Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 Full story: CNN 32,004

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.

Full Story

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22979 Apr 2, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol..."There will be no marrying or given in marriage because there will be no people living in marriage."...are you bonkers? What in the *ell do already married couples have to do with non-married people? Are the married couples marrying non married couples? That's the logic you just stated in saying..."There will be no marrying or given in marriage because there will be no people living in marriage."
......
Duh, if people aren't going to be living together married, there won't be any marrying or given in marriage. How can you justify allowing one without allowing the other if that is how God wants us to live together in he next life?
Now this is an actual relevant question, you thought outside the box...
"If God was going to keep people married in the next life, he would certainly also allow people to marry. Why would he have one without the other? Doesn't make sense."
The answers to this you won't like as they have implications to possible answers the NT doesn't claim either way pro or con.
What if marriage, one of the most sacred covenants God told man to partake in, one of his first commandments, what if God gave an allowance for marriage in this life only and not the next? That would explain Jesus's statement that marrying and being given in marriage, it won't happen in the afterlife because God commanded marriage of us in this life.
No matter how you twist it, Jesus clearly is saying that in this life people marry, in the next life people will not be. I don't base my faith on speculations.
Marriage is a sacred covenant God instituted for all of us to obey and partake in regardless. He didn't make any amendments for sexual orientation or people that wouldn't want to marry or people that would have no interest in relationships and marrying. It was a commandment given to each of us in this mortal probation. There was never any option given for marrying or being given in marriage in this life and in the afterlife. Marriage was a commandment for this life only so far as it was worded by God.
And that is what I've been saying. People are only married in this life, not the next.
And Jesus's statement that their would be no marrying or being given in marriage in the afterlife confirms marriage is an action of just mortality only which implies you have just this life to obey that command to marry.
Agreed, but the marriage is over at death:
Romans 7:2–3
2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Because she is no longer married.
If you read the old Jewish writings on this topic, which you should to understand these verses better, 2000 years ago Jews not only entertained the belief of eternal marriage, but some also believed in marrying and being given in marriage in the afterlife. They believed this latter thing because they thought if you didn't get married in this life, then surely God would afford those not married in this life to be married in the next life. It made sense to them to believe that. And the sadducees new these Jewish beliefs. And Jesus would have known them also.
Again, I don't care about Jewish writings on the subject. I follow Jesus, and Jesus said we are to be like the angels i.e. not married.
Twist it all you want, but you are wrong. A blind man can see that.

Since: Sep 12

Branson, MO

#22980 Apr 2, 2013
Jubmo wrote:
<quoted text>The part that you are wearing diapers, spiritual diapers from the temple.......hihihi
Does your mom know you're playing on the computer?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22981 Apr 2, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's go at this as it was said.
Matt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Matt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Their is Jesus's answer. "..Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." The answer did not answer their question. Jesus didn't tell them who's wife she'd belong to in the afterlife or, that she would be none of their wife in the afterlife. Jesus didn't answer the question. So no matter how many times you want to think he gave an answer, he actually didn't.
If you want to pretend that was all of the answer. But everyone else reading these verses know it clearly is not. He goes on to say in this life people get married and live together that way. In the next life, they will not. You are only quoting part of his answer to distort and deceive.
Now what Jesus did say as a FOLLOW UP REMARK that really had nothing to do with their actual question was...
Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Angels in heaven that never came to this earth, they never had a chance to obey the command to marry as God commanded it of us that would come to this earth. This answer reflected a belief of Jews that in the afterlife, those of us coming here that didn't marry in mortality, Jews believed we would have a second chance to marry in the afterlife.
How could the Saducces who didn't even believe in the resurrection believe that marriage was eternal?
Again Jesus's answer here had nothing to do with whose husband would the widow belong to.
Sure it does, none of them. Nada, zip. Clear as bell.
Jesus was addressing a false belief that God allowed us in mortality to have two chances at marriage, one in mortality and one in the afterlife. Jesus was elaborating that belief was false and wrong and not a teaching of God. He was stating that those who didn't marry in mortality, they would be as the angels in heaven, single and unmarried.
No he isn't, or he would have said she would have been married to Brother "?". He didn't. He was addressing a false belief that there wasn't going to be a resurrection, and stating that people weren't going to be living together in marriage, or there would still be marrying and be given in marriage.
Jesus's answers in no way addressed the actual question about a marriage in mortality continuing to exist in the afterlife.
Then why did some listening to him say: "Master, thou hast well said?"
Jumbo

