Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[HoreTore]

To avoid derailing the electigaddon thread...

Centurion made a comment on Romney, that he was a mormon, and that the mormon faith was "complete bull". And its not just our fellow orgah who does this, the hate other christians have towards mormons is evident whenever Romney is talked about, and is probably his biggest obstacle to becpmming president.

Let's get the basic facts etraight, shall we? The christian faith is based on a burning bush who talked to some guy who had spent years wandering the desert, giving him ten laws that everyone must follow. Of course nobody but him saw the bush.... Some time later, a woman magically becommes pregnant without sexual intercourse. The baby grows up to walk on water and turn water into wine, before dying and then undoing the dying, and finally he flowts to into the sky.

So, this story is believable, logical and plausible. Thus, one should not ridicule people for believing in it.

But that he also made a detour to the americas some years after the events above? Now the story is suddenly laughable and idiotic, and its believers should be ridiculed at every turn.


THAT makes no sense to me. Some people should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

[Strike For The South]

haha, you're drunk

[Centurion1]

its much more than that.

[HoreTore]

its much more than that.

Then by all means, do explain.

Edit: and no strike, I only had the usual two beers with dinner today... The typing errors, if that was what you refer to is due to me not having mastered the iPad's touch keyboard yet.... Speaking of which, could some kind mod add the missing "it" in the title?

[PanzerJaeger]

I thought it was the polygamy.

[Centurion1]

polygamy yeah they've supposedly changed.
odd customs
the innate perfection
the secrecy
the interesting founders story......

Edit: but this thread is just one big bash so it should just be closed now

[HoreTore]

One big bash? Where?

The ridicule of the christian belief was not ridiculing christianity, it was ridiculing the missing logic emplpyed by those who hate the mormons, to illustrate that a Mormons belief isn't more far-fetched than any other christian claim.

Weird founding history? You mean like a virgin giving birth? How much weirder can one get? Honestly?

Take the faith out of christianity and it all falls to pieces. Take the faith out of the mormonism and it all falls to pieces. I see no difference whatsoever between the two and the hate exhibited by those who themselves claim to be hated(by the "liberal media") is astounding.

[Centurion1]

...... virgin birth is actually pretty common in stories throughout history.

[Greyblades]

There's a south park episode about this. Not exactly accurate, or even completely serious, but I think it covers the main criticisms.

[HoreTore]

...... virgin birth is actually pretty common in stories throughout history.

.....and polygamy isn't....?

[Tuuvi]

polygamy yeah they've supposedly changed.
odd customs
the innate perfection
the secrecy
the interesting founders story......

Edit: but this thread is just one big bash so it should just be closed now

Please elaborate I'm interested to hear the details, maybe I can explain stuff, there is a lot of misinformation about the Mormon religion out there.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Because they like having 10 wives. :juggle2:

[HoreTore]

There's a south park episode about this. Not exactly accurate, or even completely serious, but I think it covers the main criticisms.

Why is there no south park episode on the equally "ridiculous" story of the life of jesus christ?


Please elaborate I'm interested to hear the details, maybe I can explain stuff, there is a lot of misinformation about the Mormon religion out there.

By the love of heavens; please do!

[Rahwana]

according to most Christians, you harden your heart, that's why you never understood that.

I knew it, they always talk about that with me.

[Tuuvi]

Because they like having 10 wives. :juggle2:
Haha.

The Mormon church banned polygamy around the year 1900. Also in the years where polygamy was practiced not everyone was polygamous, In the region where I live historically only about 25% of families practiced polygamy.

[Greyblades]

Why is there no south park episode on the equally "ridiculous" story of the life of jesus christ!
*shrug* Because criticizing christianity has been done to death? How should I know?

[drone]

Why is there no south park episode on the equally "ridiculous" story of the life of jesus christ?
No need, JC has his own public access show, and is a recurring character throughout the series. ~D

[lars573]

Because somewhere in the books on the new testament is a bit about how Jesus was the last official prophet of the lord. Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetrating a big ass mortal sin. Anyone who follows said false prophet is also a sinner. Also there is the risk of them being the Anti-Christ*.













*Although to a Christian mind Mohamed and his Islam thing ring more of the Anti-Christ bells than Mormons.

[gaelic cowboy]

To avoid derailing the electigaddon thread...

Centurion made a comment on Romney, that he was a mormon, and that the mormon faith was "complete bull". And its not just our fellow orgah who does this, the hate other christians have towards mormons is evident whenever Romney is talked about, and is probably his biggest obstacle to becpmming president.

Let's get the basic facts etraight, shall we? The christian faith is based on a burning bush who talked to some guy who had spent years wandering the desert, giving him ten laws that everyone must follow. Of course nobody but him saw the bush.... Some time later, a woman magically becommes pregnant without sexual intercourse. The baby grows up to walk on water and turn water into wine, before dying and then undoing the dying, and finally he flowts to into the sky.

So, this story is believable, logical and plausible. Thus, one should not ridicule people for believing in it.

But that he also made a detour to the americas some years after the events above? Now the story is suddenly laughable and idiotic, and its believers should be ridiculed at every turn.


THAT makes no sense to me. Some people should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

I think there miffed at them cos they rewrote the bible or summit, course so did every other denomination, but since it happened ages ago for most of them they can all be sniffy about it.

Rewriting the bible pretty much calls into question there own mad view (insert mad viewpoint) seeing as they cant admit the bible aint litteral they must try to derail mormon candidates.


Because somewhere in the books on the new testament is a bit about how Jesus was the last official prophet of the lord. Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetrating a big ass mortal sin. Anyone who follows said false prophet is also a sinner. Also there is the risk of them being the Anti-Christ*.


Oh and this too

[Major Robert Dump]

People make fun of things that don't mesh with what they believe, and mormons are a minority and therefore an easy target. The planets thing doesn't help their case.

Personally, I love mormons. They make good US troops and are difficult to corrupt with booze and foul language. When the mormon girls come by to witness to me, I always invite them in and try to peek up their skirts by seating them in the short couch. A few have made me want to convert, until I found out they were married.

[miotas]

Weird founding history? You mean like a virgin giving birth? How much weirder can one get?

Maybe Mary was a time traveller from the future who had IVF before travelling to 2000 years ago. The advanced technology of the future provides logical explanations for how all the miracles occured.

[HoreTore]

Maybe Mary was a time traveller from the future who had IVF before travelling to 2000 years ago. The advanced technology of the future provides logical explanations for how all the miracles occured.

Remove the faith, and this one is as logical as "God did it".

Insert faith, however, and "God did it" becomes logical. Just like the case is with the Mormon beliefs.

Its fascinating to see that pure, uncut religious hatred and bigotry determines the outcome of the republican primary.

[Greyblades]

Indeed, allthough its worth pointing out that christianity has 4 different books written by 4 different people saying the same thing, whereas mormons have the copys of one book noone, save for the founder and the 11 witnesses (I think it was eleven), has seen.

[HoreTore]

Indeed, allthough its worth pointing out that christianity has 4 different books written by 4 different people saying the same thing

.....and that somehow makes it any more credible, because.....?

[Greyblades]

Allthough they were written some time afterwards, and one at least was likely a copy of one of the others with bits added or removed, multiple witnesses and written accounts, while not exactly setting in stone (hah), do strengthen the probability of an event being true.

[Centurion1]

and we know jesus was a historical feature hes an actual person

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To avoid derailing the electigaddon thread...

Centurion made a comment on Romney, that he was a mormon, and that the mormon faith was "complete bull". And its not just our fellow orgah who does this, the hate other christians have towards mormons is evident whenever Romney is talked about, and is probably his biggest obstacle to becpmming president.

Let's get the basic facts etraight, shall we? The christian faith is based on a burning bush who talked to some guy who had spent years wandering the desert, giving him ten laws that everyone must follow. Of course nobody but him saw the bush.... Some time later, a woman magically becommes pregnant without sexual intercourse. The baby grows up to walk on water and turn water into wine, before dying and then undoing the dying, and finally he flowts to into the sky.

