|
On December 19 2012 11:24 UndoneJin wrote:
I always find it interesting to read this kind of stuff, I was raised one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Obviously there are good and bad people, sensible and less sensible, etc. in all organizations/religious groups. It is EXTREMELY ignorant of the organization as a whole for 3 large men to come to your door, that's just plainly wrong and I would be upset about it too. However, I can't believe you didn't think this through a little more thoroughly. Mormons and JW are both well known coming to your door with religious material, you really thought they would send you a bible with no follow-up? Definitely not how it works.
And seriously guys, if you don't want return visits from Mormons or JW when they come to your door, it's very simple to deal with it. You just politely inform them you're familiar with what they have to offer, and at this point would ask for no further visits. You have to specify that you don't want to be called on again. If they persist, just repeat yourself, and excuse yourself from the door. No need to waste their time or yours if you are not interested.
Best advice in this thread.
|
its just a way of reaching out and putting a face to a name, I was a mormon for many years (I left due to personal reasons) a big part of the teachings of the church is to try and give everyone a chance to accept it if they want to...also a lot of missionaries come from across the country or even WORLD leaving behind their lives for 18-24 months to try and spread something that means a lot to them...if you began talking to someone about SC and they treated you with the same bitterness and anger that people treat missionaries...how would you react? (also Cokefreak yes they do give out real bibles they have them in their backpacks, next time you see one ask them I bet you $20 they have one) (and DarkPlasmaBall nah man most missionaries are 19-21 some people do serve missions when they get older but yeah...they have to PAY to do that not the other way around
sorry guys not trying to be an asshole but at the end of the day they are mostly super nice and even if you don't want to listen to what they have to say most are happy enough to just give you a bible and be on their way
|
Hey. Just wanted to say that I'm a Mormon. I like being a Mormon. If you don't want to be a Mormon, then don't be one. If one of our missionaries knocks on your door, the best thing you can do if you're not interested is tell them so in a polite way.
There's a lot of pretty bigoted stuff in this thread. You don't have to agree with others' religious beliefs, but can't we all just treat each other with kindness and respect? I guess I've grown to expect this sort of thing from the internet but it still makes me a little sad that we can't all just grow up a little.
|
hahaha I remember getting a pie from them one year... weirdest conversation I've ever had in my life followed that.
|
10387 Posts
On December 19 2012 13:56 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 13:01 iamho wrote:
Wow no offense OP but you definitely seem like the dick in this story. I see you're still in high school, are you one of those easily-offended Richard Dawkins types of atheists? No. I'm mostly upset about the double visit by giant people.
LOL
think you just hate tall people, not Mormons hahahahah. And yea, tbh you sounded like you were the dick here lol
|
On December 19 2012 07:27 Cokefreak wrote:
Also Prae did you know that Mormons don't even give out real bibles, they give only copies of Book of Mormon which has really nothing to do with the bible.
Not true, I gave out plenty of free bibles during my time as a mormon missionary.
Of course, the church always preferred to give out books of mormon, cause other churches don't have that, whereas the bible is everywhere. Focus on spreading the "new"s and not the "old"s, you know what i mean?
Oh, but don't get intimidated by mormon missionaries. They can't actually do anything to you, or they get fired :p
|
On December 19 2012 13:56 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 13:01 iamho wrote:
Wow no offense OP but you definitely seem like the dick in this story. I see you're still in high school, are you one of those easily-offended Richard Dawkins types of atheists? No. I'm mostly upset about the double visit by giant people.
