The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

[_oxygenadam]

Oxygenadam is one of those 'teflon' posters, it appears. But here we go again.

Again. I am right here. Why are you referring to me in the second person? What, pray tell, is a "teflon" poster?

1. This defense relies on the claim that 'creed' only means the credal formulas of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.

BUT

(a) As oxygenadam knows well, it also means 'belief'. Has he any evidence that it does not have this sense in the alleged divine statement to which Smith refers? In fact this sense would seem more likely, given that the statement alleged is being made to discourage Smith from joining any existing Christian group, rather than simply from reciting a credal formula.

Since the existing Christian groups base their churches on creedal formula, it is much more likely this formula to which God refers to as incorrect.

(b) Even if 'creed' is to be interpreted in the limited sense of 'credal formula', it is a pretty strong attack on most historic groups of Christians to say the the summaries of belief that most of them recite at some of the most sacred moments of their worship are 'abominations' is it not?

2. Note how oxygenadam is unable to find a way round the statements that the 'professors' (believers) of other versions of Christianity are 'all corrupt' and that their hearts are 'far from' the deity who is alleged to have spoken to Smith. A bit strong, eh? But oxygenadam can't find a way round it, so he says nothing.

God did not say that the people, the churches, or the practices or beliefs of the churches are an abomination. He said the extra biblical creeds are.

It seems resonable that, if this was God's position, and he told it to Joseph Smith, Smith would not have later stated

I cannot believe any of the creeds in the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up in the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to. -- History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg 57.

It also seems reasonable that if what you claim was ever the position of the Church that Brigham Young would not have said

Come, my brother Presbyterian; come my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word "orthodox;" come, we are all good Christian men -- I find no fault with you, why should you find fault with me? -- Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. pg 237.

The version of the First Vision given above would be taken by any reasonable person as a strong attack on non-LDS Christian practice and belief. It was published by the CoJCoLDS. Therefore the CoJCoLDS has published an attack on other religions.

No, it would not. Not to anyone who takes a fraction of time to study what the Church actually believes.

[_oxygenadam]

Regarding OA's argument with respect to the "immorality" of anti-mormonism - while it might have been argued a little more eloquently, I don't believe OA is arguing that all criticisms of the Church or its beliefs are inherently immoral (he can correct me if I am wrong). However, I think he is arguing (and I agree with him) that any system, organization, publication, etc. which has the effect of marginalizing, falsely stereotyping, dehumanizing, and segregating whole portions of the population based on their beliefs, etc. are likely engaging in an immoral act meant to cause harm to any adherents or members of said group.

Yes, this is my position as well.

[_ttribe]

A value judgment is a judgment on some moral matter such as 'divorce is wrong, save in the case of adultery'.

It is not a value judgment to say that most thoughtful people (in the sense of people who try to give serious attention to the grounds for believing or disbelieving in a proposition put to them) would be likely to agree with Sethbag that the distinctive claims of the CoJCoLDS are probably fictional. It is a judgment of fact. Has it not been your experience (on your mission, perhaps?) that after an hour or so of listening to an account of the religion of the CoJCoLDS, most people who are still paying attention have no interest in hearing more?

Were you, or were you not, attempting to make the dichotomous distinction that it is the group that lacks the valuable trait of "thoughtfulness" who would be more likely to accept the notion of the divine?

If you want a private conversation with Sethbag, why not do it via PMs? or indeed in real life? On a message board, anyone has a perfect right to comment.

I didn't say otherwise. I provided the basis for stating that you didn't understand the context.

So deal with it.

Ahh, another graduate of DoctorCamNC4me's Charm School and Academy of Civility and Etiquette. Let me guess - Summa Cum Laude?

[_oxygenadam]

It is not a value judgment to say that most thoughtful people (in the sense of people who try to give serious attention to the grounds for believing or disbelieving in a proposition put to them) would be likely to agree with Sethbag that the distinctive claims of the CoJCoLDS are probably fictional.

It is definitely a generalization. In order to make it sound, you'd have to take a sample of "thoughtful people" from all walks of life, and from all geographic locales, as well as all socioeconomic statuses. The sample size should be at minimum 30, but in order to be more accurate, it would need to be many more.

I could, for example, just as easily say that most thoughtful people I have encountered have accepted the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS outright. Of course, I could have taken my sample from the BYU campus where LDS scholars abound.

[_Chap]

Since the existing Christian groups base their churches on creedal formula, it is much more likely this formula to which God refers to as incorrect.