Salt Lake City, UT

#22982 Apr 2, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your mom know you're playing on the computer?
Do you know that I am fanny Alger's reincarnated spirit and Joseph smith owes me alimony? Hihihi

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22983 Apr 2, 2013
Jumbo wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know that I am fanny Alger's reincarnated spirit and Joseph smith owes me alimony? Hihihi
Hey! Look who's back! It's Jumbo. The medicated, alter ego of Jubmo. Feeling a little more evened out? Did the voices in your head quit talking to you?

Since: Sep 12

West Plains, MO

#22984 Apr 2, 2013
Jumbo wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know that I am fanny Alger's reincarnated spirit and Joseph smith owes me alimony? Hihihi
I think you might be experiencing a grandiose delusion as a result of missing your meds earlier.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22985 Apr 2, 2013
Jumbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey angel is of a different species, so are human and god! Lucifer and the third that followed him are angels. Lucifer is an angel not a literal spirit child of god.... U moron need to differentiate the different species. God is the creator and we and angels are his creation or creatures. We will never become the creator or a god! Go shove your eternal progressive up your ass, it's false!!!
You're a bore....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22986 Apr 2, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He gave David Sauls horses also, doesn't mean he God would have approved of marrying them either.
To be blameless, one had to be married to only one wife. God started marriages with only one man and one woman.
This was one of your more pathetically stupid attempts to prove how pathetically stupid you can be in a post and you succeeded!
Show me a single place in the entire Bible where God gave a king or prophet or leader of his people "things" that he stated he was against giving them, but he did it anyway. Show me that and you'll show evidence for your opinion.
Next, when did 'BLAMELESS' ever equate to meaning being the husband of one wife? What is wrong with you? Were you drunk when you wrote this post? Being blameless has absolutely not a single fricking thing to do with being married. Why don't you try Googling "what does being blameless mean in the Bible?" You might try Googling "having a blameless character". Nothing relative about marriage will show up, just telling you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22987 Apr 2, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh, if people aren't going to be living together married, there won't be any marrying or given in marriage.
lol...man you are really thick for understanding things. You don't know if people married in this life won't remain married in the next life. You don't know that. There is nothing in the Bible that directly states for or against marriages in this life extending into the next life. You can have your belief all you want as did ancient Jews have their belief that marriage was eternal or like Mormons believe marriage is eternal. But your claim of what you say Jesus said when he didn't say it, you are your own liar.
Jesus said there would be no marrying and no giving in marriage in the resurrection.
Jesus said not a thing if marriages in this life would or wouldn't continue on in the next life.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22988 Apr 2, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
No matter how you twist it, Jesus clearly is saying that in this life people marry, in the next life people will not be. I don't base my faith on speculations.
<quoted text>
And that is what I've been saying. People are only married in this life, not the next.
No, he never said any such thing except for how you twist what he didn't say to pretend he said what you claim it is.
Jesus never answered the question. You're stuck on stupid. Jesus didn't answer the question. You're stuck on stupid.
When you undo yourself from being stuck on stupid, AND read that entire conversation IN CONTEXT, you will see that Jesus didn't answer them their question.
Jesus's answer actually aligned itself with the Sadducees disbelief in a resurrection. The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection at all. And what did Jesus tell them? He said there is no marrying and no giving in marriage in the resurrection. So even though Jesus didn't state there would be no resurrection, he stated there would be no marrying or being given in marriage there which the sadducees would have liked to of heard. No belief in a resurrection to the sadducees meant no marrying or being given in marriage there. Jesus to them agreed with part of their thinking.
But Jesus didn't answer them their question.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22989 Apr 2, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
Agreed, but the marriage is over at death:
Romans 7:2–3
2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Because she is no longer married.
<quoted text>
Again, I don't care about Jewish writings on the subject. I follow Jesus, and Jesus said we are to be like the angels i.e. not married.
Twist it all you want, but you are wrong. A blind man can see that.
That verse discusses a state of being in mortality. It doesn't address how things may or may not continue on in the afterlife.
And your error is not caring about Jewish writings. Jews got their laws from God, not a man. For you not to care about Jewish writings and beliefs is to disrespect God himself and you seem cool about doing that as usual.
And you are blind to the word of God. You limit God. You tell God what he believes and what he doesn't believe. You tell God you know things better than he does. You have tossed all of God into a book with a beginning and an ending and you tell God that is where his existence is bound to. God said to do as he did. You say it's okay to make exceptions to what God said.
When you stop telling God how things are, I'll wager his Spirit might visit you a bit more often than it does at present. In the meantime, Satan loves a guy like you that tells God how things are and he'll spend a lot of time convincing you to maintain that belief you have, that you know what's best for God to think and believe.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22990 Apr 2, 2013
When was the last time, if ever, you’ve been proud of and praised God for your sin?

