep up with your own standards please.

And I have said, I think that god is perfectly okay with it.

See above.

And my children have benefited too. They have nothing against me attending Mass and they also enjoy meeting the sisters and we are a peaceful family. I am not going to overturn the apple cart.

If I sin, I will be responsible for my own sinning. (by the way, my mom used to give the communion to my daughters when they were small during the catholic mass. She would save a small piece of the communion. My ex and I let our daughters go to catholic mass on saturday when visiting my mom) But her heart was in the right place. Will god condemn a grandmother for doing it when she just wanted her granddaughters to have the body of christ? Was it technically wrong, yes but…it was human.

The letter of the law sometimes does not always work in all situations.

I won’t even ask how one saves a piece of the host… (Reminds me of the non-Catholic PM that went up for the Eucharist, didn’t know what to do, and put it in his pocket. )

 

[why_me]

Let’s remember, this is a Catholic forum, where most of us are Catholics, and discuss religion from the Catholic perspective. From the Catholic perspective, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, the Book of Mormon (and the other unique texts) are not scriptures, and unique LDS beliefs are false. If this is a problem, feel free to not post anymore.

No, what I have a problem with is when someone brings up a completely irrelevant event to subtly dig at someone else. For example, the Inquisition has nothing to do with anything here, yet you bring it up. A very great example of the way in which you demean your own Church is this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3417026&postcount=187

Completely irrelevant. You can’t even let someone feel sorry for innocent parishoners.

I said that I went over the top on that thread. I have 3,000 posts. And you have a few hundred. Hard to remain cool all the time. On the shrine thread, I did hope that people would consider the age of the guys involved: 19 to 21. Quite young. I also hoped for more mercy from the catholic posters because of the missionaries’ age and my first post on that thread was in fact about age and mercy. And what was the first response to my post? Hardly a mercy post.

There are reasons why the drinking age is 21. Immaturity is ripe. But yes, bring up the Aztecs was wrong.

But I have never said that the catholic church is false, the pope is a liar, that I would never trust a catholic and that the catholic church is of the devil. And hopefully I will never say such things.

 

[why_me]

I won’t even ask how one saves a piece of the host… (Reminds me of the non-Catholic PM that went up for the Eucharist, didn’t know what to do, and put it in his pocket. )

I don’t know. My mom died many years ago. Do you think that she is now paying the price for her sin? I can’t imagine a loving god punishing her…sorry. Not everything is so black and white. There can be a mixture of white and black…

 

[why_me]

No, you continue to not pay attention to the MANY ways, over the last few years, that Catholics have shown you how it’s not possible to be Catholic and Mormon at the same time. Here are just a few, let’s see if you acknowledge anything:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5544797&postcount=24
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5546137&postcount=50
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5546213&postcount=54
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5547778&postcount=93

Among dozens of others.

I don’t have the talent as you do to go through so many theads and so quickly. I am not computer savvy.

As I said, it is between me and god and not between the posters here on this forum. We all have free will. I do what I do for my children who have a very positive impression of the catholic church. It is called life. But you can stick to the letter of the law. I hope that it will always work for you.

And I certainly didn’t deserve to be harassed by you and the other posters. It was uncatholic.

 

[Religio71]

I said that I went over the top on that thread. I have 3,000 posts. And you have a few hundred. Hard to remain cool all the time.

Yep, we’ve learned that dealing with certain members here.

On the shrine thread, I did hope that people would consider the age of the guys involved: 19 to 21. Quite young. I also hoped for more mercy from the catholic posters because of the missionaries’ age and my first post on that thread was in fact about age and mercy. And what was the first response to my post? Hardly a mercy post.

If 19-21 is “quite young” then they shouldn’t be official authorized representatives of Jesus Christ and his Church, and they shouldn’t be called “Elders”. Try and be consistent.

There are reasons why the drinking age is 21. Immaturity is ripe. But yes, bring up the Aztecs was wrong.