Churches are 'based on' creeds? I think you may find that point of view surprises quite a few of them.

God did not say that the people, the churches, or the practices or beliefs of the churches are an abomination.

According to Joseph Smith, he said the people who believed in those churches - the 'professors' - were 'corrupt', and that their hearts were 'far from' him. Pretty strong stuff - how can that be talked away?

It also seems reasonable that if what you claim was ever the position of the Church that Brigham Young would not have said

Come, my brother Presbyterian; come my brother professors of every persuasion of long standing and popular distinction in the world, who are dubbed with the word "orthodox;" come, we are all good Christian men -- I find no fault with you, why should you find fault with me? -- Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. pg 237.

Umm, now we can quote the John Dehlin as evidence of the position of the Church? That should be fun! Especially the other things BY said ...

[_oxygenadam]

I can think of no good reason why religion should receive some sort of teflon coating and be exempted from the same types of criticism that all other ideas are exposed to. And, personally, I couldn't give a s*** whether OxygenAdam agrees with me on that. I literally could not care one particle less.

Then why do you care enough to make your ranting and raving post?

Let me help you out here. Since your opinion is just as valid as anyone's:

sethbag, your religion features an entirely manmade theology that is entirely a figment of the mind of man, from top to bottom. Your religion has many adherents who are well-intentioned, and spend a lot of time and effort trying to make their religion beneficial to people, for some definition of "beneficial" which I accept is honestly and in good faith formulated (however misguided in some respects). As religious systems go, it is more egregiously intrusive and destructive than some, and much milder and beneficial than others.

I will be clear as day here: it's all manmade, from A to Z. There is no [insert whatever sethbag believes in], no [insert whatever sethbag believes in], and you will not ever [insert whatever sethbag believes in]. The [insert whatever sethbag believes in] is a work of fiction, and the stories contained in [insert whatever sethbag believes in] did not really happen. [insert whomever sethbag believes in] taking of dozens of [insert whatever sethbag believes in] was done on [whomever sethbag believes in]'s own initiative - no angel, flaming sword or not, ever commanded him to do it in the name of God, who almost certainly doesn't actually exist anyway.

Are you offended yet? Well, get used to it.

Oh, and need we start a thread on how utterly stupid atheism is? I thought not.

[_Chap]

It is not a value judgment to say that most thoughtful people (in the sense of people who try to give serious attention to the grounds for believing or disbelieving in a proposition put to them) would be likely to agree with Sethbag that the distinctive claims of the CoJCoLDS are probably fictional.

It is definitely a generalization. In order to make it sound, you'd have to take a sample of "thoughtful people" from all walks of life, and from all geographic locales, as well as all socioeconomic statuses. The sample size should be at minimum 30, but in order to be more accurate, it would need to be many more.

I could, for example, just as easily say that most thoughtful people I have encountered have accepted the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS outright. Of course, I could have taken my sample from the BYU campus where LDS scholars abound.

Need a really big sample of people drawn from all over the world?

I think that there are pairs of Elders out there making that large-scale trial right now, and have been for years Wonder what kinds of results they are getting from their survey? Either thoughtful people (in the sense explained above) are very, very rare, or it looks like I'm right, doesn't it?

[_beastie]

Regarding OA's argument with respect to the "immorality" of anti-mormonism - while it might have been argued a little more eloquently, I don't believe OA is arguing that all criticisms of the Church or its beliefs are inherently immoral (he can correct me if I am wrong). However, I think he is arguing (and I agree with him) that any system, organization, publication, etc. which has the effect of marginalizing, falsely stereotyping, dehumanizing, and segregating whole portions of the population based on their beliefs, etc. are likely engaging in an immoral act meant to cause harm to any adherents or members of said group.

Yes, this is my position as well.

Yet he referred to "people like me."

[_Chap]

[sethbag, your religion features an entirely manmade theology that is entirely a figment of the mind of man, from top to bottom.
[...]
There is no [insert whatever sethbag believes in], no [insert whatever sethbag believes in], and you will not ever [insert whatever sethbag believes in]. [...]

Oh, and need we start a thread on how utterly stupid atheism is? I thought not.

Sigh.

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

Not playing football is not a sport.

Not believing in any religion is not a religion.

You are welcome, of course, to start a thread making any criticisms of atheism you like.

[_ttribe]

Yet he referred to "people like me."

Perhaps he misjudged you? Are you willing to forgive and forget?