LDS:
Adam & Eve Praise God for Their Sin
Moses 5:11; “And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”

Christianity:
Genesis 3:9-16; “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22991 Apr 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That verse discusses a state of being in mortality. It doesn't address how things may or may not continue on in the afterlife.
Sure it does, if the woman was still married to her husband for eternity, she would still be under the laws regarding marriage even if her husband were dead.
And your error is not caring about Jewish writings. Jews got their laws from God, not a man. For you not to care about Jewish writings and beliefs is to disrespect God himself and you seem cool about doing that as usual.
I do care about the Jewish writings called the Old Testament. It does not teach eternal marriage. What you are quoting is not scripture.
And you are blind to the word of God.
Those writings aren't scripture, even to the Jews. Opinion, no matter how old it is, is still opinion.
You limit God. You tell God what he believes and what he doesn't believe.
I tell you what he said, and don't make up teachings that aren't there.
You tell God you know things better than he does. You have tossed all of God into a book with a beginning and an ending and you tell God that is where his existence is bound to.
He is the one who bound those books together so I can learn what he is. You want to add fairytales and teachings that can't be found.
God said to do as he did. You say it's okay to make exceptions to what God said.
You are the one makes laws that don't exist.
When you stop telling God how things are, I'll wager his Spirit might visit you a bit more often than it does at present.
He did, that is why I left Mormonism.
In the meantime, Satan loves a guy like you that tells God how things are and he'll spend a lot of time convincing you to maintain that belief you have, that you know what's best for God to think and believe.
You are the one making Satan happy by calling evil, good, and good, evil.

You have more then shown that your knowledge of scripture is wrapped beyond redemption or salvation.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22992 Apr 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he never said any such thing except for how you twist what he didn't say to pretend he said what you claim it is.
Jesus never answered the question. You're stuck on stupid. Jesus didn't answer the question. You're stuck on stupid.
When you undo yourself from being stuck on stupid, AND read that entire conversation IN CONTEXT, you will see that Jesus didn't answer them their question.
Jesus's answer actually aligned itself with the Sadducees disbelief in a resurrection. The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection at all. And what did Jesus tell them? He said there is no marrying and no giving in marriage in the resurrection. So even though Jesus didn't state there would be no resurrection, he stated there would be no marrying or being given in marriage there which the sadducees would have liked to of heard. No belief in a resurrection to the sadducees meant no marrying or being given in marriage there. Jesus to them agreed with part of their thinking.
But Jesus didn't answer them their question.
I can't help your inability to read and comprehend. Everyone else sees he is answering the question. Only the brainwashed and brain dead would not.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22993 Apr 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
This was one of your more pathetically stupid attempts to prove how pathetically stupid you can be in a post and you succeeded!
Show me a single place in the entire Bible where God gave a king or prophet or leader of his people "things" that he stated he was against giving them, but he did it anyway. Show me that and you'll show evidence for your opinion.
Next, when did 'BLAMELESS' ever equate to meaning being the husband of one wife? What is wrong with you? Were you drunk when you wrote this post? Being blameless has absolutely not a single fricking thing to do with being married. Why don't you try Googling "what does being blameless mean in the Bible?" You might try Googling "having a blameless character". Nothing relative about marriage will show up, just telling you.
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

