The Bizarre moderation of CARM.

Infraction Received: Rule 6: PG Discussions Only Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments 41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation.

This is one of the more bizarre moderation I have received from CARM.. It's by no means the first, but just about the most bizarre.  Let's examine..   I'm responding to Catherine Aurelia.. You can find more about her here.. 

Rule 6 PG Discussions.   

     CARM wants to keep the forums on a PG level.. Yet nothing in my response is anything but PG.

Rule 25: No blasphemy/insulting remarks about Christianity.  

     My response is specifically addressed to Anti-Mormons, not Christiantiy.. So no blasphemy or insults on Christianity..

Rule 29:B, No links to offensive material, No links to articles with discussion or comments

As one can see, my comments have NO Links at all, let alone offensive material. 

41: Vocabulary: No vulgarities, obscenities, profanity, or swearing. The filter will block certain words. If a word is blocked in your posting, please edit to include a more appropriate word. Posting spaces, characters that leave the impression or meaning of profanity are still considered a rule violation

This really is bizarre, there is NO vulgarities in the post.. My only guess is that the CARM Moderation is a few pints short of a six pack when it comes to the meaning of some words like "Flagrant"..  which means to be brazen or shameless. 

I think its worthy to point out their  Rule 3.1 which states..

Matt Slick and Diane S. or administrators reserve the right to alter the board rules at any time necessary to administrating the forums and maintaining peace on the discussion boards. Admins do have responsibility to dealing with management issues and may have reason to use different rules than the forum guests.

Overall I think this just serves to prove that CARM has NO Rules as Matt, Diane or Carm administrators may have reason to USE DIFFERENT RULES than the guests and can CHANGE rules at any time.. Which means at their whim.  So even if you study their rules and try to adhere, they can just not like you and change the rules for no reason other than they don't like what you say.. Which is often, they simply can't handle truth.

I think what's going on here is CARM forums are dying a slow death.. the Post/View raitios barely keep up with the number of posters in a given discussion.  Every post counts as a view, every edit to a post counts as a view.  The post/view rations seems to suggest that only the few that are engaged in the dialog are actually viewing the posts of each other.   There seems to be no more than a dozen participants on the site anymore, the same names that have been there for 10 years...

So as more and more people are becoming aware of the bigotry of CARM, less and less are stopping by and that decline is scaring them.. They depend on donations.

An Anti-Mormon Rorschach test.

In 1921 Herman Rorschach wrote a book called Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the famous inkblot test known today as a Rorschach test.    In a Rorschach test the subject is presented with abstract inkblots and asked to express what they see in each image.

The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions, including needs and base motives.,

In 1972 the LDS church published a FHE manual which included a graphic for teaching young children about the Jesus Christs relationship to God in contrast to our own.. It was a simple graphic as follows:

It must be emphasized that the Churches intent was to illustrate a difference in genealogy as taught in the Scriptures to a young child..

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;- Mark 1:1

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  Matt 1:20-23

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.    - Luke 1:31-35

compare to a typical chart from ancestry.com

But what do Anti-Mormons see in this graphic is quite telling about the psychology of Anti-Mormonism.

In a recent dialog on CARM this was the topic of discussion.   The anti-Mormons branded the graphic as 'Utter blasphemy!' and insisted there is a sexual inference in the graphic.

Yet as any rational thinking observer can see there is no sexual reference in the graphic at all.  No pictures of genitalia, no mention of sex.. nothing whatsoever.. It's merely a genelogical graphic designed for children who would not even know what sex was.  Yet the anti-Mormon persists in insisting that meaning exists in the graphic.

one such poster on CARM that goes by the handle "Bonnie" illustrates the psychology of anti-Mormonism.  When pressed on the objective facts regarding the graphic and it's intended message, to it's intended audience she says' the following statements..

 TO AN IMMATURE LITTLE CHILD. To a young child, it wouldn't be a sexual reference at all. Because they know nothing about that yet.  

I agree that your church is trying to teach genealogy with that diagram and not about how babies are made...it is keeping it very simple for their very young minds to grasp

.
A child's eyes would see one thing in that diagram, but those looking at it through the eyes of an adult would see something more....because adults KNOW more than a little child does. …

I never said there were graphically expressed pictures of the mechanics of how the egg is fertilized, in the picture.

 I have seen what is meant by the graphic and I have acknowledged it, that it was never meant to show HOW Jesus was produced by Mary and God, only to show genealogy . I Never said that those who originally made the graphic meant anything else.

And yet she persists despite all her admissions that their was no intended message regarding anything sexual.. she contends

Doesn't matter what is "objectively" not there,

…there is the UNexpressed idea of the mechanics that PRODUCES 'you."

 adults, who know much more than children, and who have put away childish things, will see more--much more. They will also see HOW that genealogy is passed on from mommy and daddy to the child. They will see the mechanism behind it.

And I DO accept the INTENDED message of the graphic and have said so But what I am talking about is the UNintended message in the little graphic

The unintended Message?   That would be any message but the intended message.  Which would be any message that the person chooses to IMAGINE.. and it seems the Anti-Mormon imagination is fixated on sex, for even as they acknowledge there is no sexual intent in the message the insist on discussing an un-intended message about pro-creation..

about Jesus' conception--that He was begotten in the same way, of Mary and God, as we are begotten of OUR fathers

 as a mature adult I can ALSO see all the implications of that little picture, since I DO know the facts of life and how babies are made by "mommy" and "daddy" to produce "you."

 what they refuse to say plainly, I will say for them--they mean that heavenly father had a sexual union with his own spirit daughter Mary, in her flesh, so she could conceive Jesus.

