Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[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/...%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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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...

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

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...

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?

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

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...

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

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 nice

If 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'?

[Tuuvi]

This does agree with your doctrine if I am interpreting it right.
To quote from the BoM:(Jacob 4)[INDENT][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:

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.

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.