Question for jskains

[_Mad Viking]

Should like minded people who don't agree with the LDS church be allowed to have a forum where they can discuss the church in any fashion they choose? If so, what form should that forum take?

[_Simon Belmont]

Should like minded people who don't agree with the LDS church be allowed to have a forum where they can discuss the church in any fashion they choose? If so, what form should that forum take?

I am not jskains, but I can voice my opinion.

Yes, they are allowed to have a forum. It is, however, misleading to call that forum "Mormon Discussions" if it is more like "anti-Mormon Discussions." That is why I don't have a problem with RfM, nor have I ever even visited it -- the name of the forum tells me what I might find there.

[_Mad Viking]

Should like minded people who don't agree with the LDS church be allowed to have a forum where they can discuss the church in any fashion they choose? If so, what form should that forum take?

I am not jskains, but I can voice my opinion.

Yes, they are allowed to have a forum. It is, however, misleading to call that forum "Mormon Discussions" if it is more like "anti-Mormon Discussions." That is why I don't have a problem with RfM, nor have I ever even visited it -- the name of the forum tells me what I might find there.

Your only problem with this forum is the name? Which begs the question: Now that you know what this forum is, why do you return?

[_Simon Belmont]

Your only problem with this forum is the name? Which begs the question: Now that you know what this forum is, why do you return?

The drama.

[_Uncle Dale]

Your only problem with this forum is the name? Which begs the question: Now that you know what this forum is, why do you return?

The drama.

Oh, you might at least cite the conversion example of Alma the younger...

UD

[_Tchild]

I am not jskains, but I can voice my opinion.

Yes, they are allowed to have a forum. It is, however, misleading to call that forum "Mormon Discussions" if it is more like "anti-Mormon Discussions." That is why I don't have a problem with RfM, nor have I ever even visited it -- the name of the forum tells me what I might find there.

"Anti-Mormon" discussions? For Simon that must be any topic of discussion or tone of discourse that doesn't praise the church in a sing-song syrupy voice, a lengthy testimony and starts and ends in a prayer with hands folded and head bowed.

Yeah, this Mormon Discussion forum isn't that Simon, but it surely isn't "anti-Mormon".

[_Simon Belmont]

Yeah, this Mormon Discussion forum isn't that Simon, but it surely isn't "anti-Mormon".

Are the majority of posters here for (pro) Mormonism, or against (anti) Mormonism?

[_Tchild]

Are the majority of posters here for (pro) Mormonism, or against (anti) Mormonism?

I don't know what that means. I am personally for Mormon people. Am I against Mormons if I do not believe in resurrected Nephites delivering gold plates no matter how hard I try?

Simon, do you consider yourself anti-Catholic, buddhist or Muslim because when discussing those religions, you do not consider all their claims as factually true?

[_jskains]

Please.

There is a big difference between:

"The Pope has done something I disagree with".

vs.

"The Pope is a fraudulant [Telestial-caliber comment deleted] who likes to [Telestial-caliber comment deleted] in the vatican".

Which do we see here most often?

JMS

[_Mad Viking]

Please.

There is a big difference between:

"The Pope has done something I disagree with".

vs.

"The Pope is a fraudulant [Telestial-caliber comment deleted] who likes to [Telestial-caliber comment deleted] in the vatican".

Which do we see here most often?

JMS

For the sake of discussion let's assume that the tone of discourse here about the church and its members is similar to the latter example you gave. My question remains the same. Do you think that people who hold such opinions should not have a forum where they can share such opinions with each other?