The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Sethpayne,

Well, I suppose a crazy person would not know he is crazy. Oh my... What a shame...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Either honor the CFR or go away. Your posts are not contributing anything but being blatantly offensive.

Hello Mr. Oxygenadam,

I do believe a Call for Reference, used in your context, is simply a device to limit or terminate a conversation. This is not the appropriately named MADboard where any offended (and possibly disturbed Mormon) can toss out a Call for Reference when he or she is offended by a statement, and unless it is met the original poster is at risk of banishment. If every time a critic had to abide by an offended Mormon's Call for Reference, well, oh my, he could spend the entire day obliging the poor soul!

That said, do you personally believe Mr. Eloheim lives on a planet near the star Kolob (wherever that may be) with his harem literally having sexual intercourse with them in order to produce offspring?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_beastie]

That is a dodge. Christian Identity is a religious theology. Is anti-Christian Identity immoral?

It is very simple. If an anti-Cristian Identity group protests, pamphlets, or publishes anti-Cristian Identity material, it is immoral.

To have an opinion is not immoral.

The only exception I am willing to make to this rule is if it can be shown that a faith group objectively causes harm; and since it would be very difficult to prove such a thing unless they are engaged in burning down buildings or shooting people, it is a safe exception to make.


-Young Skywalker, representative of the Most Holy CoDS

You've lost all credibility in my view.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is very simple. If an anti-Cristian Identity group protests, pamphlets, or publishes anti-Cristian Identity material, it is immoral.

To have an opinion is not immoral.

The only exception I am willing to make to this rule is if it can be shown that a faith group objectively causes harm; and since it would be very difficult to prove such a thing unless they are engaged in burning down buildings or shooting people, it is a safe exception to make.

Mr. Sethpayne,

Here is another source for your previous CFR. Mr. Oxygenadam's mindset has been corrupted by his Mormon delusion. He clearly cannot think critically, and this is endemic across the faithful Mormon community. He protects his mental and emotional investment at all costs. That is unhealthy.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_oxygenadam]

You've lost all credibility in my view.

Sorry, Beastie. Our Constitution (a document which I hold to be sacred), allows for freedom of religion. The LDS Articles of Faith (another document which I hold to be sacred) allows for people to worship how, where, or what they may.

As long as the CI is not hurting anyone, leave them be. It is not up to us to judge.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Completely incorrect. Have you been following the threat that you started?

It is very simple. If an anti-Cristian Identity group protests, pamphlets, or publishes anti-Cristian Identity material, it is immoral.

To have an opinion is not immoral.

I don't get the rationale behind your qualifications. You seem to be suggesting here that the morality is based solely on whether a "group" is engaged in "anti-" publication. This would mean that a mere individual was incapable of penning any "anti-" material.

The other qualification has to do with this sketchy notion of "opinion." Would you say that the material from Walter Martin, James White, and others on SHIELDS is simply "opinion"? You characterized those postings as "vicious hate," and yet they weren't made as part of a "group," nor were they published on paper (which seems to be your third qualification; for some reason, postings online don't seem to count for you, which, unfortunately for you would nullify all the SHIELDS stuff).

Yes, the author stated his opinion that

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous.

I'm really struggling to figure out how this is substantively different from the SHIELDS stuff, especially in lieu of your Kantian argument. It seems to me that you'd need to condemn both sorts of utterances as "immoral." You'd need to call out DCP for his immoral behavior.

Then followed it with

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker.

Are you suggesting that, if anti-Mormon groups spend a bit of time discussing Joseph Smith's audacity, historical significance, etc., then they get a free pass when it comes to criticizing LDS doctrine?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Oxygenadam,

So, until you can tell me where an LDS author or apologist has published anything remotely like following titles, your argument holds no merit.

Since you think God is LDS, this (JSH 1:19) should do it:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Pretty harsh words for any non-LDS church.

You also wanted an answer to this:

The Changing World of Calvinism: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Changes in Calvinist Doctrine and Practice

The Counterfeit Gospel of Calvinism: The Great Divide Between Calvinism and Christianity

Calvinism, magic and Masonry

Calvinism--shadow or reality?

The Maze of Calvinism

Is the Calvinist My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Calvinism and Christianity

The God Makers: A Shocking Expose of What the Calvinist Church Really Believes

Here are some official LDS thought on Calvinism (JSH 1:20)

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

Presbyterians are Calvinists, so that's a pretty simple way of calling Calvinism a counterfeit gospel.