How... How big were they
|
On December 19 2012 10:08 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 09:19 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Cokefreak wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 Cokefreak wrote:
I actually got a book of Mormon a few years ago from two friendly Mormon dudes, one was from the States and the other from Russia IIRC, took a look at the book, read a bit from the start, hard to take seriously, some of the stuff in there was just way over the top. Because objectively the bible is much less farfetched, right? ![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif) I'm mostly referring to the whole Joseph Smith thing, I'm not religious in any way. But you do have a point. As far as I'm concerned, outlandish fiction that has survived for thousands of years is simply worth more attention and respect than outlandish fiction from less than 200 years ago that reeks of an ill-conceived attempt at passing off polygamy. But perhaps that's just me. What does age have to do with it? I don't see how it's not just the same shit, in a different time period. The only thing that matters is what is in the book, not how old the book is. If the book of mormon is more silly / evil / stupid / factually incorrect than a version of the normal bible, then it deserves less respect. But only because of its contents, not its age.
Polygamy versus No sex for priest.
Aliens versus resurection
etc...
I think it is not a good way to approach the problem.
All religion have REALLY silly/stupid/factually incorrect things, or fairy tales/miracles/heaven-hell etc... You are not forced to believe everything that is written.
It is a bit pointless and ridiculous to say that one is worse than the other one. Believe what you want but don't think your beliefs are better than others. (despite what your religion might say: I was stunned to see in a jewish brochure "be good with everyone even if they are not following the right path (i.e not jewish)")
|
You filled out a form on the website with your address and didn't expect this and then complain. Seems like you are the issue.
|
NFL Quarterbacks, not NBA.
|
On December 19 2012 07:05 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:56 iamperfection wrote:
it didn't really sound that bad. seems like your overreacting a bit. I am not overreacting. a) I simply answered what I thought was a form for a mail order, as the website purported it to be, b) they sent five people, four of whom were of sufficient size to be EXTREMELY intimidating, c) they never gave my the Bible. The last one is minor, but the first two pure rudeness. Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:02 Frits wrote:
They actually sound like really nice and caring people, putting in a lot of effort just for you, maybe you should've responded to them like a decent human being instead of a complete jackass. They should have at least emailed me before sending three football players after my mom had made it clear that they were not to visit again.
They should apologize for being tall. And for trying to deliver the Bible you requested. And for not slipping it into you mailbox anyway after you told them to go away.
???
|
Why don't you try to convert them to Islam while they're trying to tell you about Mormonism?
|
On December 19 2012 10:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 10:08 vOdToasT wrote:On December 19 2012 09:19 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Cokefreak wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 Cokefreak wrote:
I actually got a book of Mormon a few years ago from two friendly Mormon dudes, one was from the States and the other from Russia IIRC, took a look at the book, read a bit from the start, hard to take seriously, some of the stuff in there was just way over the top. Because objectively the bible is much less farfetched, right? I'm mostly referring to the whole Joseph Smith thing, I'm not religious in any way. But you do have a point. As far as I'm concerned, outlandish fiction that has survived for thousands of years is simply worth more attention and respect than outlandish fiction from less than 200 years ago that reeks of an ill-conceived attempt at passing off polygamy. But perhaps that's just me. What does age have to do with it? I don't see how it's not just the same shit, different time period. The only thing that matters is what is in the book, not how old the book is. If the book of mormon is more silly / evil / stupid / factually incorrect than a version of the normal bible, then it deserves less respect. But only because of its contents, not its age. Well, in my opinion, one of the most useful frames of reference with which to behold the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is that which keeps the course of human history, society, and culture in mind. What I mean is that the Bible informs an incredible amount of Western historical procession, from moral logic to formal governmental progression to the concept that knowledge is valuable and worth pursuing, and accordingly I think understanding proper Biblical exegesis, be it secular or religious, helps to understand some of the roots of contemporary society. In fact, to put it in a certain sense, you and I, even though from entirely places and backgrounds, share a degree of familiarity that is necessarily entangled with the Bible via our respective cultural histories. The book of Mormon carries with it no deep roots, no great story to tell in reference to the track of human history. No, instead it tells the tale of angry, marginalized polygamists who were willing to believe practically anything if that meant that they could feel ok about their self-superiority and odd proclivities. Mormonism's history and books speak for themselves in a way Christianity cannot, for they are not worth knowing for any other reason than their criticism or admiration. This all being said, I do not hold the beliefs of others against them and would never look down upon a Mormon simply for their faith, and I have personally known both admirable and contemptible followers. But, when a Mormon wants to talk comparative theology, I will not hold back.