Try drinking age is not 21 in all countries. In many it’s 18. But irrelevant.

But I have never said that the catholic church is false, the pope is a liar, that I would never trust a catholic and that the catholic church is of the devil. And hopefully I will never say such things.

 

[Religio71]

I don’t have the talent as you do to go through so many theads and so quickly. I am not computer savvy.

As I said, it is between me and god and not between the posters here on this forum. We all have free will. I do what I do for my children who have a very positive impression of the catholic church. It is called life. But you can stick to the letter of the law. I hope that it will always work for you.

And I certainly didn’t deserve to be harassed by you and the other posters. It was uncatholic.

Thank you. Your response is “we all have free will”. And yes, I will stick to the Divine authority of the Catholic Church, which you deny. People cannot rightly claim to be Catholic, partake in the sacraments, etc. (i.e. taking advantage of the “privileges” of membership) and deny the teaching authority of the Church, as in the rules set forth for participation in such sacraments. The Church** itself** is clear on this. The posters on this forum have parroted official Church teachings on this. As long as you are aware that you deny Church authority. But you’re more concerned with feelings and less about the authority of the Church you take advantage of. The LDS Church is also big on authority, and being “authorized” to do certain things, especially ordinances. Believing that Catholics have real, “effective” sacraments also goes against this.

Judging again about others being “uncatholic”. What was that again about not judging you said?

Don’t worry, graduate school starts next week, so I won’t be around as much to show how “unCatholic” your partaking in non-Catholic sacraments (nothing wrong with attending them) is, in defiance of official Church teaching.

Good night.

Sorry everyone else for going off-topic.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I said that I went over the top on that thread. I have 3,000 posts. And you have a few hundred. Hard to remain cool all the time. On the shrine thread, I did hope that people would consider the age of the guys involved: 19 to 21. Quite young. I also hoped for more mercy from the catholic posters because of the missionaries’ age and my first post on that thread was in fact about age and mercy. And what was the first response to my post? Hardly a mercy post.

There are reasons why the drinking age is 21. Immaturity is ripe. But yes, bring up the Aztecs was wrong.

But I have never said that the catholic church is false, the pope is a liar, that I would never trust a catholic and that the catholic church is of the devil. And hopefully I will never say such things.

You said your bringing up the Aztecs was wrong. You also said encouraging a Catholic to take the bread and water in an LDS church is wrong. But I see no acknowledgment of wrong doing on your part when I showed (in your own words) you did just that. You accused me of misrepresenting you “as usual” and as my quotes of your own posts show, it is clear that I did not misrepresent you… I think you have need of the sacrament of reconciliation, you are after all so fond of recommending it to others.

Could recommending reconciliation to others be considered (gasp) judgmental??? Perhaps you should dial that back you wouldn’t want to be judgmental now would you.

And would you care to address the fact that 65% of your posts are about Mormonism.

 

[Pacos_Pete]

I joined Catholic Answers Forum, to get answers to questions I have about the Catholic faith. Some of my dearest associates are very devoute Catholics. Rather than to ask someone that being a Catholic is only there religion of choice, I ask practicing Catholics the questions I want answers for.

It has been suggested that if you have questions about anything, go to someone that practices what they they preach. The only reason drunks argue religion is, it is the only thing they find in common.

I have associates that the LDS religion is there religion of choice only. They get so worked up when we did talk religion, I was afraid some of them would have a heart attack.

Religion is a lot like politics, don’t ask a Democrat about Republicans and visa versa.

 

[dianaiad]

Nope, I do believe I said that it is great and right that LDS should step in and give their views. The issue is when someone thinks it is “unChristian” when we start a thread about why another church or religion is holds false beliefs in our opinion, when, being Catholic, we do believe that other religions have various false beliefs, as the LDS Church that various false beliefs crept into Christianity, such as infant baptism, the traditional Trinity, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc. Threads aren’t always started to invite the opposing party, which was my main point.

