The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_oxygenadam
_Emeritus
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: The Website that slightly disturbed Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _oxygenadam »

beastie wrote: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.


If they are hurting people, then they are the immoral agents. They should be shut down.

And why is religion put in a special black box that no one is supposed to judge? What nonsense.


It isn't. This thread is applied to faith groups, true. But this philosophy works for any group of people.

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.


You're right, and that is a normal and healthy action. I am not opposed to this. I am opposed to anti groups publishing, pamphleteering, and protesting another group that isn't harming anyone.

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


It can, and it has.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Hello Mr. Oxygenadam,

Oh my. You just said:

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.


You, Sir, are either a liar or a heretic!

http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3

It is much, much more than you claim. It is the ultimate of ultimates in LDS theology, the planet to govern all planets under Mr. Eloheim's care.

Additionally, how are all these planets populated? Is not Mr. Eloheim a physical being, endowed with male genitalia, married to multiple wives, and do they not beget children for all eternity? This would be news to many, many LDS prophets and apostles, and faithful members of the Mormon church if you had a different revelation, Sir.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_oxygenadam
_Emeritus
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _oxygenadam »

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


I made no such claim.

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.


Oh brother. This old chestnut gets brought up and refuted time and time again.
Yup, the creeds of the fourth fifth, and sixth centuries are an abomination.

The Apostle's Creed
The Creed of Nicaea
The Nicene Creed
The Council of Trent
The Council of Orange
The Athanasian Creed
The Chalcedonian Creed

They're viewed as having incorrect doctrines by the LDS Faith. But you've never seen an LDS person pamphleteer, protest, or publish anything against another faith.

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

I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.


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


Did he publish, phamphleteer, or protest a Presbyterian meeting? Did he publish The Maze of Presbyterianism?

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?


They don't go after other faiths because we believe in letting people worship how, where, or what they may.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
_oxygenadam
_Emeritus
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _oxygenadam »

You, Sir, are either a liar or a heretic!

http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3

It is much, much more than you claim. It is the ultimate of ultimates in LDS theology, the planet to govern all planets under Mr. Eloheim's care.


Please, continue to tell us what you think we believe. It is funny how ignorant your claims are.

Additionally, how are all these planets populated? Is not Mr. Eloheim a physical being, endowed with male genitalia, married to multiple wives, and do they not beget children for all eternity?


Nope, and unless you can provide a reference for this claim, you have no credibility.

This would be news to many, many LDS prophets and apostles, and faithful members of the Mormon church if you had a different revelation, Sir.


Yes, because it's untrue.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _Chap »

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


I made no such claim.

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.


Oh brother. This old chestnut gets brought up and refuted time and time again.
Yup, the creeds of the fourth fifth, and sixth centuries are an abomination.

The Apostle's Creed
The Creed of Nicaea
The Nicene Creed
The Council of Trent
The Council of Orange
The Athanasian Creed
The Chalcedonian Creed

They're viewed as having incorrect doctrines by the LDS Faith. But you've never seen an LDS person pamphleteer, protest, or publish anything against another faith.


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

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.

(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.

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.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: The Website that slightly disturbed Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _beastie »

oxygenadam wrote:
If they are hurting people, then they are the immoral agents. They should be shut down.



Wow. You're opposed to people advocating against religious groups, and invoke the constitution in some odd manner, but you're ready to shut them down if they hurt people?

Wow. Just wow.

My opinion is that your motivation in this is that you think anti-mormonism is immoral, but to avoid the inevitable charge of hypocrisy, you've created a ridiculous generalization that you're now being forced to take extreme measures to defend.

Perhaps it's just time to rethink your position.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Hello Mr. Oxygenadam-the-Deceiver/Apologist,

"Two exciting elements of mortality, both God-given, are worthy of our consideration. The first is that we receive a body that is physical, tangible, one that has feelings and powers not yet enjoyed by a spirit. This body is to facilitate our progress toward becoming like our Heavenly Father. Keep in mind that this 'gift' was created in the EXACT LIKENESS OF HIM WHOSE CHILDREN WE ARE. The second element is that some powers given to us through our bodies are inherently of God, and ARE UNIQUE TO HIS ORDER OF LIFE. Our natural feelings concerning the power to 'reproduce after our own kind' are holy and desirable.

All we have and are, so far as our natural state is concerned, is good, for it is of God.......The powers to reproduce, then, are good, and cannot be considered evil......."(Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 17).

Luke 1:35 says, speaking of Mary, "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."
Some Mormon leaders have interpreted this verse to mean that for Mary, a human,
to be able to 'withstand the presence of God,' that the Holy Ghost had to come
upon her:

"The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).