The Book of Mormon tells the tale of marginalized angry polygamists?
Maybe, if you haven't read a book, you shouldn't pretend to know what it says and then pontificate about its merit. Or at least take five minutes to look it up on Wikipedia so you don't sound like a COMPLETE idiot..
|
they sent five people, four of whom were of sufficient size to be EXTREMELY intimidating,
haha this is getting hilarious. Man, it's not even their fault they're that tall, I don't think they were trying to scare you
|
On December 19 2012 07:05 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 06:56 iamperfection wrote:
it didn't really sound that bad. seems like your overreacting a bit. I am not overreacting. a) I simply answered what I thought was a form for a mail order, as the website purported it to be, b) they sent five people, four of whom were of sufficient size to be EXTREMELY intimidating, c) they never gave my the Bible. The last one is minor, but the first two pure rudeness. Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 07:02 Frits wrote:
They actually sound like really nice and caring people, putting in a lot of effort just for you, maybe you should've responded to them like a decent human being instead of a complete jackass. They should have at least emailed me before sending three football players after my mom had made it clear that they were not to visit again.
poor intimidating guys
|
On December 20 2012 00:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 10:22 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 10:08 vOdToasT wrote:On December 19 2012 09:19 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Cokefreak wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 Cokefreak wrote:
I actually got a book of Mormon a few years ago from two friendly Mormon dudes, one was from the States and the other from Russia IIRC, took a look at the book, read a bit from the start, hard to take seriously, some of the stuff in there was just way over the top. Because objectively the bible is much less farfetched, right? I'm mostly referring to the whole Joseph Smith thing, I'm not religious in any way. But you do have a point. As far as I'm concerned, outlandish fiction that has survived for thousands of years is simply worth more attention and respect than outlandish fiction from less than 200 years ago that reeks of an ill-conceived attempt at passing off polygamy. But perhaps that's just me. What does age have to do with it? I don't see how it's not just the same shit, different time period. The only thing that matters is what is in the book, not how old the book is. If the book of mormon is more silly / evil / stupid / factually incorrect than a version of the normal bible, then it deserves less respect. But only because of its contents, not its age. Well, in my opinion, one of the most useful frames of reference with which to behold the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is that which keeps the course of human history, society, and culture in mind. What I mean is that the Bible informs an incredible amount of Western historical procession, from moral logic to formal governmental progression to the concept that knowledge is valuable and worth pursuing, and accordingly I think understanding proper Biblical exegesis, be it secular or religious, helps to understand some of the roots of contemporary society. In fact, to put it in a certain sense, you and I, even though from entirely places and backgrounds, share a degree of familiarity that is necessarily entangled with the Bible via our respective cultural histories. The book of Mormon carries with it no deep roots, no great story to tell in reference to the track of human history. No, instead it tells the tale of angry, marginalized polygamists who were willing to believe practically anything if that meant that they could feel ok about their self-superiority and odd proclivities. Mormonism's history and books speak for themselves in a way Christianity cannot, for they are not worth knowing for any other reason than their criticism or admiration. This all being said, I do not hold the beliefs of others against them and would never look down upon a Mormon simply for their faith, and I have personally known both admirable and contemptible followers. But, when a Mormon wants to talk comparative theology, I will not hold back. The Book of Mormon tells the tale of marginalized angry polygamists? Maybe, if you haven't read a book, you shouldn't pretend to know what it says and then pontificate about its merit. Or at least take five minutes to look it up on Wikipedia so you don't sound like a COMPLETE idiot..
I apologize for being vague, I was referencing the background in which the text was written; the day after the book of Mormon was published, a host of converts showed up, many of which were polygamists, Christian magicians, or flat out criminals. In fact, Smith himself had evaded charges from employees of his then defunct treasure hunting company that he had embezzled and skipped out on paying anyone anything, which is part of the reason why the Mormon church continuously moved westward (though the local mobs who arose wherever the Mormons went didn't help).