No…and my point is that threads that are not ‘started to invite the opposing party’ SHOULD be. Or rather, they should be started in a way that reflects some respect for the believers of the religion being discussed. You realize, I’m quite certain, that threads such as “Mormonism: there are many ways of proving it wrong” or “Why are there Mormons when their religion is so obviously false,” or "“Why are atheists so unhappy?” were not titled so in order to begin a scholarly discussion of Mormonism…or atheism. In fact, they were purposely designed to get Mormons (and atheists…) to come join the fray.

How could we not? It’s like the cheerleaders on the playing field, upon noticing the flag team arrive, beginning to speak in very loud voices and terms laced with ‘put-downs’ about the uselessness and inferiority of waving flags around. The flag team, taking understandable offense, starts explaining how hard it is to do some of their routines, only to be told to go away because they are interrupting a private conversation.

Yep. High school.

Diana, again I did not say that we do not need people from other faiths in the threads. In fact, I explicitly stated that it is great that Mormons come here to discuss from their POV. The point was that we don’t always make threads for the LDS. You’re misinterpreting my statements.

Many times we do discuss another faith without the (name removed by moderator)ut from actual persons of that faith, especially when we refer to the texts and words of such believers. In fact, we do it all the time at the collegiate level. I took a course on Hinduism, and the professor was not Hindu, nor were there any Hindus in the course.

I see. …If there had been a Hindu professor available to teach that class, would he have been allowed to teach it? If there had been Hindus on campus and they had (for whatever reason) to take that class (the way some extremely fluent Spanish speakers have to take Spanish foreign language classes here), would his (name removed by moderator)ut have been welcome–and even deferred to?

I’d like to think that it would have been, in an academic setting.

 

[Religio71]

No…and my point is that threads that are not ‘started to invite the opposing party’ SHOULD be. Or rather, they should be started in a way that reflects some respect for the believers of the religion being discussed. You realize, I’m quite certain, that threads such as “Mormonism: there are many ways of proving it wrong” or “Why are there Mormons when their religion is so obviously false,” or "“Why are atheists so unhappy?” were not titled so in order to begin a scholarly discussion of Mormonism…or atheism. In fact, they were purposely designed to get Mormons (and atheists…) to come join the fray.

I won’t assume why people start threads with such names. My point is that not every thread is started to invite the opposing party. They are of course welcome and should comment, however in college, we didn’t talk about how much better Georgetown is than Notre Dame hoping that someone from ND would comment. However, if one was around, they are certainly welcome to give (name removed by moderator)ut. Threads should be started with respect for the believers, which is why I don’t like terms like “cult”, “satanic”, etc. (especially when such words are used against the Catholic Church as well (CARM…ugh)! However, I do think it is reasonable to start a thread called “Mormonism: there are many ways of proving it wrong”, because from our perspective, there are many ways of proving it wrong. Over on MADB, when someone starts a thread called “creeds are an abomination” (current), is that designed to get (name removed by moderator)ut from the opposing party? I don’t think so, however they should certainly put their (name removed by moderator)ut in.

How could we not? It’s like the cheerleaders on the playing field, upon noticing the flag team arrive, beginning to speak in very loud voices and terms laced with ‘put-downs’ about the uselessness and inferiority of waving flags around. The flag team, taking understandable offense, starts explaining how hard it is to do some of their routines, only to be told to go away because they are interrupting a private conversation.

And the flaw with this situation is that I nowhere said that the opposing party has to go away because they are interrupting a private conversation. I did say that if the cheerleaders are having a discussion about the flag team about how the origin of flag usage (uh…) is in some falsehood, they can have a conversation amongst themselves, however if the flag team arrives, they should be, and are, allowed to give their own (name removed by moderator)ut.

Yep. High school.

I see. …If there had been a Hindu professor available to teach that class, would he have been allowed to teach it? If there had been Hindus on campus and they had (for whatever reason) to take that class (the way some extremely fluent Spanish speakers have to take Spanish foreign language classes here), would his (name removed by moderator)ut have been welcome–and even deferred to?