So, this story is believable, logical and plausible. Thus, one should not ridicule people for believing in it.

But that he also made a detour to the americas some years after the events above? Now the story is suddenly laughable and idiotic, and its believers should be ridiculed at every turn.


THAT makes no sense to me. Some people should take a long, hard look in the mirror.

If memory serves, and mine usually does, Mormons believe that America is the New Jerusalem, originally populated by the lost Exiles who were then wiped out by the Indians. So there's the inherrent racism. then there's the archaeological nonsense with bronze weapons being used by the Jewish exiles 600 years after they fell pretty much completely out of fashion.

Historical inconsistancies in Christianity certainly exist, but they are much less serious, often geographical errors that demonstrate the writer wasn't native to the region he was describing. There's also the fact that only Smith could see the tablets and yet the Mormons succeeded in translating them to Salt Lake City after his death.

[Beskar]

Don't Mormon's believe they are god's and goddesses, and they get their 'bible' from a buried manuscript from in the ground and that the native americans are the true israelis's, etc.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's only ok if you are outside their dominion of Utah.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Beskar: in a word, no.

I think MRD has the best answer to the OP question.

CR

[Strike For The South]

You have an ipad?

Does everyone in Norway have an Ipad?

If not, how does it feel to be a member of the bugeroise slowy consolidating power through the use of Apple products feel?

If so, I would like a plane ticket and a place on the couch.

As for mormons? Good people, first long term relationship was with a mormon girl, very nice family. Much better than some of sado masochists pretending to be baptists running about.

At least when mormons don't drink they have family board game night. I got a heavy dose of sexual repression from the blue hairs

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Mormons had their own "prom" like event about a week before or after the school prom. I was kind of interested in going because as it turned out, regular prom was not for me.

[Tuuvi]

If memory serves, and mine usually does, Mormons believe that America is the New Jerusalem, originally populated by the lost Exiles who were then wiped out by the Indians. So there's the inherrent racism. then there's the archaeological nonsense with bronze weapons being used by the Jewish exiles 600 years after they fell pretty much completely out of fashion.

Historical inconsistancies in Christianity certainly exist, but they are much less serious, often geographical errors that demonstrate the writer wasn't native to the region he was describing. There's also the fact that only Smith could see the tablets and yet the Mormons succeeded in translating them to Salt Lake City after his death.

This is somewhat true but not quite. Mormons don't believe that America was populated by the lost Exiles, but by a couple of Jewish families who where led there by God a few years before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. The Indians are said to be descended from these people. There is no mention of the Jewish exiles using bronze weapons, however there are archaeological inconsistencies, most of which have to do with the people bringing metal tools and animals to the Americas of which no evidence has been found.

The Book of Mormon was translated/written (whatever you want to consider it) quite some time before Joseph Smith's death.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because Mormonism is another idolatrous man-made religion. The true Christian religion however has existed since creation and unlike the whole world system of religions with their arbitrary commandments etc, the law of Christ is written in men's hearts and is self-evident to those that are born again.

All other religions are created by a prophet at some point in human history... when with Mohammed in the 7th century for Islam, Catholicism around the 4th Century, Judaism with Moses (which they do not realise was meant to lead them to Christ), Mormonism with Joseph Smith etc. These religious systems do not even pretend to have deeper roots, they were created with their founding figures.

On the other hand, Christianity was not created by Jesus 2,000 years ago, but with the creation of Adam. In Christianity, morality is not something arbitrary based on following strange rituals or observances (despite the best efforts of depraved man to make it so, whether within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or much of Protestantism), but is instead a natural law, which all men understand by nature. And this is what sets Christianity apart from the whole Babylonian system of world religions.

And this is why a Mormon should never be President. If a man lives by the man-made laws of the different religions, and not the true natural law, then he will never be a moral ruler. Like the pharisees he can make the outside of the vessel clean with his ritual washings, but the inside will always be full of iniquity, and this will reflect itself in his Presidency.

But then, the USA already has Catholics and atheists for Presidents, so...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because Mormonism is another idolatrous man-made religion. The true Christian religion however has existed since creation and unlike the whole world system of religions with their arbitrary commandments etc, the law of Christ is written in men's hearts and is self-evident to those that are born again.

All other religions are created by a prophet at some point in human history... when with Mohammed in the 7th century for Islam, Catholicism around the 4th Century, Judaism with Moses (which they do not realise was meant to lead them to Christ), Mormonism with Joseph Smith etc. These religious systems do not even pretend to have deeper roots, they were created with their founding figures.

On the other hand, Christianity was not created by Jesus 2,000 years ago, but with the creation of Adam. In Christianity, morality is not something arbitrary based on following strange rituals or observances (despite the best efforts of depraved man to make it so, whether within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or much of Protestantism), but is instead a natural law, which all men understand by nature. And this is what sets Christianity apart from the whole Babylonian system of world religions.

And this is why a Mormon should never be President. If a man lives by the man-made laws of the different religions, and not the true natural law, then he will never be a moral ruler. Like the pharisees he can make the outside of the vessel clean with his ritual washings, but the inside will always be full of iniquity, and this will reflect itself in his Presidency.

But then, the USA already has Catholics and atheists for Presidents, so...

...and John Calvin created Calvinism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But then, the USA already has Catholics and atheists for Presidents, so...

Who is the atheist if you don't mind me asking?

[Rhyfelwyr]

...and John Calvin created Calvinism.

No, his works are a refutation of all the man-made trappings that were stuck on to Christianity.

Although I agree some modern 'Calvinists' follow him like a sort of profit. I was dubbed a heretic by some on a certain site recently. I asked for scriptural arguments but all they could do was quote theologians and confessions of faith. NOT very Protestant!


Who is the atheist if you don't mind me asking?

Obama.

[Beskar]

Beskar: in a word, no.

I got it from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD203xXl9Yk

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama.

Except for the fact he attends church frequently and was a devout member the United Church of Christ before the Rev. Wright scandal...

[Major Robert Dump]

Thats a pretty awesome cartoon. It kind of makes me want to be a mormon. I didn't know Jesus was a player! And I think its unfair that mormons can't have caffiene when their planet of origin is named Cola.

[Tuuvi]

Because Mormonism is another idolatrous man-made religion. The true Christian religion however has existed since creation and unlike the whole world system of religions with their arbitrary commandments etc, the law of Christ is written in men's hearts and is self-evident to those that are born again.

All other religions are created by a prophet at some point in human history... when with Mohammed in the 7th century for Islam, Catholicism around the 4th Century, Judaism with Moses (which they do not realise was meant to lead them to Christ), Mormonism with Joseph Smith etc. These religious systems do not even pretend to have deeper roots, they were created with their founding figures.

On the other hand, Christianity was not created by Jesus 2,000 years ago, but with the creation of Adam. In Christianity, morality is not something arbitrary based on following strange rituals or observances (despite the best efforts of depraved man to make it so, whether within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or much of Protestantism), but is instead a natural law, which all men understand by nature. And this is what sets Christianity apart from the whole Babylonian system of world religions.

And this is why a Mormon should never be President. If a man lives by the man-made laws of the different religions, and not the true natural law, then he will never be a moral ruler. Like the pharisees he can make the outside of the vessel clean with his ritual washings, but the inside will always be full of iniquity, and this will reflect itself in his Presidency.

But then, the USA already has Catholics and atheists for Presidents, so...

Your post doesn't make sense. Christianity didn't exist before the coming of Christ, so in that time Judaism was the true religion, and began with Adam, not Moses. Mormonism claims to be a restoration of true Christianity so your claim that it doesn't even try to have deeper roots is false.

Mormonism doesn't claim that morality comes from rituals. Also don't forget that babtism and the sacrament/communion come from the New Testament of the Bible.

[Tuuvi]

I got it from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD203xXl9Yk

After about half of that video I couldn't take it anymore its a load of crap but in kind of a funny way.

EDIT: Ok so I just watched the whole thing. A few parts are basically true, but a lot of it really twists Mormon doctrine and adds in some stuff that isn't taught by the Mormon church.