Still can't see the forest because of all those trees, can you?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22994 Apr 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he never said any such thing except for how you twist what he didn't say to pretend he said what you claim it is.
Jesus never answered the question. You're stuck on stupid. Jesus didn't answer the question. You're stuck on stupid.
When you undo yourself from being stuck on stupid, AND read that entire conversation IN CONTEXT, you will see that Jesus didn't answer them their question.
Jesus's answer actually aligned itself with the Sadducees disbelief in a resurrection. The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection at all. And what did Jesus tell them? He said there is no marrying and no giving in marriage in the resurrection. So even though Jesus didn't state there would be no resurrection, he stated there would be no marrying or being given in marriage there which the sadducees would have liked to of heard. No belief in a resurrection to the sadducees meant no marrying or being given in marriage there. Jesus to them agreed with part of their thinking.
But Jesus didn't answer them their question.
Pitiful, just pitiful.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#22995 Apr 3, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
... blah, blah, blah...
Dude, you make me laugh!

Do you realize you are debating with God?

Dana's doctrines are just wrong, multiple marriages existed in the Biblical times also...

Take Solomon for instance.

//1 Kings 3:
5 In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee.

Solomon asks for wisdom verses 6-10

11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;

12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

God gave him more than what he asked for:

13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.

God made an agreement with Solomon:

14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.

Solomon' wisdom:

16 ¶Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him.

17 And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house.

18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house.

19 And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it.

20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom.

21 And when I rose in the morning to give my child suck, behold, it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning, behold, it was not my son, which I did bear.

22 And the other woman said, Nay; but the living is my son, and the dead is thy son. And this said, No; but the dead is thy son, and the living is my son. Thus they spake before the king.

23 Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.

24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.

25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.

26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.

27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.

28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.

//1 Kings 4:
21 And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.

//1 Kings 9:
God appears to Solomon again and promises:
great blessings if the Israelites are obedient and
great cursings if they forsake Him

During Solomon' 40 year reign as King he had 700 wives, and 300 concubines...

//1 Kings 11:
Solomon marries non-Israelite women, and his wives turned his heart to the worshiping false gods and THAT is when God took his blessings away.

God did not take the blessings away for marrying the women, he took it because Solomon turned his heart way from God.
Father overtime

Salt Lake City, UT

#22996 Apr 3, 2013
That is why I've given up on Dana. Debating with scripture is pointless.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22998 Apr 3, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you make me laugh!
Do you realize you are debating with God?
Dana's doctrines are just wrong, multiple marriages existed in the Biblical times also...
Polygamy did happened, and God allowed it. But Mormonism taught that it was essential to your salvation. That isn't Biblical or Christian. God set the standard in Genesis with Adam and Eve. Carol is back! LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22999 Apr 3, 2013
Father overtime wrote:
That is why I've given up on Dana. Debating with scripture is pointless.
I know, I keep getting it right. That's why I'll never stop debating scriptures with Mormons, they don't.

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
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 25 min piratefighting 26,788
last post wins! (Jul '11) 12 hr Concerned_American 351
Utah Ophthalmologists Improve Vision During Cat... (Nov '13) Tue Pavlos Lombardi 3
Are vitamins from USANA worth price? (Mar '08) Dec 12 Tagumpay 217
Police dog finds Utah boy who falls into manhole Dec 10 Independent1 19
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... Dec 10 DNF 754
Utah man, 77, charged for sunbathing nude Dec 9 DILF 8
North Salt Lake Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

North Salt Lake People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

North Salt Lake News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in North Salt Lake

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:50 am PST