Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32073 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22468 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat: "My point has been made and if you don't get it, you just don't want to."
You're nit-picking because you can, not because it's right.
If you were really so offended that a temple marriage causes such family grief, you would be making all sorts of loud cries about the evils of eloping couples, couples going places to be married where not all family has the finances to go there to witness that wedding. You'd be pissed about couples marrying in hot air balloons or under the sea or ocean and such things where families can't see what's taking place. You're nit-picking because you can.
True Christian Not A Fake

Hyattsville, MD

#22469 Mar 20, 2013
There is ONE God - three distinct aspects to His person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Just like we have a body, a soul, and a spirit. Trinity - three in ONE - that is the great mystery and what is clearly taught in the both the Old and the New Testaments. Mormons have molded God into what they would like Him to be (to suit their own personal agendas / egos) rather than molded themselves into what God would have us to become. Trust me when I tell you that they worship a completely different god or gods and it is not the Most Holy, the One and Only, the Living and Mighty, Eternal God - I am.
True Christian Not A Fake

Hyattsville, MD

#22470 Mar 20, 2013
Father overtime wrote:
Can't wait to see Dana's signs at conference and the manti pageant. Keep on pretending that you know what your preaching sister!
Pretense? Now, Mormons are VERY familiar with that word!

Since: Sep 12

United States

#22472 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for clearing that up. She may attack you and call you a liar for doing so, but you have set the record straight.
How you been doing? I hope your family is doing well.
Hey Dana,
I've been doing fine. Just really busy with work as of late. The family is doing well, thanks for asking.:-) Hope all is well with you and yours.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#22473 Mar 20, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>I was just going off memory. It's hard to keep up with Dana's flood of responses... he replies to every post and when he can't keep up or doesn't know how to reply he just starts spamming ignorant one liners.

Thx for correcting me.:)
No problem, you're welcome.:-) I thought you might remember her.

“I will not keep calm”

Since: Mar 08

Raise hell...change the world

#22474 Mar 20, 2013
True Christian Not A Fake wrote:
There is ONE God - three distinct aspects to His person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Just like we have a body, a soul, and a spirit. Trinity - three in ONE - that is the great mystery and what is clearly taught in the both the Old and the New Testaments. Mormons have molded God into what they would like Him to be (to suit their own personal agendas / egos) rather than molded themselves into what God would have us to become. Trust me when I tell you that they worship a completely different god or gods and it is not the Most Holy, the One and Only, the Living and Mighty, Eternal God - I am.
Just an observation. Most true christians do not have to announce that they aren't fake.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22475 Mar 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll call Darren on BS and a liar. He is claiming he was active, read the BOM probably as many times as he read the PoGP and SOMEHOW, for up to two decades never heard a member read the curse doctrines and that he some how never read the curse doctrines when he read the BOM and PoGP time after time? I'll call him a liar. Why? Because he'll never be able to explain how each time he read the BOM or PoGP for up to two decades he missed the verses that spoke and described two dark skin curses.
You'll swallow anything with out questioning it's validity as long as it justifies your prejudiced, biased hate based view of Mormons.
And you won't believe anything that doesn't fit your brainwashed views, why? Because then Mormonism would actually have to be responsible.
The LDS church has to be responsible for what it teaches.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22476 Mar 20, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dana,
I've been doing fine. Just really busy with work as of late. The family is doing well, thanks for asking.:-) Hope all is well with you and yours.
I'm glad you're busy, that usually means you are paying your bills and feeding your family, something not always easy to do in Obama's America.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22477 Mar 20, 2013
Father overtime wrote:
Can't wait to see Dana's signs at conference and the manti pageant. Keep on pretending that you know what your preaching sister!
Well, you going too.(Keep waiting) I don't protest Mormons just going to church. I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, even for the Mormons. When Mormons are just attending their meetings I leave them alone. When the Mormon church is trying to promote itself to non-members in hopes of conversion, I will show up. That is what the Manti Pageant, or a Temple open houses is, a promotion, not a religious service. I don't carry signs there, I have one on one conversations with the members.