Thats a pretty awesome cartoon. It kind of makes me want to be a mormon. I didn't know Jesus was a player! And I think its unfair that mormons can't have caffiene when their planet of origin is named Cola.

lol Mormons can drink caffeine you should come to Utah and meet all the middle aged Mormon women who are addicted to diet coke...

[Beskar]

Ok so I just watched the whole thing. A few parts are basically true, but a lot of it really twists Mormon doctrine and adds in some stuff that isn't taught by the Mormon church.

How does it mean by twisting Mormon doctrine, and what parts are true and which are false? :O

[Tuuvi]

How does it mean by twisting Mormon doctrine, and what parts are true and which are false? :O

Well it takes basic Mormon teachings, leaves out the details and then adds in its own. And some of the stuff isn't real Mormon teachings.

According to Mormonism; God is not polygamous and doesn't have "endless sex". There was no "counsel of gods". There was a "council of heaven", where all of God's spirit children (who are humanity), could choose between Jesus and Satan, but everyone either chose Satan or Jesus, black people are not black because they remained neutral. God did not have sex with Mary. Jesus was not polygamous (also during the whole Davinci Code controversy I can remember that Mormon leaders came out and said the Mormon position on the whole thing was that we don't know if Jesus ever got married or not). Joseph Smith was not descended from Jesus, and he won't be a part of final judgement.

[PershsNhpios]

When I first saw this thread, I swear I thought it asked: "Why is it ok to harrass morons?"

My answer to the question is: "Isn't it obvious?"

[Crazed Rabbit]

Because Mormonism is another idolatrous man-made religion. The true Christian religion however has existed since creation and unlike the whole world system of religions with their arbitrary commandments etc, the law of Christ is written in men's hearts and is self-evident to those that are born again.

All other religions are created by a prophet at some point in human history... when with Mohammed in the 7th century for Islam, Catholicism around the 4th Century, Judaism with Moses (which they do not realise was meant to lead them to Christ), Mormonism with Joseph Smith etc. These religious systems do not even pretend to have deeper roots, they were created with their founding figures.

On the other hand, Christianity was not created by Jesus 2,000 years ago, but with the creation of Adam. In Christianity, morality is not something arbitrary based on following strange rituals or observances (despite the best efforts of depraved man to make it so, whether within Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or much of Protestantism), but is instead a natural law, which all men understand by nature. And this is what sets Christianity apart from the whole Babylonian system of world religions.

And this is why a Mormon should never be President. If a man lives by the man-made laws of the different religions, and not the true natural law, then he will never be a moral ruler. Like the pharisees he can make the outside of the vessel clean with his ritual washings, but the inside will always be full of iniquity, and this will reflect itself in his Presidency.

But then, the USA already has Catholics and atheists for Presidents, so...

Thank you, Rhyfelwyr, for answering the OP.

Also, thanks for the laughs. Protestants who try to prove their Christian church has been around longer than The Church always amuse me. ~:)

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Haha.

The Mormon church banned polygamy around the year 1900. Also in the years where polygamy was practiced not everyone was polygamous, In the region where I live historically only about 25% of families practiced polygamy.Polygamy has not yet dissapeared, neither in theology nor in practise. Just relegated to the backburner.


And how does that 'only 25% of families practised polygamy' work anyway?
If that one in four polygamous families consists of a husband and four wives, then the marital status of the vast majority of people is affected by polygamy. Three monogamously married men, three monogamamously married women. And one polygamously married man, four polymaously married women, and three men by necessity remaining unmarried.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thank you, Rhyfelwyr, for answering the OP.

Also, thanks for the laughs. Protestants who try to prove their Christian church has been around longer than The Church always amuse me. ~:)

CRWhy do you laugh at Rhy's religious beliefs?


Just because he is a minority? Do you laugh at the silly claim of exclusivity of Catholics? Laugh at the silly Jews? The stupid Mormon faith?

[Greyblades]

I do!

[HoreTore]

I do!

They point with this thread, is to try to understand why people who cry about being ridiculed by others ridicule certain other people in the exact same way...

They claim that their beliefs are holy and to be treated with respect, yet they have no respect for other such claims. Other beliefs are to be hated to such a degree that it trumps everything else, like we see with Romney, who is thought of a superb candidate, "but he's mormon"....

Insert some faith into the mormon history, and I have no problem seeing its truth. Take the faith out of the "normal" story of christ, and what you get is complete and utt nonsense. Walking on water? Makes absolutely no sense if you don't believe he was the son of god, at which point it of course makes perfect sense.

[Husar]

You have an ipad?

Does everyone in Norway have an Ipad?

If not, how does it feel to be a member of the bugeroise slowy consolidating power through the use of Apple products feel?

Excellent point, the resident communist comes here with his iPad to lecture everybody about hypocrisy...

And on that note, what about scientology? Where were you when we celebrated the Anonymous actions against them?
Or is it fine to make fun of their beliefs but the Mormons are somehow sacred?

Are there even Mormons in Europe or is it an America-centric religion?
At least the catholics tried to bring the happy message to the whole world but the mormons seem to content letting everybody outside America rot while they regain their godhood, how arrogant. ~;)

[HoreTore]

First off, mormons exist in europe, there's a mormon church in the city I live(Drammen).

Secondly, I'm not saying we shouldn't poke fun at any religions, I'm of course all for that. But while I poke fun at religious people, I'm not saying that my socialism is not to be made fun of. Which is what conservative christians do; they mock the mormons while at the same time saying its not OK to make fun of their own religion.

[Fisherking]

@ Husar

I don’t know how many Mormon Converts there are outside the US but every Mormon male, at least, don’t know about the women, is expected to go on Mission.

My cousin spent two or three years in Italy converting, or trying to convert the people. Of course in his spare time he was also tracing his genealogy back to Adam and Eve, as they require...

[Greyblades]

They point with this thread, is to try to understand why people who cry about being ridiculed by others ridicule certain other people in the exact same way...

They claim that their beliefs are holy and to be treated with respect, yet they have no respect for other such claims. Other beliefs are to be hated to such a degree that it trumps everything else, like we see with Romney, who is thought of a superb candidate, "but he's mormon"....

Insert some faith into the mormon history, and I have no problem seeing its truth. Take the faith out of the "normal" story of christ, and what you get is complete and utt nonsense. Walking on water? Makes absolutely no sense if you don't believe he was the son of god, at which point it of course makes perfect sense.
It was a joke, I laugh at everyone. There's nothing particually malicious about it, or at least not intentional.

[Sigurd]

If memory serves, and mine usually does, Mormons believe that America is the New Jerusalem, originally populated by the lost Exiles who were then wiped out by the Indians. So there's the inherrent racism. then there's the archaeological nonsense with bronze weapons being used by the Jewish exiles 600 years after they fell pretty much completely out of fashion.

Historical inconsistancies in Christianity certainly exist, but they are much less serious, often geographical errors that demonstrate the writer wasn't native to the region he was describing. There's also the fact that only Smith could see the tablets and yet the Mormons succeeded in translating them to Salt Lake City after his death.
I for one am a Mormon apologist. Of all the 35 000 Christian denominations, Mormonism rings most true to what was the original church of Jesus Christ. Only Catholicism has as strong a claim to the original.
I was quite into religious debate during my years in university and met some interesting characters on this board. One in particular, Pindar was a Mormon and former missionary and I took a peek into his religion.
I actually read the Book of Mormon and note the following:
The exiles were not Jews (of the tribe of Judah) but were of Manasseh and Ephraim. They brought a valuable steel sword that became the template for other blades. The families got into a feud and separated. One wicked group (Lamanites) and one faithful (Nephites). The wicked destroyed the faithful and became the "Indians".
Concerning the geography, I for one didn't notice any inconsistencies. It talks about a land in the north and a land in the south separated by a small strip of land (North and South America?).
Besides, any attack on the Book of Mormon can be turned around towards the Bible.

