LDS Freedom Forum

I have noticed, this forum is not what it used to be.
Just an observation.

It seems more than ever that LDS is not appropriate in the title of the Forum because of the general content.

will wrote:I have noticed, this forum is not what it used to be.
Just an observation.

It seems better than a few months ago... ??

Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

Jason wrote:Good observation! Definitely not the same forum it was3 or 4 years back. Used to be you got booted for evil speaking of the Lord's anointed...now it's a frequent commonplace occurrence...not even delving into the rest of the typical banter these days. Sad but just another sign of the times...

I thought YOU were one several of the trolls, Legion (who is many).

LOL...I reckon it's all perspective...

What is the difference between a troll and a shill?

When Israel, the CIA, or the Army uses paid disinfo agents to infiltrate forums and "muddy the waters", "dis-inform" and "cast doubt" on what is.... are they trolls or shills?

It was disappointing for the banter against the church and leaders during conference.

I used to post here often now it feels like it is one of the sites I am starting to avoid. The errant posts from apostate or non members seems rampant.

dauser wrote:What is the difference between a troll and a shill?

When Israel, the CIA, or the Army uses paid disinfo agents to infiltrate forums and "muddy the waters", "dis-inform" and "cast doubt" on what is.... are they trolls or shills?

A shill, because they are paid. If they weren't paid, then they're just a troll.

dauser wrote:What is the difference between a troll and a shill?

When Israel, the CIA, or the Army uses paid disinfo agents to infiltrate forums and "muddy the waters", "dis-inform" and "cast doubt" on what is.... are they trolls or shills?

Yep, there are a lot of trolls out there getting paid by their taxpayers. http://www.thelocal.se/20151026/sweden- ... ganda-wars" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

will wrote:I used to post here often now it feels like it is one of the sites I am starting to avoid. The errant posts from apostate or non members seems rampant.

Amen...large changing of priorities has taken place in terms of what's discussed here. Interesting to see the threads/posts that get traffic versus those that don't.

Elizabeth wrote:It seems more than ever that LDS is not appropriate in the title of the Forum because of the general content.

will wrote:I have noticed, this forum is not what it used to be.
Just an observation.

Will, why don't you, Elizabeth and others join the Book of Mormon discussion?

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=40321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The more, the merrier! ;)

rewcox wrote:It was disappointing for the banter against the church and leaders during conference.

Banter about LDSCo and the PSRs is not trolling or shilling - it's simply opinion.
And why were you disappointed by banter? Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Obrien wrote:

rewcox wrote:It was disappointing for the banter against the church and leaders during conference.

Banter about LDSCo and the PSRs is not trolling or shilling - it's simply opinion.
And why were you disappointed by banter? Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Some hide in the water, you might see some eyes...

will wrote:I have noticed, this forum is not what it used to be.
Just an observation.

My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

If someone presents something that is in disagreement with you, and after considering if they could be possibly right, but still realize they are wrong, why not set them straight - give them the factual low-down of WHY they are misguided - so they can better understand?
If they are right, then why not consider you may be wrong, and seek to get the factual low-down of WHY you might've been misguided?
If you have the truth - there is no fear in questioning. If you don't have the truth, your foundation is weak and will not stand against inspection.

As painful as it can be to have your strongest beliefs and values attacked, for me, it has helped me a lot!
I have learned more than I would have because it's inspired me to research.
It's helped me be more understanding of multiple possible perspectives, even if I don't agree with them all.
Through considering alternate perspectives, I've made my own perspective more accurate, and have been able to present arguments that are more objective (less biased) and I can better stand for truth/God.

rewcox wrote:

Obrien wrote:

rewcox wrote:It was disappointing for the banter against the church and leaders during conference.

Banter about LDSCo and the PSRs is not trolling or shilling - it's simply opinion.
And why were you disappointed by banter? Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Some hide in the water, you might see some eyes...

I assume you're making a veiled reference to Boyd Packer's famous "spiritual crocodiles" talk?
If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Obrien wrote:Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Your good friend Thinker said we couldn't think.

But we did know Burning Sword was not the Christ.

Obrien wrote:If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Obrien wrote:Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Thinker wrote:My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

EmmaLee wrote:

Obrien wrote:If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Obrien wrote:Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Thinker wrote:My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Post of the day! :ymapplause:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

EmmaLee wrote:

Obrien wrote:If not, what in the hell ARE you talking about - you're a cryptic individual, at times.

Why do you always attack in such a childish, indirect way? Attacking is not child-like behaviour, so don't try to feign innocence. If you have an accusation, make it like a man.

Obrien wrote:Was it not obsequious enough for your taste?

Thinker wrote:My observation is that those who call others names lack ability to reason logically.
Name calling is ad hominem attack logical fallacy.
When I have posted on more liberal sites about "inconvenient truths" about abortion murders or statistical health concerns of homosexual practices, I've been called "troll" and either been harassed by these name-callers or other forms of online abuse.
They focus on name-calling, because they feel threatened by medical and statistical facts that they cannot refute - so all they have left is to call names and attack the messenger.

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Thinker wrote:

EmmaLee wrote:

Emma, please use your own words to explain what you think.
You quoting and highlighting quotes from others is unclear.
This is a discussion board, so discuss, please.

Now you are condescending. You've changed, not for the better.

Hi, I'm a newbie.

I for one am glad that there is freedom of expression on this forum, whether or not people agree with something a GA says or has a different perspective on a doctrinal point or whatever. For me, that's what draws me to this forum, as opposed to some others. Not that I'm here to bash, but it's important to have open and free dialogue.

EmmaLee - "cryptic" and "obsequious" are words that have meanings. They are called adjectives.

Rewcox is often cryptic in his one liner posts. The real meaning of said posts probably only is known to Rewcox. That doesn't make him bad or mean, just cryptic.

TBM's reactions to conference talks by GAs are often obsequious. If you disagree, you aren't paying attention.

There's a word for that too, EmmaLee - it's "inattentive". I know it's a big word, but with your keyboard and the Google, you too can gain a rudimentary vocabulary that will allow you to communicate with others using your own thoughts, instead of simply highlighting the thoughts of others.
Good luck Rewcox EmmaLee.