NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8748069&postcount=282

Someone thinks that my discourse was somehow a thread hijacking.

Please read back through the thread and see if I did something I shouldn't have.

I just wanted to point out it was on this thread
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8748118#post8748118
(just for simplicity sake)

The most recent hijacks on this page (10):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411672&page=10&pp=30

Posts 273-275, 279 especially illustrate the point--but it's been going on for a lot longer.

The thread starter hasn't responded to the thread in weeks and Free soviets, Grave n Idle and Whispering Legs (and to a certain degree The Cat-Tribe) have turned the "Ask a Mormon" thread into a "share why you think mormons are wrong" thread (this page (8) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411672&page=8&pp=30) and this page (9) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411672&page=9&pp=30) are filled with their anti-mormon propoganda--not a single honest question from them; not even a rhetorical one).

Whispering Legs argues that discourse over questions and answers to questions is understandable. However, it's clear here that the discussion is no longer discourse over questions or answers to questions but has progressed to attempts to disprove the religion as a whole. If these posters wish not to ask honest questions about the religion but to disprove it, I think they should get their own thread and stop bugging the honestly curious with their slant and propoganda--especially when posing it as fact.

Bottom line, it's no longer about questions as it was to begin with (page 1) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411672&page=1&pp=30)

EDIT (2:07):

This epitomizes the situation: By Free Soviets of all people (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8687991&postcount=234).


Hello, I actually read through this whole thread, and it started out great, until people started trying to prove mormons wrong. The point of the thread was to ask questions about what we believe. I'm LDS, currently at school in Baltimore, and just received a mission call to Milwaukee Wisconsin.


well, we are still asking questions. the questions are just more along the lines of "how do mormons explain the existence of so much in their religion that is completely and totally factually wrong or outright and obvious fraud?"

At first glance, it does appear that there are posts in the topic that have gone off-topic. The thread will be reviewed in detail later; for now it has been locked.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

OK, heres my case.

There are three posts early on (and one later, after Whispering Lags and Free Soviets arrive) which clearly illustrate the intentions for the thread. 1 (introduction), 30 (a mormon-debate post), and 32 (the response by the thread author) as well as post 135 (linked later) Here they are in full:

Post #1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8654039&postcount=1)

Hello :) Yeah, I am LDS (Mormon), and I've noticed that in most online communities most people know very little about Mormons, expect for false stereotypical stuff. So I was wondering if anyone had any questions about my religion....

Post #30 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8654324&postcount=30)

Joseph Smith, for one who claimed to be a "divine translator" in direct communication with his God, made hundreds of prophesies, some with exact dates, which have not come true. Doesn't this throw considerable doubt on his integrity?

In the Bible:

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22

In other words, Jesus told Christians how to spot a false prophet. Those who have their prophesies fulfilled are prophets. Those who do not are not prophets of God.

For example, Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..." New York has not been destroyed.

Apr 28, 1842. Joseph Smith prophesies about the newly-founded Relief Society: "before ten years... the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society. They shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor." [Quinn p. 634] No Queens have ever contributed to the Mormon cult.

And best of all:

August 27, 1843. HC 5:554. Joseph Smith announces in a sermon: "I [Joseph Smith] prophesy and bear record this morning that all the combined powers of earth and hell shall not and cannot ever overthrow or overcome this boy, for I have a promise from the eternal God. If I have sinned, I have sinned outwardly; but surely I have contemplated the things of God."

Within a year of saying this, he was asassinated.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm atheist, and support to immediate disbanding of organised religion.

And Post #32 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8654377&postcount=32)

Joseph Smith....

...EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm atheist, and support to immediate disbanding of organised religion. I made this thread for questions, not attempts to disprove my religion. I could actively argue the things you said (those prophesies were not complete and out of context -- Joseph Smith actually prophesied his assassination), but I won't, because I don't want to digress from the topic. Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to debate.


Right there, Thechya states that he "made this thread for questions, not attempts to disprove [his] religion." He seperates debate over Mormon history from his Q&A session, both by saying that responding to Mindset's argumetns would be "digress from the topic" and offering an alternative if there were a desire to debate. Now, compare this precedent with Grave n Idle, Whispering Legs, and Free Soviets:

Free Soviets in Post #112 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8660116&postcount=112):


It's easy to believe Smith fabricated it? The Book of Mormon? Have you read it? It's the greatest evidence we have. History is almost impossible to fake but I haven't found an inconsistency and the whole thing reads like it was a real society with tidbits of political revolutions thrown it.
except that the things it talks about have nothing in common with the actual history of the americas. being consistent with yourself is the mark of a decent story-teller. but being consistent with the facts of the world is the important measure when it comes to truth.

and there really were not any horses in the americas during the time period the book of mormon says there were. not a single one.

Whispering Legs in Post #129 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8661882&postcount=129)


There would have to be some striking similarities to Israelite civilization, such as was found at the sites of the Lemba cities.

Of course, the Lamanites are an easy out, because they are completely unidentified... because they, like the Nephites, never existed. Ho hum.



I fail to see how this addresses the problem of Nephi allegedly taking steel from the Middle East 800 years before it was invented.

And here I was led to believe that the Book of Mormon was consistent with the outside world. Disproving it is proving all too easy.



I could pull a religion out of my ass in an afternoon of frenzied writing, and come up with something more consistent. Hell, L. Ron Hubbard did...

At this point Thechya responds again trying to reassert his precedent of objective, unconfrontational Q&A in post 135 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8662254&postcount=135)

I agree. I have donated large amounts of time to patiently answer questions for those who are genuinly interested. I would appreciate it if you didn't force me to spend time arguing your points.