[Sigurd]

Because somewhere in the books on the new testament is a bit about how Jesus was the last official prophet of the lord. Anyone who claims otherwise is perpetrating a big ass mortal sin. Anyone who follows said false prophet is also a sinner. Also there is the risk of them being the Anti-Christ*.

Heh... notably nearly every Christian denomination asserts that Jesus Christ is God, not a prophet of one. And was not Peter a prophet? As in one who receives revelations from God?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your post doesn't make sense. Christianity didn't exist before the coming of Christ, so in that time Judaism was the true religion, and began with Adam, not Moses. Mormonism claims to be a restoration of true Christianity so your claim that it doesn't even try to have deeper roots is false.

I don't know what religion or none you belong to, but how do you think the saints of the Old Testament were saved? Did they observe the whole law so that they may be spotless before God? Or did they look forward to Christ as their saviour? King David was a Christian, he was born again.

You say Judaism began with Adam, but of course the whole ceremonial law was not given until the time of Moses and expanded long after that. For the Jews the observance of this law is necessary for righteousness... and yet as a Christian I can look back and say that the entire law has existed since the time of Adam, since it is a natural and not a positive law.

Mormons might claim to be a restoration of true Christianity but they are clearly wrong. They might have some intersting ideas which are tied to the Jewish roots of the early Christians, and it is true that much of modern Christianity is very biased by Hellenistic takes on the religion. But ultimately they say themselves that the Bible is not perfect, and that Joseph Smith's work completes it. And he brings in a whole number of strange of practices with no scriptural justification. Plus the Mormons never completed the Reformation and purged themselves of Catholic man-made traditions.


Mormonism doesn't claim that morality comes from rituals. Also don't forget that babtism and the sacrament/communion come from the New Testament of the Bible.

There is no support whatsoever for water baptism or the so called 'holy communion' in the New Testament.

[Sigurd]

As an answer to the OP:

How about Mark 13:13: "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

Or maybe John 15:19: "If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of this world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you"
Yeah... I am quoting Rhyf. :beam:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thank you, Rhyfelwyr, for answering the OP.

Also, thanks for the laughs. Protestants who try to prove their Christian church has been around longer than The Church always amuse me. ~:)

CR

Depends what you mean by Church. If you mean the Church of Scotland, yet I'm not very interested in tracing its roots as an organisation.

The invisible church of all the saints however has existed since the time of Adam.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As an answer to the OP:

Yeah... I am quoting Rhyf. :beam:

Yes! However I apply that same verse to the true descendents of the lost tribes (which are btw not just Ephraim and Manasseh, but all bar Judah and Benjamin), which are of course the British Israelites, now represented by Ulster Scots.

The whole world hates our hardline Presbyterian beliefs and the loyalist cause. It's a small nation against the world, just like in the days of the Kings of Judah!

[Ser Clegane]

I don't know how many Mormon Converts there are outside the US but every Mormon male, at least, don't know about the women, is expected to go on Mission.

Indeed - in my hometown I quite often met young Mormons "on Mission" (perhaps because it was a city with a very high number of students). I have to say that these guys were without exception extremely nice and friendly - and actually not even obtrusive with regard to their mission. Had some interesting chats with them, even when it was clear early on that I was not interested in discussing religion.

[Sigurd]

Yes! However I apply that same verse to the true descendants of the lost tribes (which are btw not just Ephraim and Manasseh, but all bar Judah and Benjamin), which are of course the British Israelites, now represented by Ulster Scots.

Hah!! you claim that you are of Israelite descent? You are of the other sheep that shall hear and bear record of Jesus Christ? Where is your record? Where is your original organization (church)?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hah!! you claim that you are of Israelite descent? You are of the other sheep that shall hear and bear record of Jesus Christ? Where is your record? Where is your original organization (church)?

http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/british-israel%20fact%20or%20fiction.htm

If you think of Scotland as Judah and England as Israel (Israel as in the Northern Kingdom), you will find the history of Britian parallel's exactly that of ethnic Israel, and that Britain was raised up by God to destroy the Roman Antichrist.

John Coffey put it quite beautifully:

"This was an awesome thought: the Scottish National Covenant might just be the trigger to set off a series of events culminating in the fall of the Antichrist and the establishment of Christ's rule over all the nations. And how beautifully appropriate this would be, for God - who refused to share His glory with another and choose the weak and despitsed things of this world to shame the powerful - would have allowed the great Gustavus to fall but then take up Scotland, a 'worm' of a nation at the ends of the earth, tho accomplish His purpose!"

In those days (mid-17th century), it seemed like they were really living in the end times. But in fact not everything was ready yet. The Jews has still to be restored to their inheritance (at the time they were invited to stay in Britain as a non-literal return from exile, but now we have the real deal against all odds!). The Reformation was not yet complete, people still followed Romish traditions like the Sunday Sabbath, holy communion and the Jewish ritual of baptism.

But now these will are both being completed. The Mount will soon be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and the Reformation will be completed by the British Israelites. Just like the Ephraim was polluted by Gentile blood in old Israel, so to has England today. Leaving the Ulster Scots, Britain's Judah, to stay loyal and complete the Reformation for the coming of the millenial kingdom.

[Sigurd]

I am convinced you are jesting...
This is the what a theist will call the ideas of men. Founded on air.

It would be like me claiming that I am of Troyan decent. From a linage of great kings back to Odin the great troyan warlord. Or better - Odin was an ephramite, lost to the house of Israel after captivity in Babylon. Traveled north from pursuers and migrated through Germanium and ended up in Scandinavia. Brought lore and culture of Israel - the blot sacrifice = Mosaic burnt offerings. Stories of the promised Messiah which degenerated into Odin being lifted and nailed to a three and later took up his life again. etc... lots of parallels.

The number 1 on the list of Britain-Israel beliefs:
That the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages are the inspired, infallible Word of God.
Already here they run in to problems. Original languages? infallible?
Old Testament and New Testament scriptures consists of much more than the 66 agreed upon through a series of church councils (Catholic). Are we talking about all of the 120 candidate books from the New Testament era in their original language [and form]? The infallible falls on itself. Just one inconsistency in any of the books and it is no longer infallible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am convinced you are jesting...
This is the what a theist will call the ideas of men. Founded on air.

I would never do such a thing!

https://img718.imageshack.us/img718/664/awesomesmiley.png (https://img718.imageshack.us/i/awesomesmiley.png/)

Well, half jesting. I do not believe I am an ethnic Israelite. Jesus didn't think biological lineage was anything to boast about, as he said to the pharisees, why boast when your fathers took part in the blood of the prophets? In any case, its not about ethnic lineage, as John the Baptist said to the scribes and pharisees, Think not to say unto yourselves, "we have Abraham for our father", for God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

On the other hand, I do believe that Britain as a nation has been appointed a role in fighting the Roman Antichrist, and that just as the Old Covenant and ethnic Israel was a sort of shadow for the New Covenant and the Church, ethic Israel continues to foreshadow its New Covenant equivalent as it receives its inheritance. This will coincide with the complete of the Reformation here in Britain.


The number 1 on the list of Britain-Israel beliefs:
That the Old and New Testament Scriptures in their original languages are the inspired, infallible Word of God.
Already here they run in to problems. Original languages? infallible?
Old Testament and New Testament scriptures consists of much more than the 66 agreed upon through a series of church councils (Catholic). Are we talking about all of the 120 candidate books from the New Testament era in their original language [and form]? The infallible falls on itself. Just one inconsistency in any of the books and it is no longer infallible.

Well this issue is just as relevant to the rest of Christianity as it is to the British-Israel brigade, that's going off on a bit of a tangent surely?

[Tuuvi]

Polygamy has not yet dissapeared, neither in theology nor in practise. Just relegated to the backburner.


And how does that 'only 25% of families practised polygamy' work anyway?
If that one in four polygamous families consists of a husband and four wives, then the marital status of the vast majority of people is affected by polygamy. Three monogamously married men, three monogamamously married women. And one polygamously married man, four polymaously married women, and three men by necessity remaining unmarried.