Enjoy Conference, I won't be there.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22478 Mar 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your perfect example of how you respond to a question aimed at a claim you made that now you don't want to give a civil intelligent answer for. Nice job as usual.
Sorry, but you have demonstrated that some things are beyond your scope of understanding and would be a waste of my time. issues that even a lot of LDS members understand. Why waste my time?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22479 Mar 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're nit-picking because you can, not because it's right.
If you were really so offended that a temple marriage causes such family grief, you would be making all sorts of loud cries about the evils of eloping couples, couples going places to be married where not all family has the finances to go there to witness that wedding. You'd be pissed about couples marrying in hot air balloons or under the sea or ocean and such things where families can't see what's taking place. You're nit-picking because you can.
Eloping isn't commanded by a church, the temple policy is. I fight Mormonism because it is the right thing to do.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22480 Mar 20, 2013
True Christian Not A Fake wrote:
There is ONE God - three distinct aspects/personalities to His person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Just like we have a body, a soul, and a spirit. Trinity - three in ONE - that is the great mystery and what is clearly taught in the both the Old and the New Testaments. Mormons have molded God into what they would like Him to be (to suit their own personal agendas / egos) rather than molded themselves into what God would have us to become. Trust me when I tell you that they worship a completely different god or gods and it is not the Most Holy, the One and Only, the Living and Mighty, Eternal God - I am.
(Hand waving) I have a question.
One God/one being/one Spirit with three distinct aspects/personalities as one God/one being/one Spirit. Each aspect having a name/title: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost.
How do you reason an explanation that this God you believe in that is made up of three different aspects/personalities, the comparative equivalent of a human having three different aspects/personalities, how do explain that this being you believe in decided to create two more different components of itself? For what purpose did it do this?
Next, why couldn't this being you believe in, why couldn't it have just remained a singular being and did as a singular being all that we believe it has done instead of as three separate aspects/personalities?
It would be much more logical that a single being came and created all that is by itself while using it's own spirit to influence all believers.
Thus it would have reasonably went, God created all that is. There would be no mention of a plurality of gods in Genesis. Through out the OT only the word God would have been used, not Lord. Or when this God needed to influence his people and answer prayers he would do it through a manifestation through his spirit.
In the NT there would be just God. God came to the earth to sacrifice himself as a human for our sins. He would never of prayed to himself, he would never have claimed one part of himself was great than the other, there would never have been visions of his false aspects/personalities by visionaries. They would have just seen him sitting on a sing thrown. And when he died, he would have came back to resurrect his body, visit his people for a bit and return to heaven as God.
But you have this one god having multiple personalities and one not knowing what the other is doing as one personality cried out to another in the garden and at it's death, you have one personality claiming it's less powerful then the other, two have forms but one doesn't to visionaries, one is constantly praying to another, one calls the other dad and one calls the other son and yet all this is happening from a single solitary God/being/spirit.
And you wonder why people have problems with this concept of one God three aspects/personalities?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22481 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And you won't believe anything that doesn't fit your brainwashed views, why? Because then Mormonism would actually have to be responsible.
The LDS church has to be responsible for what it teaches.
Bull crap...lol.
I'll believe and entertain many different possibilities. But for you to swallow hook line and sinker this Darren tale, that he being an active Mormon for 20 years AND A MISSIONARY, having read the BOM a half dozen times at least, having read the PoGP at least thrice, having sat through possibly 30 of 50 sundays a year in church and church classes which would be about a minimum, of 600 Sundays out of a max possibility of a 1000 Sundays in 20 years, and you're going to believe he never ever heard that Mormons had two dark skinned curse doctrines?
Dude, you better review the definition of the word 'gullible'.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22482 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you have demonstrated that some things are beyond your scope of understanding and would be a waste of my time. issues that even a lot of LDS members understand. Why waste my time?
Cowardice excuses only prove you a hypocrite of your claim to make claims and provide evidence/proof of that claim. You're your own liar.
Now do the right thing, go back and answer the question or prove the above true of yourself.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22483 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Eloping isn't commanded by a church, the temple policy is. I fight Mormonism because it is the right thing to do.
Don't pretend to be an idiot of what your claim was. It's a foolish move seriously.
You just complained bitterly how bad and evil temple marriages are because, people not worthy to enter the temple can't come to that civil ceremony and it causes family heart break and anger and resentment etc.
So the real essence of your complaint is you are against any couple getting married who marry in a manner whereby some or more family members cannot attend the civil ceremony. That is your complaint.
So there is no difference if a couple excludes family from a temple marriage or if they exclude family because they elope so family can't purposely attend.
It's the same fricking thing being done in or out of a temple clown. You can't separate the two through rational reasoning. Talk about self brain washed rhetoric...lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22484 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Eloping isn't commanded by a church, the temple policy is. I fight Mormonism because it is the right thing to do.
By the way, having a civil marriage in a temple isn't a commandment. Making up your own Mormon doctrines again?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22485 Mar 20, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Eloping isn't commanded by a church, the temple policy is. I fight Mormonism because it is the right thing to do.
You fight Mormonism by your hate and anger for it because you haven't learned yet what it means to be a Christian. You act as a Christian but you haven't learned to be a Christian yet. I have family that aren't Mormons and are Christians by thought, faith and deed and don't spend their time hating and warring with other religious beliefs. A couple in my family, they get sent to the islands by their church to preach the Bible and to do civil service acts like building church buildings, digging wells, repairing homes, tending to the sick and needy. And their pleasant to be around. And they don't persecute other peoples religious beliefs. That's a Christian in my book.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22487 Mar 21, 2013
But even well-meaning white church members, whom Smith says will be instrumental in bringing about the changes he calls for, will inevitably come up against barriers.