I’d like to think that it would have been, in an academic setting.

Of course, if a Hindu professor was available to teach the class, they would have been allowed to (of course, beyond the intro level, many times the professors typically design the class they want to teach, so if the Hindu professor wanted to teach a course on Hinduism, if it met whatever requirements, he would be able to). And of course, if there were Hindus in the class, their (name removed by moderator)ut would have been welcome. The point is that one can discuss a religion without being that. Of course, this works better when one is actually educated in it, and this is a lay/armchair forum, so not everyone is. However while (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome from the “other” party, you do not have to be that party to discuss it at length, with the Jewish professor teaching Hinduism as an example (of course that’s a more advanced example, since his degrees and dissertation were in Eastern religion, and he is planning on going to India on sabbatical…jealous).

 

[Religio71]

and I hated how the native speakers were in spanish in high school. unfair!

 

[why_me]

And would you care to address the fact that 65% of your posts are about Mormonism.

I think that the percentage must be more than 65%. But you do know Zaff that when I have tried to post somewhere else on these forums, my fans followed me to those threads and began to warn the posters that I am a phoney baloney.

 

[dianaiad]

I won’t assume why people start threads with such names. My point is that not every thread is started to invite the opposing party. They are of course welcome and should comment, however in college, we didn’t talk about how much better Georgetown is than Notre Dame hoping that someone from ND would comment. However, if one was around, they are certainly welcome to give (name removed by moderator)ut. Threads should be started with respect for the believers, which is why I don’t like terms like “cult”, “satanic”, etc. (especially when such words are used against the Catholic Church as well (CARM…ugh)! However, I do think it is reasonable to start a thread called “Mormonism: there are many ways of proving it wrong”, because from our perspective, there are many ways of proving it wrong. Over on MADB, when someone starts a thread called “creeds are an abomination” (current), is that designed to get (name removed by moderator)ut from the opposing party? I don’t think so, however they should certainly put their (name removed by moderator)ut in.

Problem, that last example. “Creeds” are not religions. They are doctrines/statements of belief shared by different religions. Now, I haven’t seen that thread (MADB drives me nuts, technically.) so I have no clue who began it, or what the purpose was. However, I think that, as rude as that title might be (and it is rude; there could have been other ways to have said that, and it’s rather stupid, anyway; our ‘thirteen articles of Faith’ is a ‘creed.’ ), you are comparing apples and oranges with it.

It’s like saying that “eating apricot pits is bad for your health” is the same as “Apricot growers are trying to poison us.”

And the flaw with this situation is that I nowhere said that the opposing party has to go away because they are interrupting a private conversation. I did say that if the cheerleaders are having a discussion about the flag team about how the origin of flag usage (uh…) is in some falsehood, they can have a conversation amongst themselves, however if the flag team arrives, they should be, and are, allowed to give their own (name removed by moderator)ut.

Yes, you did. That’s very magnanimous of you…

Of course, if a Hindu professor was available to teach the class, they would have been allowed to (of course, beyond the intro level, many times the professors typically design the class they want to teach, so if the Hindu professor wanted to teach a course on Hinduism, if it met whatever requirements, he would be able to). And of course, if there were Hindus in the class, their (name removed by moderator)ut would have been welcome. The point is that one can discuss a religion without being that. Of course, this works better when one is actually educated in it, and this is a lay/armchair forum, so not everyone is. However while (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome from the “other” party, you do not have to be that party to discuss it at length, with the Jewish professor teaching Hinduism as an example (of course that’s a more advanced example, since his degrees and dissertation were in Eastern religion, and he is planning on going to India on sabbatical…jealous).

It is difficult for me to be succinct, but I’ll give it a try.