The main Mormon church has banned polygamy and anyone found practicing it is excommunicated. When polygamy was banned, some people were unhappy with the decision and formed their own Mormon churches. http://utahbooks.com/Polygamy_Groups.htm

I got the statistic from a locally published history book. It says that there hardly any single men, most between the ages of 20 to thirty were married. There was only about 6 unmarried men per town. It says that in one town 11 of 43 families in 1870 appear to have been polygamous. In another town in 1870 108 family heads were listed in the census, 29 of which were polygamous.


I don't know what religion or none you belong to, but how do you think the saints of the Old Testament were saved? Did they observe the whole law so that they may be spotless before God? Or did they look forward to Christ as their saviour? King David was a Christian, he was born again.

You say Judaism began with Adam, but of course the whole ceremonial law was not given until the time of Moses and expanded long after that. For the Jews the observance of this law is necessary for righteousness... and yet as a Christian I can look back and say that the entire law has existed since the time of Adam, since it is a natural and not a positive law.

Mormons might claim to be a restoration of true Christianity but they are clearly wrong. They might have some intersting ideas which are tied to the Jewish roots of the early Christians, and it is true that much of modern Christianity is very biased by Hellenistic takes on the religion. But ultimately they say themselves that the Bible is not perfect, and that Joseph Smith's work completes it. And he brings in a whole number of strange of practices with no scriptural justification. Plus the Mormons never completed the Reformation and purged themselves of Catholic man-made traditions.

I'm Mormon. Which is part of the reason I've been so active in this thread :P. In answer to your first question, I think its a combination of the two. Of course the Jews were expected to keep the Law of Moses, why else would have God given it to them in the first place. But in the end they were saved by the Atonement, just like the rest of us. I don't know what you mean by King David being a Christian, please explain.

The reason that Mormons say the Bible is not perfect is because they believe it has been corrupted over the centuries. I'm not sure what strange practices your talking about, most Mormon practices have some basis in scripture and they're not that strange. Mormonism has no ties to Catholicism, Joseph Smith was born into a Protestant family. Mormons don't believe in the need for reformation because their church is a restoration instead.



There is no support whatsoever for water baptism or the so called 'holy communion' in the New Testament.

I don't get it, why was Jesus baptised then and why did he administer the sacrament to the Apostles?


I never responded to the OP, I'm with HoreTore on this one, I think it's hypocritical for religious people to make fun of other people's beliefs or despise them on a religious basis. People should be judged on an individual basis based on their actions, not lumped into categories based on belief.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm Mormon. Which is part of the reason I've been so active in this thread :P. In answer to your first question, I think its a combination of the two. Of course the Jews were expected to keep the Law of Moses, why else would have God given it to them in the first place. But in the end they were saved by the Atonement, just like the rest of us. I don't know what you mean by King David being a Christian, please explain.

The law was given to the Jews to point them to Christ once they saw that they were unable to fulfil it (see Hebrews!). In calling King David a Christian, I mean that he was born again and saved not by the law but by the blood of Christ. When I say 'Christian' I mean simply one that has been saved.


The reason that Mormons say the Bible is not perfect is because they believe it has been corrupted over the centuries.

Well most Protestants would agree that the translations are not necessarily perfect. However they still believe that the Scripture alone contains all that is needed for doctrine and worship etc and the problem is the Mormons added on their own book when there is no precedent for doing so. Jesus himself knew the OT scriptures well and there is strong evidence that the early Jewish believers took it for granted than a NT set of scriptures would naturally complement it. Even within Paul's epistles he actually refers to certain of them as scripture and the early Christians took them as such.

Where then does the Book of Mormon come into things?


I'm not sure what strange practices your talking about, most Mormon practices have some basis in scripture and they're not that strange. Mormonism has no ties to Catholicism, Joseph Smith was born into a Protestant family. Mormons don't believe in the need for reformation because their church is a restoration instead.

If it has no ties to Catholicism then why do Mormons follow unscriptural Catholic traditions like the Sunday sabbath? If it was truly a restorationist movement then it woud have purged itself of these.


I don't get it, why was Jesus baptised then and why did he administer the sacrament to the Apostles?

Jesus observes many Jewish traditions as part of his mission to fulfil the law, and his baptism was one of these. As was the case with the whole Jewish ceremonial law, each aspect of it was in some way a shadow of Christ. As such, water baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit when one is born again. Didn't John the Baptist himself say that "I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

Why then do Christians today continue to look to the shadow when they have the real deal? To return to the bondage of the law is sinful and undoes the whole Gospel, look what Paul thought of the Judaizers in Galatians.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Mormons are not any stranger than the followers of the Church eating the flesh from a two thousand year old dead body, oh and also drinking from its blood. Every year. And again, next year. And again, for the past 2000 years or so. Yes that is actually the doctrine of the Catholic faith. That is, according to the Catholic faith what actually happens (more precisely there's supposed to be a transformation: so the bread and wine is at first bread and wine, but by the time you ingest it the two have transformed in the flesh and blood of Jesus). Or the followers of the faith where each year they supposedly stone Satan. You know, that rock which used to be sanctuary of a much older faith. But nevermind that now, they actually do believe it is Satan they're stoning to death not their own colleagues who eventually end up dying as a side effect...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Mormons are not any stranger than the followers of the Church eating the flesh from a two thousand year old dead body, oh and also drinking from its blood. Every year. And again, next year. And again, for the past 2000 years or so. Yes that is actually the doctrine of the Catholic faith. That is, according to the Catholic faith what actually happens (more precisely there's supposed to be a transformation: so the bread and wine is at first bread and wine, but by the time you ingest it the two have transformed in the flesh and blood of Jesus). That is Calvinist propaganda.

As a devout Catholic myself, allow me to rectify: the eucharist is celebrated not annually, but every mass. The process is called transsubstantiation. And yes, the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ. Not, however, in the body of one consuming them, during digestion. That sounds like a lame solution by yet another pseudo-Christian cult of you protestants, lacking the intellectual finesse to understanmd how bread can have changed when by all physical appereance it hasn't. We Catholics have a more subtle understanding of the transubstantiation. Once consecrated, the host and wine have become the body of Christ. Such is the mystery of the Lord.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That is Calvinist propaganda.

As a devout Catholic myself, allow me to rectify: the eucharist is celebrated not annually, but every mass. The process is called transsubstantiation. And yes, the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ. Not, however, in the body of one consuming them, during digestion. That sounds like a lame solution by yet another pseudo-Christian cult of you protestants, lacking the intellectual finesse to understanmd how bread can have changed when by all physical appereance it hasn't. We Catholics have a more subtle understanding of the transubstantiation. Once consecrated, the host and wine have become the body of Christ. Such is the mystery of the Lord.
What understanding of fine distinctions you may have you don't appear to have put it to good use: by the time (i.e. before). So you do, according to the Catholic doctrine at least, actually eat his flesh and drink his blood. By the by, there is only one single mass a Catholic must attend which is Easter. All others are optional. (Unless one is of course a monk or otherwise closeted away from the Real World and devotes his life to a metaphysical being with bad manners and short temper and a lackluster work ethic.)

[ajaxfetish]

Why is it okay to harass Mormons? Because we're thick-skinned, of course.

And some FAQ for some of the topics that have come up in the thread.

Polygamy: Practiced in many eastern cultures, including that of the Jews (see for instance the stories Jacob or of David), but frowned upon in most western cultures, polygamy was controversial from the moment it was instituted in the Mormon church, and was a major factor in early fracturing of the movement. Under pressure from the US government and in order to make statehood possible, polygamy was banned by the church leadership in 1890, and from approximately that time has not been practiced in the main body of the church. Are there still Mormon polygamists today? Depends on your definition of Mormon. Several groups splintered off when the church renounced polygamy and continue to practice it today, but these individuals are considered apostates (essentially heretical) by the church, and are not allowed to be members of the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doctrinally, polygamy is still considered a part of God's system, but one currently forbidden; however, the cultural aversion to polygamy is a part of most Mormons today as well, and even if polygamy were made legal, I doubt Mormons would resume the practice. In fact, in countries where polygamy is still practiced, such as some African nations, Mormons are not allowed to have multiple wives.