Mormons for Equality and Social Justice activist Suzette Smith (no relation to Darron), says that her group is glad to support an effort to eradicate persisting stereotypes among members.

"We are having some conversations," Smith said. "But I prefer not to say anything about the form our actions might take, because it is still in its genesis."

However, Smith notes that it is not "the purpose of our group to be in conflict with, or question our church leaders."

Perhaps an even bigger barrier than overcoming the hierarchy will be overcoming history.
As Good as Gospel

Although some debate remains over whether the priesthood ban originated with church founder Joseph Smith, scholars agree that Smith's successor, Brigham Young, codified the practice into official policy in 1852, eight years after Smith's death. The historical record tends to exonerate Smith's role.

Nineteen years prior to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Smith ran for president of the United States, vowing to abolish slavery. He undoubtedly permitted, and is believed to have performed the priesthood ordination for Elijah Abel, a black man, in 1836. Abel was subsequently elevated to the rank of general authority, a distinction which, to date, has been held by one other person of African descent.

"If that's any indication of how Joseph Smith was," says Darron Smith, "it should be a type and shadow of what the church would have been had he lived." But at the same time, the progressive prophet was also known for espousing the belief that blacks were descendants of the accursed biblical figure Ham.

For his part, Brigham Young's blueprint for racism is infamously preserved in the voluminous Journal of Discourses, a trove of transcribed spiritual guidance from early church leaders. "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture," Young declared in 1870. In a sermon 15 years earlier, he preached these words:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man [Cain] that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam.[A]nd the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof."

As recently as 1966, in the seminal text Mormon Doctrine, the late Elder Bruce R. McConkie offered the culmination of a century's worth of Mormon thought on the subject: "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty."

Shortly after the ban was lifted, McConkie gave what stands today as the church's lone, semiofficial analysis of the revelation:

"Forget everything I have said, or what Brigham Young or whomsoever has said that is contrary to the present revelation," McConkie admonished the Saints at a BYU symposium in August 1978. "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

However, McConkie didn't necessarily believe the ban on blacks was misguided. As he instructed in his updated 1979 release of the widely circulated Mormon Doctrine, just as the ban was divinely repealed, its inception was also God's doing.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22488 Mar 21, 2013
In part, McConkie wrote: "In all past ages and until recent times in this dispensation, the Lord did not offer the priesthood to the Negroes."

Church spokesman Dale Bills declined a request for interviews with church officials. Instead, he e-mailed the church's boilerplate statement.

"For over a century male members of African descent were not given the priesthood for reasons that we believe are known to God," the statement read. "Various opinions about the reason for this restriction were superceded by the 1978 revelation."

Bills declined to clarify the church's operating definition of the word "superceded" which, according to Webster's, could mean the difference between expunging those reasons, or simply setting them aside.
The Unexplainable

Darron Smith's wife, Joy, who is white, says she attempted to help other white church members understand just how those outmoded racist teachings persist, but was soundly rebuked for her effort. As Joy tells it, she was leading a standard lesson for the Relief Society sisters in her Utah County ward about "following the prophets." But she veered from the approved materials, raising the question of whether all of the teachings of Mormon prophets should be obeyed - even if those teachings happen to be manifestly racist, such as the church's well-documented condemnation of interracial marriage.

As Brigham Young declared in 1863, "if the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot." Young added: "This will always be so."