I'll let the actual content of the book of Mormon speak for itself, but the fact that a great number of Mormonism's earliest members were former devotees of then famed polygamist Jacob Cochran speaks volumes as to the intent and velocity of the early Mormon church.
|
I use to be mormon, so I understand the sentiment, but you are completely overreacting. I understand they're annoying, but you brought this upon yourself by GIVING them your information on their website. You are honestly getting mad about something stupid you did. I know they may have deceived you by saying "free bible" and they usually give people free bibles, but the whole point of the website was from the to get in contact with you about your beliefs and how some dude who came up with a few wild ideas will change your life.
You can call the church, and have your name removed from their lists. I assure you they will come again, so you might as well call now because you're just going to get more annoyed by the sounds of it.
|
Beware, the third time they usually send a priest who goes 'wololololo'.
We used to have some jehova ppl trying to talk, my mom always said to ignore them, don't open the door (make sure they dont notice you're home) 
|
On December 20 2012 03:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 00:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On December 19 2012 10:22 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 10:08 vOdToasT wrote:On December 19 2012 09:19 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Cokefreak wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 Cokefreak wrote:
I actually got a book of Mormon a few years ago from two friendly Mormon dudes, one was from the States and the other from Russia IIRC, took a look at the book, read a bit from the start, hard to take seriously, some of the stuff in there was just way over the top. Because objectively the bible is much less farfetched, right? I'm mostly referring to the whole Joseph Smith thing, I'm not religious in any way. But you do have a point. As far as I'm concerned, outlandish fiction that has survived for thousands of years is simply worth more attention and respect than outlandish fiction from less than 200 years ago that reeks of an ill-conceived attempt at passing off polygamy. But perhaps that's just me. What does age have to do with it? I don't see how it's not just the same shit, different time period. The only thing that matters is what is in the book, not how old the book is. If the book of mormon is more silly / evil / stupid / factually incorrect than a version of the normal bible, then it deserves less respect. But only because of its contents, not its age. Well, in my opinion, one of the most useful frames of reference with which to behold the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is that which keeps the course of human history, society, and culture in mind. What I mean is that the Bible informs an incredible amount of Western historical procession, from moral logic to formal governmental progression to the concept that knowledge is valuable and worth pursuing, and accordingly I think understanding proper Biblical exegesis, be it secular or religious, helps to understand some of the roots of contemporary society. In fact, to put it in a certain sense, you and I, even though from entirely places and backgrounds, share a degree of familiarity that is necessarily entangled with the Bible via our respective cultural histories. The book of Mormon carries with it no deep roots, no great story to tell in reference to the track of human history. No, instead it tells the tale of angry, marginalized polygamists who were willing to believe practically anything if that meant that they could feel ok about their self-superiority and odd proclivities. Mormonism's history and books speak for themselves in a way Christianity cannot, for they are not worth knowing for any other reason than their criticism or admiration. This all being said, I do not hold the beliefs of others against them and would never look down upon a Mormon simply for their faith, and I have personally known both admirable and contemptible followers. But, when a Mormon wants to talk comparative theology, I will not hold back. The Book of Mormon tells the tale of marginalized angry polygamists? Maybe, if you haven't read a book, you shouldn't pretend to know what it says and then pontificate about its merit. Or at least take five minutes to look it up on Wikipedia so you don't sound like a COMPLETE idiot.. I apologize for being vague, I was referencing the background in which the text was written; the day after the book of Mormon was published, a host of converts showed up, many of which were polygamists, Christian magicians, or flat out criminals. In fact, Smith himself had evaded charges from employees of his then defunct treasure hunting company that he had embezzled and skipped out on paying anyone anything, which is part of the reason why the Mormon church continuously moved westward (though the local mobs who arose wherever the Mormons went didn't help). I'll let the actual content of the book of Mormon speak for itself, but the fact that a great number of Mormonism's earliest members were former devotees of then famed polygamist Jacob Cochran speaks volumes as to the intent and velocity of the early Mormon church.