Caffeine: One noticeable difference between Mormons and most others is our adherence to an idiosyncratic religious law of health, known as the Word of Wisdom. The wording is now fairly old-fashioned and vague, so it requires interpretation, leading to some confusion on what exactly this law stipulates. In its official interpretation, it prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, coffee, and tea (N.B. use for non-intoxicating purposes is not prohibited, so it's fine to use alcohol for sterilization, and tea is understood to mean specifically black or green tea, not 'herbal teas'). Individual interpretations abound, however, and one of the most common is that the reason coffee and tea are forbidden is the presence of caffeine, so all caffeinated beverages are shunned. Thus some Mormons refuse to drink caffeine, but this is not doctrinal.

Godhood: This is probably the most problematic doctrine of the Mormon church, in the context of the larger Christian community. It's a doctrine expounded by Joseph Smith near the end of his life, and one that Mormons are still not quite sure what to do with. It's generally believed, but considered so difficult to comprehend correctly that's it's not often discussed or reflected in daily practice. The doctrine is associated with the idea that we are all children of God, which is taken in the fairly literal sense that our spirits are the offspring of the Almighty. As children grow up to become adults like their parents, the idea is that humans similarly have the potential to be exalted as gods. What exactly this means, and how exactly it would play out, is for the most part unclear.

The Book of Mormon and the New Jerusalem: Much of the New Jerusalem stuff was considered more salient in the past than it is today, so pardon any errors in my presentation. As I understand it, according to Mormon doctrine, the Garden of Eden was located not in the Near East, but in Missouri, and this will be the location where Christ will return to the Earth (Smith had these revelations once the church had been forced to relocate to Missouri, fwiw. After the exodus to Utah, this doctrine became less influential). The idea then is that during the flood, Noah travelled from the New World to the Old. The Book of Mormon characters, as mentioned by other posters, were supposedly a group of Israelites later transported to the New World with God's assistance, who soon fractured and spent most of their history fighting each other, and some of them are considered to be among the ancestors of the later Native Americans. The Book of Mormon is understood as a record of these people, buried in the ground and later given into Joseph Smith's possession so that he could translate it by his prophetic power. I'm not sure what PVC was referencing in his post on the subject, since they are not claimed to be written on tablets, but rather metal plates, which were returned to an angel's keeping after the translation was complete, and the translation was finished a good 14 years before Smith's death.

Are there Mormons outside the US?: The largest concentration of Mormons is in Utah and neighboring states. For much of the church's history, it has had limited presence outside this area, and many early converts immigrated to be with the rest of the congregation. In recent times, the size of the church has grown tremendously, and there is no longer any attempt to concentrate membership in the US or in Utah. Official church statistics are not entirely reliable, as once baptized, a member remains on church records unless they request removal or are excommunicated, even if they cease to be active participants in the church. That said, the church currently has over 13 million recorded members, with over half of those living outside the U.S. There are large numbers of Mormons in Latin America and the Pacific Islands, and a swiftly growing community in Africa. Europe, once the major source of new converts, has low conversion rates, which is unsurprising considering how secular it has become. There are Mormon congregations throughout Europe, but our numbers there are not impressive. There are few Mormons in China, India, the Middle East, and other areas where governments are still not open to proselytizing. This may change in the future if political circumstances shift.

If you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer them as best I can.

Overall, we do indeed have some strange beliefs in the eyes of other Christians, though as Horetore has pointed out, Christianity itself has some strange beliefs in the eyes of outsiders. We have much more in common with other Christian denominations than we have differentiating us, and this has become more the case over time as the church has become more mainstream little by little. Also worth considering is that there is considerable variation in belief between individual Mormons. Just as not all Protestants are Young Earth Creationists, not all Mormons are equally orthodox.

Ajax

[Sigurd]

I would never do such a thing!

Right... :beam:


On the other hand, I do believe that Britain as a nation has been appointed a role in fighting the Roman Antichrist, and that just as the Old Covenant and ethnic Israel was a sort of shadow for the New Covenant and the Church, ethic Israel continues to foreshadow its New Covenant equivalent as it receives its inheritance. This will coincide with the complete of the Reformation here in Britain.
I hope you base this on material found within the 66 infallible books of the bible, or an visiting angle. If not, I would call it heresy :beam:


Well this issue is just as relevant to the rest of Christianity as it is to the British-Israel brigade, that's going off on a bit of a tangent surely?In this thread, maybe.
Still... many arguments are hinged on such assumptions. If you would use argumentation with citations from the bible - then... :sneaky:



I don't know what you mean by King David being a Christian, please explain.

This does agree with your doctrine if I am interpreting it right.
To quote from the BoM:(Jacob 4)
4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.

5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith cometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

In calling King David a Christian, I mean that he was born again and saved not by the law but by the blood of Christ. When I say 'Christian' I mean simply one that has been saved.I think you will run in to a problem here with your saved by grace and not by works. David lost his inheritance by work with the Uriah & Bathsheba "situation".



Well most Protestants would agree that the translations are not necessarily perfect. However they still believe that the Scripture alone contains all that is needed for doctrine and worship etc and the problem is the Mormons added on their own book when there is no precedent for doing so. Jesus himself knew the OT scriptures well and there is strong evidence that the early Jewish believers took it for granted than a NT set of scriptures would naturally complement it. Even within Paul's epistles he actually refers to certain of them as scripture and the early Christians took them as such.

Where then does the Book of Mormon come into things?

Ehm... do you really want to go there? :sneaky:



If it has no ties to Catholicism then why do Mormons follow unscriptural Catholic traditions like the Sunday sabbath? If it was truly a restorationist movement then it woud have purged itself of these.
It is in you canon mister... the Church established by Jesus Christ did come together to break bread on the first day of the week -> Sunday.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
That is just a reference from your infallible book. As I understand the restoration - it was a restoration of authority and revelation. So, if God were to say (through a prophet) that the sabbath will be on Tuesdays from hence forth - that would be the new day of worship. Scripture is just a historic reference to revealed religion.



Jesus observes many Jewish traditions as part of his mission to fulfil the law, and his baptism was one of these. As was the case with the whole Jewish ceremonial law, each aspect of it was in some way a shadow of Christ.
I have been arguing that Jesus came from the Essene community at Qumran. I don't think the other Jewish sects practiced baptism by immersion.

[Ronin]

it's ok to make fun of all of them.
I´m an equal opportunity harasser.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I hope you base this on material found within the 66 infallible books of the bible, or an visiting angle. If not, I would call it heresy :beam:

There is biblical precedent for a New Covenant people chosen by God as a nation, Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to a "nation" that would bring forth the fruits thereof. Isaiah spoke of the peoples of the isles at the end of the sea (for much of history Britain to everyone in the Old World). Look at the history of Britain with the England/Scotland situation... and the parallels with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, plus all the promises of earthly inheritance/greatness. The British Empire etc...


In this thread, maybe.
Still... many arguments are hinged on such assumptions. If you would use argumentation with citations from the bible - then... :sneaky:

Well so did you, otherwise we would have nothing to discuss. :tongue2:


I think you will run in to a problem here with your saved by grace and not by works. David lost his inheritance by work with the Uriah & Bathsheba "situation".

Temporal inheritanace, not his salvation.


It is in you canon mister... the Church established by Jesus Christ did come together to break bread on the first day of the week -> Sunday.
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
That is just a reference from your infallible book. As I understand the restoration - it was a restoration of authority and revelation. So, if God were to say (through a prophet) that the sabbath will be on Tuesdays from hence forth - that would be the new day of worship. Scripture is just a historic reference to revealed religion.

How does that verse in any way suggest that Sunday would be the new sabbath, as opposed to Saturday? Not the I support a Saturday sabbath either, I believe the ceremonial aspect of the commandment was fulfiled in Christ. See Colossians 2:16-17:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."


