Report bad member?

[starlight012]

Hi, I am new to the forum. I want help. There is a member who is posting anti-mormon information and claiming to be a member in good standing. I know him, his name and want his leaders to encourage him to stop.

What do I do?

it's an article at that mormon think website.

(link to political candidate discussion removed by moderator)

I hope it isn't inappropriate to post and ask this here, but I don't know where else to do it.

Edited August 24, 2012 by starlight012
link to article about Mitt Romney

[Vort]

It's easy enough to "out" him. If it really bothers you, tell him. I personally see nothing wrong with informing his bishop and stake president, but my advice to you is to ignore him and stay away from his antiMormon web site.

[starlight012]

Thanks, Vort. Since I can't link to it, because apparently it's too political, I wanted to get help from the group to defend against the claims. I'm reposting some of the article here.

The parts that are troubling me are the quotes by Joseph Smith and that the author chose to highlight the differences, not the similiarities. Help me show why he's wrong.

====

Still, the differences can be vast, and some are summarized below, primarily using LDS prophetic utterances & scripture canon, including the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Book of Moses and the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C)—all believed by LDS as divine scripture translated or revealed to Joseph Smith.

1. God

While LDS members “believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article of Faith 1), there are several key differences from traditional Christianity:

• In LDS theology, the distinct nature and form of God the Father, having a tangible body and a definite location within the matter of the universe differs from the Spirit viewpoint of the Father. (“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also”) and a Holy Spirit (“a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us”). (see D&C 130:22-23).
• God the Father is called Elohim by Joseph Smith (e.g., he replaced “God” with “Elohim”, also it is used in the LDS Bible Dictionary and Bible Topical Guide). Note: the word Elohim is an improper pluralized form of “Eloha” the Hebrew word for God.
• Modern LDS teachings say that which fills the whole universe is only the Holy Spirit. (D&C 88:7; Moroni 7:18-19).
• LDS teaching designates the primary location of God’s throne as existing in a specific part of the universe: ”Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God” (Abraham 3:9). The location of a place named Kolob, however, is never specified. (Note: this is hardly different than what the Bible would call “Heaven” and how it attempts to define it and locate it above us.)
• The prophet Joseph Smith gave a sermon in which he taught: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man…I am going to tell you how God came to be God…that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 345-346, Deseret Book, 2006. See also, the first edition of the official History of the Church, vol. VI, ch. XIII, pp. 300-307, published by Deseret News, 1912. )

2. Jesus

• According to LDS teachings, the atonement was primarily enacted by Jesus bleeding through every pore in the Garden of Gethsemane and culminating in death on the cross. (See 2 Nephi 9:21; Mosiah 3:7.)
• Modern LDS revelations explain that Jesus in pre-earth life is known as Jehovah. “[Jesus] is Jehovah, and was foreordained to his great calling in the Grand Councils before the world was.” (LDS Bible Dictionary.)
• While no longer officially held by the LDS church, it was once taught by prophets & apostles of the LDS church that Jesus as the only begotten of the Father in the flesh was conceived just as human babies are: "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 8:115.) Also: "There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple." (The Promised Messiah, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, p.468.)

3. Evil & Satan

One cannot discuss God & Christ without understanding evil and its source. LDS doctrines on this include:

• The LDS Bible Dictionary says, “The devil is the enemy of righteousness and of those who seek to do the will of God. Literally a spirit son of God, he was at one time ‘an angel’ in authority in the presence of God; however, he rebelled in the premortal life, at which time he persuaded a third of the spirit children of the Father to rebel with him, in opposition to the plan of salvation championed by Jehovah (Jesus Christ). ‘Thus came the devil and his angels’ (D&C 29:37). They were cast out of heaven, and were denied the experience of mortal bodies and earth life.”
• LDS believe Satan is the source of all evil that exists among humans. (Moroni 7:12; Moses 4:4). Also, that Satan’s greatest sin was to elevate himself to God’s throne, and be like God himself (D&C 76:26-28)
• Satan is a literal spirit brother to Jehovah (Jesus in the pre-earth life), this because Satan and Jesus are both spirit sons of God the Father according to Mormon theology. (See Moses 4:1-4; Abraham 3:27-28.)
• The Book of Mormon teaches that God would cease to be God if there were no opposition (evil): “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. … And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God” (2 Ne 2:11-13). Additionally that if there were no sin, and hence no justice, then “the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:22).

4. God’s purpose for humankind

• LDS teachings hold that we are co-eternal with God, having lived forever before earth-life and will exist forever after death. (Abraham 3:22-23 & 27-28; Moses 4:4)
• Mormon theology teaches that at death, only those that have received and accepted the LDS gospel & baptism can enter into paradise. All other spirits will reside in spirit prison (if they were honorable in life) or in hell (if they were very sinful in life). (See Alma 40:12; D&C 76:73-75 & 84-85.)
• The LDS heaven is divided into many levels, including the Telestial (D&C 76:81,109), Terrestrial (D&C 76:71-77) and Celestial glories (D&C 76:70, 58-60).
• Those in the lower glories (telestial & terrestrial) will be designated as angels which will be subject to the power of those in the highest glory, who “shall they be gods…from everlasting to everlasting…they shall have all power, and the angles are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:20)
• The celestial glory is further divided into three or more levels: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” (D&C 131:1-2)
• The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is described in the next section of LDS scripture, D&C section 132, which is about the sealing of marriage partners for time and for all eternity. It contains the revelation to Joseph Smith about polygamy. As described in the previous section, without this marriage covenant, there is no entering exaltation and, “they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.” (D&C 132:17)
• The prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 346, Deseret Book, 2006. See also, the first edition of the official History of the Church, vol. VI, ch. XIII, pp. 300-307, published by Deseret News, 1912.)