What they refuse to say plainly?   LDS say what we say.. we don't plainly say what anti-Mormon cook up in their imagination despite even acknowledging the intended message was nothing of the sort..   I think this speaks volumes of the Anti-Mormon psychology.  It really doesn't matter what the objective facts are.. They will manufacture an idea in their imagination and project it at all cost trying to assert it as LDS belief..  I say that's disingenuous. A fraud and a lie on the part of Anti-Mormons.  Which reinforces my opinion that such are not really Christian.. They may call themselves Christian but they deny the very standards Christ taught.

Sex,Lies and Bigfoot

2001, Frontenac State Park, Minnesota: Church Lady Finds Tracks

Church pastor, Miss Janice Pritchett claims that she found Bigfoot tracks in the mud around the shore of Lake Pepin in Frontenac Park. She was unable to photograph them, even though she says she took several good shots of the impressions with her expensive new camera.
When she got the film developed the footprints did not come out. Those pictures were completely black. Pritchett attributes this to the demonic power she thinks Bigfoot possesses. Pritchett often preaches about the ancient evil that threatens her congregants. So no one was surprised or alarmed by her lack of photographic proof.

2009, Hemphill, Texas: Homeowner Terrorized by Bigfoot

Ernie Franklin owned a house near Sabine National Forest in Hemphill, Texas. His small ranch home was nearly isolated down a single lane road. Franklin started composting in a bin outside his kitchen window. As he prepared his meals he would just scrape the unwanted food into the bin.
After a few weeks, Franklin grew tired of cleaning up his yard after various animals got into the compost bin. So he got rid of it
About a week after he stopped the food composting, he was abruptly woken in the middle of the night by a thumping on his roof. He grabbed his shot gun and rushed outside to see what was on his roof. He just caught a glimpse of a dark figure leap off the sloping one story roof.
Shining his flashlight around for about 10 minutes, Franklin was convinced the animal was gone. He went back inside. But he was unable to go back to sleep because the rest of the night rocks hit his roof and there was a bloodcurdling howl from right outside his house.
In the morning, Franklin found Bigfoot prints in the dirt around his house. He figures that the Bigfoot came to rely upon his compost bin and when it found it gone, it grew frustrated and angry. After that one night, the Bigfoot never returned.

1893, Melissa Lott claims wife in very deed.  

Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

1893, Emily D. Partridge rooms .. 

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

Joseph Nobel wrote.. 

 In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

Keunu Reeves Paternity.

Karen Sala had alleged that Reeves was the father of her four adult children and was seeking $3 million a month in spousal support and $150,000 a month in retroactive child support.

What do these all have in common?   They are CLAIMS being made without corroborating evidence as to their truthfulness.  Now the lack of corroborating evidence is OK when your are BELIEVING in some supernatural being.. or Big Foot.. but when it comes to making claims against someone.  We hold a jurisprudence that holds that someone is innocent until proven Guilty.    This Jurisprudence is founded upon Biblical precedent..

Biblical Standard of truth

When charging someone with a wrong doing the Bible gives us a standard..

A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained. - Deut 19:15

Matt records that Jesus affirms this rule..

 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. - Matt: 18:15-16

And Paul affirms this as well in his letter to the Corinthians.

Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 2 Cor 13:1

CARM and the anti-Mormons.

In recent days the CARM anti-Mormon minions have been on a parade with the claims of Joseph Smith having sex with his wives in an effort to claim Joseph Smith committed some wrong doing.. Either by claiming adultery or a bigamist, even worse, a pedophile, sexual molester..    And yet not one shred of evidence has been put forth that meets the Jurisprudence and Biblical standard for truth.   In fact we have more evidence fot the existence of Big Foot than we do for the claim of Joseph Smith having sexual relations with anyone but Emma Smith...

And its a sexual relationship that is required for any of the claims of adultery, bigamy or sexual molestation to have any credence.   If Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma, then adultery is out of the question.. So is Bigamy, for even if his a religious sealing is viewed as a 'marriage' within the ideals of the LDS Faith..  There is no marriage certificate, or consummation etc, then it's not a marriage by civil standards and thus no Bigamy..  And of course the fallacious pedophilia charge that some Anti-Mormons who seem to have crawled out of the sewer make.. is impossible if there is not sex involved.

This preoccupation with sex seems to be a theme with Anti-Mormons... see the Rorschach test  post.
Nevertheless, many of the arguments and charges of wrong doing by Joseph Smith boils down to whether or not he had sex with anyone but Emma.   And the facts remain, there is no uncorroborated evidence of any sexual relation with anyone but Emma.  None. period.

Yes, there is claims as stated above, a half dozen or so..  Women making claims that their child was the product of a union between they and Joseph Smith,   Its a common claim for a woman make false claims as to he paternity only for DNA evidence to prove the claim false.   Even today as we see the same as mentioned in the leader..Ms Sala claiming Keunu Reeves fathered her children..She claimed in her affidavit," Reeves uses hypnosis and disguises himself as different people, including her ex-husband,"  

As to date not a single claim made about Joseph Smith father a child that can be tested via DNA has been proven true.   A few non-testable claims remain.   Including claims made in affidavits during a court trial about legal rights to the Temple Lot, in Missouri.   None of these testimonies have been corroborated and remain merely a claim, not proof of anything.

Therefore it remains, the jurisprudence and biblical standard applied to the evidence against Joseph Smith .. he is innocent of the alleged wrong doing..  And I believe a true Bible believing Christian who truly believes what Christ admonished, would agree..   He may be guilty of some wrong doings, but having sex with anyone but Emma is not one of them.

So to all those who believe the uncorroborated claims about Joseph Smith sexual activities.. Do you also believe in Big Foot?