Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

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).

[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

[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.

[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.