In a 1954 lecture at BYU, arguing against desegregation, Elder Mark E. Peterson said: "the Negro is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people sit. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. He will not be satisfied until he achieves [absorption] by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not intermarry with the Negro."

With the announcement of the priesthood revelation in the June 17, 1978, edition of the LDS Church News, that prejudice was again made clear in an article headlined "Interracial Marriage Discouraged." So even as some things change, others stay the same.

"This racist folklore continues to affect my family," Joy Smith said, explaining why she sought to challenge her sisters' attitudes toward the words of the prophets. But when she continued with the interracial marriage example, Joy says the Relief Society president repeatedly interrupted to tell her she was "out of bounds" for criticizing church leaders.

She finished the lesson, but before her next turn in the monthly rotation, was released from her calling for not following the manual. Soon after, Joy Smith stopped going to church altogether.

"I'm just not going to beat my head against a brick wall anymore. I've had enough."

She also decided it had been enough for the couple's two daughters, who she says face a "double whammy" in the white- and male-dominated church.

Smith's falling out in 2001 came at about the same time her husband began work on Black and Mormon.

"Darron is so concerned about the African Americans joining the church who have experienced what he has experienced" Joy said, "he wants to be there for them."

More to come...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22489 Mar 21, 2013
The Lost Black Sheep

For Eugene Orr, life as a Saint has been a paradoxical mixed bag. Work brought him from Lewiston, Calif., to Clearfield, Utah, in 1968. While he was packing up to leave, Orr's friends prepared him for "Mormon country" with an eerie admonition: "Those Mormons there claim to have the only true church here on the face of this earth, but they don't like blacks," Orr recalled.

As fortune would have it, though, Orr found his induction to Mormondom a blessing that's borne fruit ever since. Describing that fateful encounter, however, it sounds more like the prelude to a Mississippi nightmare.

Late one rain-soaked evening in March 1968, Orr was skipping between puddles along the sidewalk in front of the downtown Salt Lake City Greyhound bus terminal when a young white woman "comes out of the swinging door with newspaper overhead, and runs smack into me," he said. "I graciously offered my umbrella," which the woman accepted, allowing Orr to escort her to her car.

Taking a stab in the dark, Orr asked the damsel if she "knew any Mormons." She did. In fact, she was one. The conversation turned quickly to the black priesthood ban, whereupon the woman beckoned Orr into the car for a chat. As though he felt obliged, Orr stressed that "there was no danger for her, and she felt no danger."

The woman couldn't satisfy Orr's curiosity with what little she'd gleaned from scriptural study, so she arranged a meeting with the missionaries for the following Sunday. Orr didn't find their explanations much more informative, or acceptable, for that matter.

"One missionary said if I joined the church, and became a righteous person, my skin color would become white from black," Orr recalled, speaking by phone from his home in Alberta, Canada.

In a last ditch effort, the woman called upon a black church member she knew of, Darius Gray, whose testimony made all the difference. Orr was baptized Aug. 23, 1968. A month later, he married the woman. Today, they're known as Mr. and Mrs. Eugene and Lei Orr.

Unlike the wedding, though, Orr's shotgun conversion was not without consternation. He ultimately had to reconcile for himself why the "one true church" would deny him its most sacred ordinations.

"There's a process you have to go through to understand truth," Orr explained. "And understanding the Holy Ghost, knowing that the Holy Ghost bears truth I knew what they were telling me about black people was not true. Many people don't perceive that through the Holy Ghost; they lean on man's understanding and that's why they were lost."

Although there would be many more tests, that personal conviction has sustained Orr's faith. He is currently an active member, and serves as the first counselor in his ward's high priesthood quorum.

Orr wasn't deterred on his wedding day, when he and his bride suffered the indignity of a condescending lecture from the officiating bishop. >From the altar, Orr said the bishop contemplated "how God was going to accept this union; how it was going to work out in the eternities."

More to come...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North Salt Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
More Problems with the Book of Mormon Fri Nancy 35
Mitt Romney is a turd Fri Bull Durham 36
White men! Date a woman with bi-racial kids? (May '11) Thu Malcolm 85
News In a national first, LGBT advocates sue Utah sc... Thu StraightYOP 16
News Mormons: We are Christians, too (Apr '07) Wed Kathi 28,896
Utah sucks Dec 6 Lajeanna 3
why mormon missionaries have sex with married w... (Jun '12) Dec 2 Robin 34

North Salt Lake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

North Salt Lake Mortgages