The impression I get from you (though you are trying very hard to be nice about it) and others (who don’t bother being nice about it) is that yes, (name removed by moderator)ut from the believers of the faith you are discussing is welcome—as long as they bow to your rules and your ultimate conclusions; that is (and this is evidenced in the forum rules) it’s OK for the Catholics to say and do anything they like; there is no rule that states that they must respect the beliefs of others, but there IS one, very clearly stated, that we must respect yours.

The believer of the religion under discussion, in other words, is most definitely working under more stringent guidelines than the Catholic is, and is kept under a far tighter leash.

In my not so humble opinion, if the religion being discussed is Catholicism, then the Catholics should ABSOLUTELY have first place and the last word. The problem is, this forum thinks that this same rule should work when discussing all other faiths, as well; Catholics first place and last word.

Now it’s your forum. you have every right to do this. I’m just the gadfly who reminds you that you DO ‘do this,’ so that some thought is put into the posting and the designing of threads.

 

[dianaiad]

and I hated how the native speakers were in spanish in high school. unfair!

Not as much as they hated it, I’ll bet.

(grin)

I mean, think about it; how would YOU like to have to take a beginning English language course in, say, Mexico? Drive you nuts, much?

All for the credits…

 

[Religio71]

The impression I get from you (though you are trying very hard to be nice about it) and others (who don’t bother being nice about it) is that yes, (name removed by moderator)ut from the believers of the faith you are discussing is welcome—as long as they bow to your rules and your ultimate conclusions; that is (and this is evidenced in the forum rules) it’s OK for the Catholics to say and do anything they like; there is no rule that states that they must respect the beliefs of others, but there IS one, very clearly stated, that we must respect yours.

The believer of the religion under discussion, in other words, is most definitely working under more stringent guidelines than the Catholic is, and is kept under a far tighter leash.

In my not so humble opinion, if the religion being discussed is Catholicism, then the Catholics should ABSOLUTELY have first place and the last word. The problem is, this forum thinks that this same rule should work when discussing all other faiths, as well; Catholics first place and last word.

Now it’s your forum. you have every right to do this. I’m just the gadfly who reminds you that you DO ‘do this,’ so that some thought is put into the posting and the designing of threads.

I think this is consistently the way that all forums work, at least the ones that I have participated on (this one, CARM, MADB, Beliefnet back in the day), where the non-[insert religion] has more leeway than the main religion. I can see why that is, since the forum was started by and for that main religion. So while it may not be fair, I’ve noticed that this is how all religion forums work, where the “other” party has to be more careful with what they say. I’m currently suspended again from CARM haha.

I completely agree that some thought should be put into posting and designing threads. However, at least in my point to why me, there is nothing wrong with a Catholic saying that they believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, or that God the Father having a body of flesh and bones is a false belief, since, in our view, those are very much false. Likewise, I personally see no problem in a Mormon saying that God being one in substance is a false belief, or that infant baptism is a false practice. In fact, Zerinus has done this repeatedly. Catholics work from the premise that Catholicism is the fullness of Truth, and any divergence from that Truth is “obviously false”. I don’t think that whole religions are completely false (and neither does the Church, as this is clear in the Catechism). Likewise LDS work from the premise that it along has the Restored Gospel, and any divergence from that is “obviously false”, even if the whole religion that is being critiqued is not completely false.

 

[why_me]

I think this is consistently the way that all forums work, at least the ones that I have participated on (this one, CARM, MADB, Beliefnet back in the day), where the non-[insert religion] has more leeway than the main religion. I can see why that is, since the forum was started by and for that main religion. So while it may not be fair, I’ve noticed that this is how all religion forums work, where the “other” party has to be more careful with what they say. I’m currently suspended again from CARM haha.

I

The mormon poster on MAD who claimed that the catholic church was the abominable church has now been admonished by a moderator and told such comments are not welcome on MAD.

Even though other members of the board have already called you out on this, statements like yours are not welcome here.