Here is the statement of BY's that JFS supports:

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
(JoD 1:50-51, also "Answers", vol. 5, p. 121).

To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ's conception was actual
physical sex, here is another of his statements:

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
Manual "Gospel Living in the Home," p. 16-17:

"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh..."
(as quoted from 'The Articles of Faith' by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

"We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
make mystery of it?" (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep.
22, 1914).

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME." (as quoted from 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
77).

"The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
Mary....." (as quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
Destiny), p. 345.)

To allay any repugnancy from members on the idea of God having actual physical
relations with the human Mary, some leaders pitched the idea that Mary was one
of God's polygamous "celestial wives":

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Pratt's statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: "The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).

The same idea is repeated in "The Life and Teachings of Jesus", 1974, p. 29:
"Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
FATHER IN THE FLESH."

And another statement from this same 1974 lesson manual, distributed to tens of
thousands of LDS Institute students: "She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
ever had such an ancestry--God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
on the other."

I repeat a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
president of the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).

Someone wrote here on ARM that the idea of God having sex with Mary was
'repugnant', etc. When the entire scope of the theology is laid out, it should
not be repugnant to Mormons at all, as it ties in completely with the doctrines
of pre-existence, eternal marriage, deification, plural marriage, etc. With
the abundance of consistent statements on the subject, from a plethora of LDS
leaders over the years, it's difficult to dismiss the concept as mere
'speculation.' The quote from Harold B. Lee that someone
furnished is the only one I have seen saying that Mormons should not
'speculate' about it. Lee did not deny the concept; he merely advised not to
discuss it. And as I quote above, church-dispensed lesson manuals have taught
the same idea since Lee's 1972 death.

True, none of these quotes say specifically that God and Mary had sex in
clinical terms, but in my opinion, considering the quotes in totality, it's
naïve to deny the implication. It has only been a few decades since pregnancy
was described with code terms such as 'expecting,' 'with child', or 'in a
family way.' LDS leaders were clearly following the etiquette of their day by
not using the actual term 'sexual intercourse'.
Considering the volume of this consistent teaching, in my opinion, Mormons who
do NOT agree with this teaching are the ones who are 'speculating.'

The only reason I can fathom as to why Mormons are now denying or backpedaling from this teaching is that it doesn't comport with the LDS church's continual efforts to rid itself of its quaint, unique doctrines, in order to gain increased acceptance from the rest of the Christian world, and in turn, gain more converts.


Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Brigham Young once stated: "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).

Joseph Fielding Smith denied that the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost: "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19).

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., said: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44). The late President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: "Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 18).

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie further explains:

"These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 546-47).

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, ... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man" (p. 742).

The Mormon writer Carlfred B. Broderick made these comments:

There are two basic elements in the Gospel view of sexuality as I interpret it from the scriptures. The first is that sex is good—that sexuality, far from being the antithesis of spirituality, is actually on attribute of God....

In the light of their understanding that God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone, latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus.... The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone, and was literally what Nephi said he was, "Son of the Eternal Father" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, pp. 100-101).

President Brigham Young had this to say concerning the birth of Christ: "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband" (Deseret News, October 10, 1866).

This same type of reasoning led Apostle Orson Pratt to say:

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity (The Seer, p. 158).

Brigham Young added that "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

In a sermon delivered in the tabernacle on April 9, 1852, Brigham Young climaxed his teaching with the following explanation:

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon the subject, when I replied, to this idea—"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).

In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _Sethbag »

Criticizing someone's religion is and should be no more offensive than criticizing someone's choice of political philosophies, favorite foods, and taste in music or movies. There is a marketplace of ideas in which all sorts of ideas compete for mindshare with each other. This includes religion and religious ideas.

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 crap whether OxygenAdam agrees with me on that. I literally could not care one particle less.

OxygenAdam, 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 Elohim, no Kolob, and you will not ever become a deity over your own universe. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and the stories contained in that book did not really happen. Joseph Smith's taking of dozens of fake extra wives was done on his 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.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_ttribe

Re: The Website that Decimated Oxygenadam's Testimony

Post by _ttribe »

Sethbag wrote:OxygenAdam, 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 Elohim, no Kolob, and you will not ever become a deity over your own universe. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, and the stories contained in that book did not really happen. Joseph Smith's taking of dozens of fake extra wives was done on his 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.

Since the claims of virtually any religion are non-falsifiable, all you've managed to do here is express your opinion. However, you've taken the extra (and arrogant) step of expressing that opinion as if you were the ultimate purveyor of fact.

Here's my opinion - you are not the ultimate purveyor of fact and your opinion is no more valuable than mine.
Post Reply