I have been arguing that Jesus came from the Essene community at Qumran. I don't think the other Jewish sects practiced baptism by immersion.

Just as with the sabbath issue above, it is clear that water baptism was a Jewish custom and as such was only a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit. Sadly people are determined to return to the bondage of the law.

[Strike For The South]

I don't know why you would make fun of them, they are so nice

[Greyblades]

Maybe thats the reason, make fun of a scientologist and they sue, make fun of an islamic and you could end up with terrorist threats, make fun of a mormon and they turn the other cheek.

[Strike For The South]

yea those damn islamics

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't know why you would make fun of them, they are so niceIf Mormons are nice - a relative term - than obviously others are less nice. Which groups do you think are less nice Strike?

If you generalise that 'Mormons are nice', does that mean it is okay to say 'Muslims/Catholics/Jews are not nice'? :sneaky:

[Tuuvi]

This does agree with your doctrine if I am interpreting it right.
To quote from the BoM:(Jacob 4)
[I]4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.

5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith cometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

In those verses he is talking about the Nephites specifically. AFAIK the Isrealites in Jerusalem never knew about Jesus until his birth. But yes this point of Rhyfelwyr's:

[INDENT]The law was given to the Jews to point them to Christ once they saw that they were unable to fulfil it (see Hebrews!). In calling King David a Christian, I mean that he was born again and saved not by the law but by the blood of Christ. When I say 'Christian' I mean simply one that has been saved.

is in agreement with Mormon doctrine. When I said I didn't know what he meant by King David being Christian I literally didn't know.

Just as with the sabbath issue above, it is clear that water baptism was a Jewish custom and as such was only a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit. Sadly people are determined to return to the bondage of the law.

Didn't the apostle Paul and the other missionaries of his time baptize new converts? Also in John 3:5 Jesus says that a person needs to be born of the water and of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, and in Mark 16:16 it says that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

And BTW the Mormon church practices both baptism by immersion and the Holy Spirit, the two go hand in hand in the Mormon religion.

[HoreTore]

Isaiah spoke of the peoples of the isles at the end of the sea

Huh..... Doesn't that kinda sound like the native americans of the Caribbean....?

[Megas Methuselah]

Mormans think they know more about me and my history than I do myself. They preach to me. They try to make me white. And that last "apostle" who tried preaching to me downtown had a lisp. I said nothing, turned my back, and walked away.

This isn't his promised land. He doesn't belong here. He was fat and white.

[Greyblades]

Wha? How do you make someone "white"?

[lars573]

Mormons believe that the Aboriginal peoples of the Americas are decended from groups of Israelites who, by the invisible sky gods magic, landed in the new world.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Didn't the apostle Paul and the other missionaries of his time baptize new converts? Also in John 3:5 Jesus says that a person needs to be born of the water and of the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, and in Mark 16:16 it says that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

And BTW the Mormon church practices both baptism by immersion and the Holy Spirit, the two go hand in hand in the Mormon religion.

Paul said "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel". (1 Cor 1:17). Yes he baptised a couple of people, however note how he also says he is glad he didn't baptise any others. Most importantly, those that he did baptise were Jews, so their baptism was in keeping with the way in which early converts from Judaism kept their Jewish traditions. Paul did it for the same reason he had Timothy circumcised... so that he might be a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. We don't give that as proof that Christians ought to be circumcised, so why do it with baptism?

Also I think John 3:5 is symbolism, again looking to the example of Hebrews... the idea of the living water and never thirsting again.

[Strike For The South]

I can see why premarital sex and drinking are meant to be abstained from

This is fun for yall? Combing through a collection of a stories from a bunch of semites who were exactly like the dozens of other semite tribes?

I mean Christ, at least the catholics have made a dog and pony show out of it, reading this is painful

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is fun for yall?

Yes. tbh most atheists I know have always been the most boring respectable people.

[Tuuvi]

I can see why premarital sex and drinking are meant to be abstained from

This is fun for yall? Combing through a collection of a stories from a bunch of semites who were exactly like the dozens of other semite tribes?

I mean Christ, at least the catholics have made a dog and pony show out of it, reading this is painful

haha this made me laugh.

[Reenk Roink]

People who bash Mormons are douchebags, it's not OK, I don't see the big deal.

[HoreTore]

People who bash Mormons are douchebags, it's not OK, I don't see the big deal.

When the major obstacle a presidential candidate has is his religious affiliation, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

[Sigurd]

Temporal inheritanace, not his salvation.

I am pretty sure every non-evangelical denomination agrees that he lost his salvation with his Bathsheba stunt.


How does that verse in any way suggest that Sunday would be the new sabbath, as opposed to Saturday? Not the I support a Saturday sabbath either, I believe the ceremonial aspect of the commandment was fulfiled in Christ.
Setting the infallible canon aside, all offspring of the original church worshiped on the first day of the week. If this was a Roman construct, then the orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches would still worship on a Saturday. Christ was resurrected on a Sunday and since the church was all about this event - it became the new day of worship. A new covenant under new rules (mosaic Sabbath strictness done away with). Obviously Christ wanted the breaking of bread to be done periodically and in remembrance of him and his work. A ceremonial worship of the father through Christ's sacrifice, and done on the first day of the week hence forth.


In those verses he is talking about the Nephites specifically. AFAIK the Isrealites in Jerusalem never knew about Jesus until his birth.
:beam:
I think you are overlooking the obvious. If you remember the exodus of the families of Lehi and Ishmael , the story makes a point of going back to get the Manasseh scriptures (brass plates) from the clan/tribe head. All the prophets from Adam and down to the time when they left was found on these plates in addition to a genealogical record of their tribe - through Joseph and to Adam.
Jacob (the author of my quote) was a contemporary with Lehi and Nephi and as such when he refers to all the prophets, it would be the record of prophets of Israel that they brought with them. In other words - he claim that they knew of Christ and worshiped Christ from Adam through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the father of Joseph and the twelve tribes. Hence - ancient Jerusalem knew of Christ before his time (If we should base anything on your BoM).


Mor[e]mans think they know more about me and my history than I do myself. They preach to me. They try to make me white. And that last "apostle" who tried preaching to me downtown had a lisp. I said nothing, turned my back, and walked away.

It seems we share common ancestry Megas. You from Lehi and me from Odin, from the same tribe of Joseph. :sneaky:

[Fisherking]

Oh drat!

Sunday Sabbath?

It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.

This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.

[Greyblades]

I think that is just a coincidence, theres only 7 days in a week after all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh drat!

Sunday Sabbath?

It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.

This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.

Ah yes, the Celtic Church, a favourite topic of discussion in Northern Ireland where the Protestants/Catholics want to prove they were there first.

Well, according to some pamphlets I have on St. Patrick (a Protestant and a Briton apparently, although he is seriously from my little hometown!), the early Celtic Church were Saturday Sabbatarians.


I am pretty sure every non-evangelical denomination agrees that he lost his salvation with his Bathsheba stunt.

non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel! :beam:


Setting the infallible canon aside, all offspring of the original church worshiped on the first day of the week. If this was a Roman construct, then the orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches would still worship on a Saturday. Christ was resurrected on a Sunday and since the church was all about this event - it became the new day of worship. A new covenant under new rules (mosaic Sabbath strictness done away with). Obviously Christ wanted the breaking of bread to be done periodically and in remembrance of him and his work. A ceremonial worship of the father through Christ's sacrifice, and done on the first day of the week hence forth.

That they happened to worship on the first day of the week does not suggest any sort of superstitious reverence of a holy day. I go to church every Sunday, I also go to football every Saturday...

The observance of days is explicitly condemned by Paul (Galatians 4:9-11).

[Reenk Roink]

When the major obstacle a presidential candidate has is his religious affiliation, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.

Well in that case, it was a big deal to some that JFK was Catholic...

[Sigurd]

Well, according to some pamphlets I have..