You were not vague, you were very specific, and you were wrong. Dont try to pretend like you were talking about something else. You got caught flying off the handle when you were making things up.
|
On December 20 2012 05:03 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 03:31 farvacola wrote:On December 20 2012 00:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On December 19 2012 10:22 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 10:08 vOdToasT wrote:On December 19 2012 09:19 farvacola wrote:On December 19 2012 08:57 Cokefreak wrote:On December 19 2012 08:54 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 19 2012 08:47 Cokefreak wrote:
I actually got a book of Mormon a few years ago from two friendly Mormon dudes, one was from the States and the other from Russia IIRC, took a look at the book, read a bit from the start, hard to take seriously, some of the stuff in there was just way over the top. Because objectively the bible is much less farfetched, right? I'm mostly referring to the whole Joseph Smith thing, I'm not religious in any way. But you do have a point. As far as I'm concerned, outlandish fiction that has survived for thousands of years is simply worth more attention and respect than outlandish fiction from less than 200 years ago that reeks of an ill-conceived attempt at passing off polygamy. But perhaps that's just me. What does age have to do with it? I don't see how it's not just the same shit, different time period. The only thing that matters is what is in the book, not how old the book is. If the book of mormon is more silly / evil / stupid / factually incorrect than a version of the normal bible, then it deserves less respect. But only because of its contents, not its age. Well, in my opinion, one of the most useful frames of reference with which to behold the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is that which keeps the course of human history, society, and culture in mind. What I mean is that the Bible informs an incredible amount of Western historical procession, from moral logic to formal governmental progression to the concept that knowledge is valuable and worth pursuing, and accordingly I think understanding proper Biblical exegesis, be it secular or religious, helps to understand some of the roots of contemporary society. In fact, to put it in a certain sense, you and I, even though from entirely places and backgrounds, share a degree of familiarity that is necessarily entangled with the Bible via our respective cultural histories. The book of Mormon carries with it no deep roots, no great story to tell in reference to the track of human history. No, instead it tells the tale of angry, marginalized polygamists who were willing to believe practically anything if that meant that they could feel ok about their self-superiority and odd proclivities. Mormonism's history and books speak for themselves in a way Christianity cannot, for they are not worth knowing for any other reason than their criticism or admiration. This all being said, I do not hold the beliefs of others against them and would never look down upon a Mormon simply for their faith, and I have personally known both admirable and contemptible followers. But, when a Mormon wants to talk comparative theology, I will not hold back. The Book of Mormon tells the tale of marginalized angry polygamists? Maybe, if you haven't read a book, you shouldn't pretend to know what it says and then pontificate about its merit. Or at least take five minutes to look it up on Wikipedia so you don't sound like a COMPLETE idiot.. I apologize for being vague, I was referencing the background in which the text was written; the day after the book of Mormon was published, a host of converts showed up, many of which were polygamists, Christian magicians, or flat out criminals. In fact, Smith himself had evaded charges from employees of his then defunct treasure hunting company that he had embezzled and skipped out on paying anyone anything, which is part of the reason why the Mormon church continuously moved westward (though the local mobs who arose wherever the Mormons went didn't help). I'll let the actual content of the book of Mormon speak for itself, but the fact that a great number of Mormonism's earliest members were former devotees of then famed polygamist Jacob Cochran speaks volumes as to the intent and velocity of the early Mormon church. You were not vague, you were very specific, and you were wrong. Dont try to pretend like you were talking about something else. You got caught flying off the handle when you were making things up.
Nah, if you read the paragraph before, you'll see I was discussing historical context specifically, not scriptural content.
Well, in my opinion, one of the most useful frames of reference with which to behold the Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is that which keeps the course of human history, society, and culture in mind If you'd like to debate specifics contained within the Book of Mormon, I'll gladly join you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