[MarginOfError]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Did you repost what he wrote? Because most of what is written there is quite accurate. The parts that aren't accurate are generally considered to be matters of interpretation. In my opinion, the only problem with what is written is that it lacks context--it is written to divide, not to create mutual understanding. But the information is, for the most part, correct.

[starlight012]

I'm afraid I don't understand. Did you repost what he wrote? Because most of what is written there is quite accurate. The parts that aren't accurate are generally considered to be matters of interpretation. In my opinion, the only problem with what is written is that it lacks context--it is written to divide, not to create mutual understanding. But the information is, for the most part, correct.

Yes, that was a direct quote from the article at mormon think site.

I think it's an anti-mormon site. I know the guy that wrote that and he's claiming to be a good member, but I know he's not.

Are you saying that it's not really anti-mormon?

I think if other Christians see this list, it will not be seen favorably.

Edited August 24, 2012 by starlight012

[MarginOfError]

I'm not saying he isn't an anti-mormon, just that the information he's provided is accurate. The fact that it's out of context just makes it difficult to understand. It also highlights the differences between LDS theology and more traditional Christian theology. Someone who was brought up under traditional theology would probably find some of our beliefs fairly heretical. But that has been the case since the church was founded.

I just don't see what we can hope to do to counter this. If it's a truly anti-Mormon site, any defense we try to post will be deleted. Besides, people are free to post what they wish on their websites. The best thing you could do is post your views on your own blog or website and share it with the people you know. People are much more likely to accept the views of someone they know personally than some random person on the internet. (and quite possibly, the majority of people who visit anti-Mormon sites are not looking for information, but for validation).

[Wiki_Wonka]

Yes, that was a direct quote from the article at mormon think site.

I think it's an anti-mormon site. I know the guy that wrote that and he's claiming to be a good member, but I know he's not.

Are you saying that it's not really anti-mormon?

I think if other Christians see this list, it will not be seen favorably.

FAIR has a very detailed response to a lot of the material on MormonThink. The MT webmaster regularly posts on an anti-Mormon board and talks about his progress in attempting to turn members away from the Church. Here's the summary from the FAIR Wiki (don't know if I'm allowed to link to it, but if you go to the FAIR Wiki main page there is a link to all of the MT subarticles. Just Google "MormonThink" and you will see the FAIR Wiki as the #2 search result right after the MT website itself):

"The web site MormonThink.com claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in objectively presenting the "truth" about Mormonism. In reality, only the webmaster retains his membership, and he admits that he does so in order to retain credibility so he can more easily influence other members to accept his claims. The remaining website contributors are ex-Mormons who frequently post on anti-Mormon message boards. The webmaster is, by his own admission, pretending to be semi-active in order to destroy members' and missionaries' testimonies from within the social structure of the Church. The site pretends to be "balanced" by presenting information and links to apologetic sites, however, the conclusions reached by the site consistently reflect negatively on the Church's truth claims. The site also contains a large amount of Temple content."

I should note that MT recently removed their temple content, because the webmaster said that it was preventing the spouses of the MT contributors from being willing to look at the website.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Wiki_Wonka
Additional info

[livy111us]

Here it the link he was referring to:

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink - FAIRMormon

[pam]

To the OP, we also have rules regarding the copying and pasting of copyrighted material.

8. Copyright Policy. You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights.

The website you originally linked to does have a copy right.

[slamjet]

I know the guy that wrote that and he's claiming to be a good member, but I know he's not.

Can someone tell me what the definition of a "good member" is?

[Vort]

Thanks, Vort. Since I can't link to it, because apparently it's too political, I wanted to get help from the group to defend against the claims. I'm reposting some of the article here.

The parts that are troubling me are the quotes by Joseph Smith and that the author chose to highlight the differences, not the similiarities. Help me show why he's wrong.

It's hopeless. Don't waste your time. You could refute his points one by one, call him out for his biased presentation, meticulously show he's twisting facts to suit his agenda, and so forth. What would you get for all your trouble? Do you suppose he would just up and admit he's been less than honest? Trust me, that will never happen. He will simply spew a ton of further allegations and twisted history, and you will always remain on the defensive, calling him a liar while he assumes the pose of the long-suffering and slightly bemused seeker after Real Truth®.

It is a fool's errand, a quixotic quest with all the insanity and none of the nobility. Seriously, just ignore the guy.

[Vort]

Can someone tell me what the definition of a "good member" is?

Someone who thinks like I do.

[Backroads]

What this member posted is, as has been said, pretty much true. Yeah, it might get some Christians' panties a bit twisted, but that's that.