I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel. :no:



non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel! :beam:
What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.
We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel. :no:

Heh, I didnt' say I believed them all, I just think they're interesting. Makes a change from the healf-hearted liberal tripe you get these days that seems to dominate mainstream Christianity.


What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.

@bolded bit in particular - "new age" I am not. Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...

Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...


We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.

tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Paul said "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel". (1 Cor 1:17). Yes he baptised a couple of people, however note how he also says he is glad he didn't baptise any others. Most importantly, those that he did baptise were Jews, so their baptism was in keeping with the way in which early converts from Judaism kept their Jewish traditions. Paul did it for the same reason he had Timothy circumcised... so that he might be a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. We don't give that as proof that Christians ought to be circumcised, so why do it with baptism?

Also I think John 3:5 is symbolism, again looking to the example of Hebrews... the idea of the living water and never thirsting again.

God gave an ordinance to Peter to baptise the gentiles in Acts 10. Baptims replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant. 300 years later the Council of Nicea determined that baptism with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was necessary in order to enter into full comunion with the Church; they also determined that the act was effective even if the baptising priest was an Arian heretic.

Irrc the Sunday thing came in around 200 AD when Christians began celebrating the Resurrection rather than the Sabbath.

[Devastatin Dave]

... because they wear very uncomfortable underwear...

[ajaxfetish]

... because they wear very uncomfortable underwear...

You've tried 'em, huh?

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

God gave an ordinance to Peter to baptise the gentiles in Acts 10. Baptims replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant. 300 years later the Council of Nicea determined that baptism with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was necessary in order to enter into full comunion with the Church; they also determined that the act was effective even if the baptising priest was an Arian heretic.

Irrc the Sunday thing came in around 200 AD when Christians began celebrating the Resurrection rather than the Sabbath.

The baptism of Cornelius seems to be tied in with the rest of the chapter, where it is revealed to Peter that all things are clean etc. In giving Cornelius the Jewish custom of baptism, he was emphasising his point that Gentiles were no longer considered unclean and unfit to take part in Jewish ceremonies (see verse 28). Also, in verses 37-8, Peter actually refers to water baptism as the baptism that John preached, and distinct from the one preached by Jesus. It is not part of the Gospel and it can't be, otherwise the prisoner on the cross could not be saved.

The verse also doesn't support the idea that baptism is the new circumcision. When Peter says he is to baptise them, he also notes that this is because they had received the Holy Spirit. Obviously this supports the idea of baptism if anything being an expression of faith, not a sacrament, and questions the practice of infant baptism.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Harass Mormons? Nah, I don't think that's okay.

Making fun of the Mormon religion? Oh heck yeah. That's perfectly fine.

Anything I could possibly say about religion, in jest, is less insulting than things I've been told about atheists by the faithful, and they weren't joking. Many of them truly believe I am immoral by default, deserve eternal torture, and am not equal to them unless I believe what they believe. I've been told such straight to my face on this very forum by posters in this very thread.

The first thing that allows me to do, is make jokes at the expense of religion. Ideas are worthy of being mocked, and if that's not allowed, then people shouldn't be out there attempting to convert others into believing their own ideas. If you can say that your idea is the greatest idea that's ever been had, and it's also fact without any real proof, and that my idea makes me evil and a lesser person than you, then I get to laugh at you as loudly and for as long as I like.

That applies to every belief, not just Mormonism.

[Sigurd]

Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.


Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...
You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.


tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).


You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.


So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.

[Sigurd]

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?


Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.
I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.



Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?

Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?

Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.


I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.

Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.


You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

Well, I suppose. I've wondered a bit about Sola Scriptura recently.

The things is, even if there were other sources of authority, they would have to be consistent with scripture, but the scripture itself condemns pretty much anything and everything we associate with organised religion. It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.

[Sigurd]

Last reply today...

Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?

Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.


Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.



Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.
It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?

I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity. :beam:



It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.I don't follow...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.


It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?

Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.


I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity. :beam:

IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).


I don't follow...

The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).

Even the existence of God is self-evident and something all people know by nature, although they rebel against it. See the appropriate bit from Romans 1:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

As a side note, in the next bit, our ordained gender roles!

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Sigurd]

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.

I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.



Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.
Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.



IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).
That part is no better than the Scandinavian origins. No I am not talking about the BoM story.
I am talking about the Godhead visiting Joseph Smith as a boy of 14. Then the additional heavenly visitations by John the baptist (the Levite priesthood), Peter James and John (the higher priesthood) restoring their authorities back to the earth. Then successively the ancient prophets came and restored their authorities: Moses, "Elias", Elijah came with their keys and powers. In addition to a host of angels including Moroni - the last Christian of ancient America.
Now that is some claim for origin.



The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).
By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.

I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.

Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?


Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.

Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.


By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.

Well as Paul said he said all that so that people will know they are without excuse for not following God, not that he expects them to follow him. It is because fallen man rebels against the knowledge that God gave them by nature, see how Paul says this corruption is why people turned knowledge of God into idolatry.

[Sigurd]

I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.

Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?

This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:



Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.
The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.
Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one?
The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.

It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:

But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Chrisitians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.

Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.


The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.
Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one?

And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.

Still, I think the significance of the number of denominations are hyped up. Many of those churches share the same/almost identical beliefs and are only technically seperate denominations because of their geographic location. Most people are not worried about petty differences, I've been to Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren services etc, they are all on the same tracks.


The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.

I'm working on it. :beam:

Anyway we're nearly done, my 'Ultra-Protestant' (for want of a better term) take on things is picking up ground. Even go to the religious section at the TWC and you will see several posters like myself that have a fascination with removing all pagan elements from the religion and following the example of the New Testament-era church. There's me, hellas, basics, squiggle and signifer_one are nearly there (well, the last one is a pesky Arminian, but...).


It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?

But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic. The existence of God is just seen as a fact of reality (or something), the perfection of the scriptures is seen as self-evident. And as I said, the canon was formed by consensus amongst the very earliest followers of Christ, and we have the texts in the original languages, so...

[gaelic cowboy]

But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic.

rational?

[Samurai Waki]

Mormons, good people for the most part; don't agree with their theology, but then again I don't agree with any theology.

[Rhyfelwyr]

rational?

Of course. How is it not?

[Sigurd]

But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Christians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.

We have discussed this before. At least I have at several points, even at [dare I say it] TWC. There is an excellent thread about the origins of the Bible written by one of TWC's regulars. I am in complete agreement with his article.
You say original languages.. well that is light years away from originals. I have in previous engagements with you mentioned the Trinitarian problems and agenda ridden changes to scripture. I even gave you a concrete example of tampering of scripture (Erasmus).
Having something in an original language - does nothing to strengthen the argument of infallibility. Your The main problem is that no originals exist. The oldest copies (that's what they are - copies) are copies of copies of copies in a long chain back to long lost originals. There is no way to ensure that they haven't been tampered with somewhere along the chain of copying. Sometimes these copies in an original language was translated to this original language from a copy in a non-original language.
I have heard people claim that the originals are hidden in the Vatican... Sorry m8, these are copies. You might wonder why there are no originals if there is an unbroken chain back to the early church. Surely someone would see the value in keeping the originals preserved. For the Old testament, that would prove quite impossible, but for the New Testament era, at least some originals could have been preserved.



Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.
No tension at all... Jesus forgave sins left and right during his ministry, but this was before the organization of his church, which I believe happened in the 40 day intermission after his resurrection. Before that time - the mosaic law was in force. Jesus' mission of bringing and end to the mosaic law did not end until he declared it 'finished' on the cross. The mosaic law was all about the event of slaughtering the lamb for the benefit of the earthlings and the martians. After the 40 days, there is a notable change in the disciples. They went from clueless to leaders and powerful miracle workers. Every conversion following that event involved baptism.



And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.
You are putting you neck on the chopping block here... remember Sola #1.
Which guaranties do you have for you not misinterpreting the canon? Could it be that your Ultra-Protestant way is completely off the wall? How would you know? Will you just be the 35 001th wrong way?

[The Stranger]

rational?

wasnt protestantism anti material?