Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.