There's no point to posting anti-Mormon material. There is an endless supply of it, and although all if it can be argued by us, I know more will be brought. It's an endless cycle; they just don't give up until they think they're right.

(also consider further overtures for civility in post 149 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8666050&postcount=149))

The debate about the validity of mormonism continues, notwithstanding the thread authors repeated request that it not be a part of the discussion.

Whispering Legs in post 150 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8666080&postcount=150), furthering the debate over mormonism:



I personally have a testimony that this church is true. I have witnessed, first-hand, the glory of God and of the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Ghost, and it has testified unto me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and by this, I have found the Prophet Josheph Smith to be a true prophet with divine insight from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And if he be a true prophet, then the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley must be true. The same with all those called to offices within the church, past or present.

I personally testify that my faith is true. I have witnessed, first hand, the glory of God and the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Spirit, and it has testified unto me no such thing as the Book of Mormon, nor did God say anything about you, or Joseph Smith, either.

Everyone has testimony, brother. Keruvalia, I am quite sure, has testimony that he has dealings with Allah. Makes it true for each individual, but it doesn't do much good to testify to others.

Testifying worked in spreading faith in the 19th century, for many different religions. It rarely works today (well, it did work with the three Mormon boys that I turned into Pentacostals in 20 minutes of talk).

Whispering Legs repeating his off-topic post, to make sure everyone realizes how he and others have now taken over the thread from the thread author (post 154 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8666208&postcount=154)):



I personally testify that my faith is true. I have witnessed, first hand, the glory of God and the pure love of Christ. I have felt the Holy Spirit, and it has testified unto me no such thing as the Book of Mormon, nor did God say anything about you, or Joseph Smith, either.

Everyone has testimony, brother. Keruvalia, I am quite sure, has testimony that he has dealings with Allah. Makes it true for each individual, but it doesn't do much good to testify to others.

Testifying worked in spreading faith in the 19th century, for many different religions. It rarely works today (well, it did work with the three Mormon boys that I turned into Pentacostals in 20 minutes of talk).


Just in case you missed it...

The Cat-Tribe openly affronting the thread author's right to control a thread discussion in Post 176 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8670829&postcount=176):

...Have I not made it clear that we do not really care? You have no power to control the thread, nor should you....

Grave n Idle in Post 178 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8670911&postcount=178):


Joseph Smith and the Papyri is a subject too complex to take up here. My theory requires too much explanation. You can turn to FARM's and FAIR's website for some of the most prominent LDS theories and to others for their ideas. Acceptance of it is taken on faith by most members.

It just seems strange to me, that so many people STILL accept a text which has been proved false.

While there are speculations about the nature of the Qu'ran or the Bible, for example, the Book of Mormon is the ONLY 'holy text' I know of that has been proved to have been false.

Why do people CHOOSE to believe it, despite the fact that it is observably untrue?

Free Soviets again (Post 182 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8671690&postcount=182))


There was a rather glaring flaw with that experiment, though. He did get towed out to sea. Presumably, the ancients would have had to deal with the tides.

What he was actually trying to prove was that ancient South Americans sailed west and populated the Polynesian islands... which we now know is a load of bull. The Polynesian islands were settled by Asians sailing east.

true. and yeah, polynesia was settled in completely the wrong direction for heyerdahl's hypothesis. the one thing that really keeps any of it alive for me is that the sweet potato, which became one of the staples of polynesia, originated in south america and the polynesian word for it bears a striking resemblence to the word used in peru. but it was more probably polynesians making the trip to south america than the other way around.

speaking of which, if you ever go to the polynesian cultural center on oahu, hawaii, it seems that the mormons (who run the thing) are big into american origins for pacific islanders. comes from some stupid thing said by one of their early leaders, i think; pacific islanders are claimed to also be the descendents of the lamanites.

I really could go on, showing how they further disboyed the premise and objective of the thread as explicitly expressed by the thread author [i]repeatedly, but I'm tired of copyng and linking post after post. Thechya has repeatedly requested that they not post the types of mormon debate material in the thread that they have, yet they've continued.

Most agregiously, they haven't even contained their debate over mormons to the questions posed by posters who don't know much about the religion, rather bringing in new and unsolicited arguments and points (especially grave and soviets in posts 178 and 182, respecitvely--already linked) unrelated to any sincere or honest lack of knowledge from a forum member.

This is clearly a case of several over-zealous posters trying to prove their point, and stepping all over a thread author's right to deciding the topic of his or her thread to do so.

I thank the mods for their time, and apologize if some of the links are bad (I tried, but I'm a wee bit under the weather right now).

Powerhungry Chipmunks: Your case is acknowledged. I will consider it when I have time.

On one hand, while the topic author cannot control who may or may not participate in a "General" thread, the topic author may dictate the topic-of-discussion. Posts that are off-topic can be removed by Moderators.

On the other hand, we Moderators have a policy against honoring "closed" debates where only invited players are welcome to participate; player may attempt to set up such a thing, but any player with civil and on-topic material may post to any debate in "General". This is to prevent "closed" debates from being fixed such that one side deliberately loses. So, if someone comes along and starts debating in your "closed" debate, you have to deal with them. A question-and-answer topic might be considered a veiled "closed debate".

The central question that I will need to discuss with the other Moderators is this: Is a question-and-answer thread also a debate thread by its nature (and thus allowing opposing viewpoints)? Or is a question-and-answer thread sufficiently distinct from a debate thread that debate may be considered off-topic?

This will take time to rule on.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator

Is this not an "ask a..." thread which have recently been outlawed again? Is it permitted to exist because it was created pre-ban?

*NOTE* Ish not a mod */NOTE*