Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[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...

[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.