Nemesis

 

[Religio71]

The mormon poster on MAD who claimed that the catholic church was the abominable church has now been admonished by a moderator and told such comments are not welcome on MAD.

Even though other members of the board have already called you out on this, statements like yours are not welcome here.

Nemesis

Wrong thread, no one brought them up here.

I wonder who reported him/her (or was one of the people that did so)…

 

[dianaiad]

I think this is consistently the way that all forums work, at least the ones that I have participated on (this one, CARM, MADB, Beliefnet back in the day), where the non-[insert religion] has more leeway than the main religion. I can see why that is, since the forum was started by and for that main religion. So while it may not be fair, I’ve noticed that this is how all religion forums work, where the “other” party has to be more careful with what they say. I’m currently suspended again from CARM haha.

Trust me, that’s like being put on the "twit list’ with the atheists; it’s an honor.

I completely agree that some thought should be put into posting and designing threads. However, at least in my point to why me, there is nothing wrong with a Catholic saying that they believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, or that God the Father having a body of flesh and bones is a false belief, since, in our view, those are very much false.

Of course not.

Likewise, I personally see no problem in a Mormon saying that God being one in substance is a false belief, or that infant baptism is a false practice. In fact, Zerinus has done this repeatedly. Catholics work from the premise that Catholicism is the fullness of Truth, and any divergence from that Truth is “obviously false”. I don’t think that whole religions are completely false (and neither does the Church, as this is clear in the Catechism). Likewise LDS work from the premise that it along has the Restored Gospel, and any divergence from that is “obviously false”, even if the whole religion that is being critiqued is not completely false.

Agreed. As I said, this is CAF; it’s your forum, your rules…but there are quite a few here who forget that the playing field is NOT equal, and start acting like bullies in the school ground. I’m just reminding people that just because the rules say that you can be meaner than the other guy without being clobbered, that is not a good enough reason to actually BE meaner than the other guy.

What I am reminded of is a basketball game I saw when I was very young; (in fact, I think I have related this story on this forum…) the school I went to was terminally inept, sports wise; we hadn’t won a basket ball game in something like ten years.

Now, that’s sad. I mean, it was so bad that we didn’t even know any victory cheers; just ‘cheer the poor boobs up’ cheers.

One day, though, we were up against the county champions. We put our ‘game faces’ on and prepared to be clobbered yet again.

However, it seems that the entire opposing team had come down with measles (I TOLD you it was a long time ago…) and so we were playing–not the first team, or even the second string, but the third, and we, finally, won a game. By three points.

We were stunned. We didn’t know what to do with it. We had to borrow the other team’s cheers, since we didn’t know any of our own…it was pandemonium, and the school held on to that precious memory for years as a great victory. Look how wonderful we are!!! Our first string beat their third!

er…

Or this example: I went to a fair many years ago, and watched a handicap race…sort of. I understand that in most races such as this, the weight the horse carries is adjusted to ‘even’ the odds…the better and faster the horse is judged to be, the more weight he has to carry. Well, this one was different. In this one, the gates were timed, instead. Rather than weight, the horses were handicapped by time. The best and fastest horses were let out last, sometimes by a full two seconds. At the end of this race, the horse that was let loose first won–literally by a nose. The horse that almost beat him was the own let go last. So, even though the loser was actually the fastest horse, the winner got the cup and the bragging rights.

And the jockey and the owner took 'em, too–displayed the cup and exercised the bragging rights.

Now, they did very well; going by times around the track alone, they would have come in second…but, not first. Still, they won fair and square according to the rules.

Sometimes the rules of the game must be adjusted to keep the nasties out. alt.religion.mormon and alt.religion.christian.roman.catholic are so inundated by REALLY nasty anti-types that there is no chance at all for reasonable discussion. None–so something of the sort must be done.

However, it’s just good, once in awhile, to stand back and say 'yeah, the game is a little rigged in my favor; maybe I shouldn’t take quite so blatant advantage of that."

(shrug)

Could just be me, though.