I don't regularly delve into anti-Mormon stuff, but I have looked at MormonThink and other such pages during times of serious questioning in the past. However, one popular method I have noticed with anti-Mormon stuff is that they will take a true statement, then whine about it, so that when you read it, a simple statement LOOKS bad.

[Anddenex]

MormonThink website is a group of members of the church, some have gone fully inactive and some are still active.

MormonThink is actually worse than the majority of anti-Mormon sites because the site seeks to say they are active members.

The site is very misleading, and seeks to, as others pointed out, to divide. FairLDS doesn't speak highly of this site also, because even though they provide accurate truths, they also do not provide accurate context.

I actually spoke with one of the authors on Youtube, who tried to say how accurate they were and neutral. I find the majority of their post, not nuetral, and leading.

[Anddenex]

Someone who thinks like I do.

No laugh button. I need one now.

This is of course in reference that I was interpreting your post to be humorous, and light-hearted.

[pam]

No laugh button. I need one now.

This is of course in reference that I was interpreting your post to be humorous, and light-hearted.

No. I think Vort is serious.

[Anddenex]

Can someone tell me what the definition of a "good member" is?

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. Indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul. WE believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

I think this suffices for a good definition of a "good member".

[starlight012]

Now I am getting confused. Some of you have said that they lie a lot at MT, pretending to be active members. That's also what I know of David, the current editor there. However, some of you have said that the material is correct and while presented in a way to convey a message that pushes apart, it is not untrue. Some have said that it is very misleading, but that it has the facts correct.

What is going on here?

The new editor that I know is there because the previous one left the church. He is still a member, but I wouldn't call him a good member. However, I have read the article and now see that all of the points come directly from scriptures or standard books in the church. I think it is meant to divide people, using the facts. If this gets out to non-members, and if they think a good member is writing this, that is going to look bad.

Can't we get it shut down or have the editor reprimanded by church leaders for portraying himself that way?

[MarginOfError]

Now I am getting confused. Some of you have said that they lie a lot at MT, pretending to be active members. That's also what I know of David, the current editor there. However, some of you have said that the material is correct and while presented in a way to convey a message that pushes apart, it is not untrue. Some have said that it is very misleading, but that it has the facts correct.

What is going on here?

The new editor that I know is there because the previous one left the church. He is still a member, but I wouldn't call him a good member. However, I have read the article and now see that all of the points come directly from scriptures or standard books in the church. I think it is meant to divide people, using the facts. If this gets out to non-members, and if they think a good member is writing this, that is going to look bad.

Can't we get it shut down or have the editor reprimanded by church leaders for portraying himself that way?

Probably not.

[Anddenex]

Now I am getting confused. Some of you have said that they lie a lot at MT, pretending to be active members. That's also what I know of David, the current editor there. However, some of you have said that the material is correct and while presented in a way to convey a message that pushes apart, it is not untrue. Some have said that it is very misleading, but that it has the facts correct.

What is going on here?

The new editor that I know is there because the previous one left the church. He is still a member, but I wouldn't call him a good member. However, I have read the article and now see that all of the points come directly from scriptures or standard books in the church. I think it is meant to divide people, using the facts. If this gets out to non-members, and if they think a good member is writing this, that is going to look bad.

Can't we get it shut down or have the editor reprimanded by church leaders for portraying himself that way?

There is nothing we can do to have the site shut down, and in all honesty, although I thoroughly disprove of these types of sites, opposition is necessary in all things. It would do us, and the church, more harm to bully them out, then to honor their agency.

[Backroads]

The website is a private one, not associated with the LDS Church. The LDS Church has no power when it comes to websites.

[NeuroTypical]

Can't we get it shut down

Shut it down? You mean, like forcing silence on someone? Infringing on their right to free speech? Taking away their right to say things because we don't like what they have to say?

Whether "we" can or not, we shouldn't. Censorship in public areas is not good. Not sure which "we" you are talking about, but all the "we" groups that I'm a part of, like freedom of public speech more than we like silencing the opposition. Websites like you went to, get to be there, and post what they want, just like lds.net gets to be here and post what we want. People are free to look at every side of something, and make their choice.

or have the editor reprimanded by church leaders for portraying himself that way?

These folks' actions are between them, their priesthood leaders, and the Lord. The Church doesn't really go in much for public repudiation of it's members. Church discipline is carried out by the member's priesthood leader, not handed down from above.

And don't be too quick on a rush to assume their leaders aren't aware of their online activities. Maybe they are, maybe they're not.

[slamjet]

Someone who thinks like I do.

*face-palm* oh... my... word...

[Backroads]

starlight, I know this sort of thing being out there on the web can be frustrating, but the best advice I can give you is to simply not look at it or try to think about it. Find places that will strengthen your faith, or at least provide the clearest examples of information.

[C_T_R]

It's not your problem.

It's the member's problem and it's between him and God. Really I am just amazed at how much time people spend on trying to "fix" other people's problems when they, themselves, should just be focused on their own problems.

If you feel so compelled go tell the bishop and then drop it. But really it's just none of your business in my opinion.