Though you are correct, LDS apologists do rarely go after other religions. Why bother, the LDS church already did one better and made its attacks on other religions canonical. Does this make the LDS church immoral?

[Guest]

Duplicate.

[_beastie]

You've lost all credibility in my view.

Sorry, Beastie. Our Constitution (a document which I hold to be sacred), allows for freedom of religion. The LDS Articles of Faith (another document which I hold to be sacred) allows for people to worship how, where, or what they may.

As long as the CI is not hurting anyone, leave them be. It is not up to us to judge.

Freedom of religion does not insulate religion from criticism.

If you are not able to see how religious theology that teaches nonwhite people are "mud people", basically without souls, hurts people, then you have far more problems than a message board could ever address.

And why is religion put in a special black box that no one is supposed to judge? What nonsense. We judge the merit of different ideas all the time. We analyze and criticize different ideas all the time. That religionists seem to want to protect religion from that normal - and healthy - process is quite telling.

Truth can withstand scrutiny. Yeah, it's a cliché, but it seems apt right now.

[_oxygenadam]

I don't get the rationale behind your qualifications. You seem to be suggesting here that the morality is based solely on whether a "group" is engaged in "anti-" publication. This would mean that a mere individual was incapable of penning any "anti-" material.

Not my position. Anyone, or any group, who engages in actively pamphleteering, publishing, or protesting another group is engaging in an immoral act.

The other qualification has to do with this sketchy notion of "opinion." Would you say that the material from Walter Martin, James White, and others on SHIELDS is simply "opinion"?

It is, but it is opinion by known publishers of anti-Mormon material (see: Letters to a Mormon Elder - Paperback (Aug. 4, 2007) by James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity - Paperback (Nov. 1997) by James R. White, Who really wrote the Book of Mormon? by Howard A. Davis, Wayne L. Cowdrey, Donald R. Scales, and Dr. Walter Martin (Paperback - 1977), The Maze of Mormonism by Walter Martin (Paperback - June 1979)). I see James White outside of General Conference all the time. By the way, don't you find it a bit dishonest that he refers to himself as "Dr. James White"?

You characterized those postings as "vicious hate," and yet they weren't made as part of a "group," nor were they published on paper (which seems to be your third qualification; for some reason, postings online don't seem to count for you, which, unfortunately for you would nullify all the SHIELDS stuff).

Postings on message boards in informal conversations are not immoral, especially if they are recanted like the quote you took out of context. A publication on a website by a known Conference protester like James White certainly counts as immoral.

I'm really struggling to figure out how this is substantively different from the SHIELDS stuff, especially in lieu of your Kantian argument. It seems to me that you'd need to condemn both sorts of utterances as "immoral." You'd need to call out DCP for his immoral behavior.

The material in SHIELDS is mostly opinion, however the difference is most of it is correspondence with known pamphleteers, publishers, and protesters of the LDS faith.

What you have failed to realize is that your beloved DCP does not engage in any of these acts against Calvinism. He is allowed his opinion, just like you and the rest of us are.

I have enormous respect for the intellectual achievement of John Calvin. He was brilliant, and he doesn't deserve the rather negative image (as religious totalitarian, etc.) that he has in certain quarters. He was also a supremely consistent thinker.

Are you suggesting that, if anti-Mormon groups spend a bit of time discussing Joseph Smith's audacity, historical significance, etc., then they get a free pass when it comes to criticizing LDS doctrine?

No. If the partake in the three Ps (publishing, pamphleteering, and protesting), they are acting immorally. It really is as simple as that.

[_oxygenadam]

Hello Mr. Oxygenadam,

I do believe a Call for Reference, used in your context, is simply a device to limit or terminate a conversation. This is not the appropriately named MADboard where any offended (and possibly disturbed Mormon) can toss out a Call for Reference when he or she is offended by a statement, and unless it is met the original poster is at risk of banishment. If every time a critic had to abide by an offended Mormon's Call for Reference, well, oh my, he could spend the entire day obliging the poor soul!

Perhaps outrageous claims like yours should be backed up if intended to be taken as more than a joke.

That said, do you personally believe Mr. Eloheim lives on a planet near the star Kolob (wherever that may be) with his harem literally having sexual intercourse with them in order to produce offspring?

No, and neither does the LDS Church. Your claims are outrageous and completely ignorant.

Kolob plays no real role in LDS doctrine or discourse. It is said to be the star closest to the throne of God.

Do you believe that some old guy built a giant boat and was able to fit two of every species of animal on it?

Or how about the disgusting tale in Judges 19:22-30?

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.

30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"