Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CNN

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.

Comments
24,501 - 24,520 of 32,001 Comments Last updated Friday Jul 25

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25737
May 16, 2013
 
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well according to you, I didn't break anything because it wasn't a commandment. And this forum isn't a debate on whether I was a great member or not. It has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Mormonism.
Actually our debates have revolved around you claiming you were such an attentive, active Mormon for 30 years and you knew some of everything about Mormonism and that's why you have claimed you knew what you were talking about when debating Mormonism.
And these debates have everything to do with the truthfulness of Mormon history and how their either lied about or spoken correctly of. You strive to lie and I strive to correct.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25738
May 16, 2013
 
Dana Robertson wrote:
It would be if I had mentioned him. I didn't. More of your deceptions for the cult.
You're right. You stated Smith excommunicated people for breaking the WoW that wasn't a commandment that even he and Emma didn't observe all the time. Liar for Jesus. Smith would have had to of excommunicate himself first before he excommunicated anyone else.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25739
May 16, 2013
 
Dana Robertson wrote:
It was commandment enough that he excomunicated people for breaking it:
Hypocrisy
Orson Pratt once quipped: "I do not wonder that the world say that the Latter-day Saints do not believe their own revelations. Why? Because we do not practice them" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, p. 104).
We have shown that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, did not keep the Word of Wisdom, yet, according to Joseph Fielding Smith, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a member of the church could not hold an office unless he observed it: "... Joseph Smith, who presided, gave his decision as follows:'No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office after having the word of wisdom properly taught him; and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with or obey it.' This decision was confirmed by unanimous vote" (Essentials in Church History, p. 169).
It is certainly perplexing that Joseph Smith could break the Word of Wisdom and yet retain his position as president of the church. The thing that makes this especially strange is that when a member of the church did not observe the Word of Wisdom, this was sometimes used against him if he was tried for his fellowship. Leonard J. Arrington stated: "Moreover, when a council at Far West tried a high church official (David Whitmer) for his fellowship, the first of the five charges against him was that he did not observe the Word of Wisdom" (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, p. 40). As we have already shown, when Almon W. Babbitt was charged with not observing the Word of Wisdom, his only defense was that he "had taken the liberty to break the Word of Wisdom, from the example of President Joseph Smith, Jun., and others."
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech18.ht...
You see hypocrisy because you're looking from the outside in and with limited understanding and reasoning for why things were the way they were then.
Did you know even hot soup and hot chocolate was forbidden at one time? That ALL hot drinks, even hot water flavoured or not was frowned against. Wine wasn't considered a strong drink by many members so they still drank it. And most members ate meat without being observant of the sparingly part.
The WoW was a work in progress in those early decades. Than the 1900s came along and "hot drinks" took on a complete different definition. Now today hot drinks has been levied at caffeinated drinks hot or cold.
So you can just claim hypocrisy. Or one can also understand the WoW seems not to be totally understood any more today than it was understood in Smith's time.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25740
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You see hypocrisy because you're looking from the outside in and with limited understanding and reasoning for why things were the way they were then.
Did you know even hot soup and hot chocolate was forbidden at one time? That ALL hot drinks, even hot water flavoured or not was frowned against. Wine wasn't considered a strong drink by many members so they still drank it. And most members ate meat without being observant of the sparingly part.
The WoW was a work in progress in those early decades. Than the 1900s came along and "hot drinks" took on a complete different definition. Now today hot drinks has been levied at caffeinated drinks hot or cold.
So you can just claim hypocrisy. Or one can also understand the WoW seems not to be totally understood any more today than it was understood in Smith's time.
I've read the stories of married couples who weren't given their temple recommends because they admitted to having oral sex..tell them the WOW is optional.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25741
May 16, 2013
 
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have proven that again, you are ignorant in your claims. It was you who printed the fantasy that:
"If he was a racist as you claim, he must of been a really nice racist eh? Seems he held callings where he served all colours and went out of his way to help people of all colours. I'm thinking you're dad wasn't the racist you claim he was. A real racist doesn't do the things he did for people of other colours and ethnic backgrounds for as long as he did them while being a lifelong Mormon."
It didn't happen.
You haven't proven anything as usual. You made a statement that leveled your dad to being a racist all his life. Yet you failed to explain some things concerning his 'racism' while being a lifelong 'active' Mormon.
If anything didn't happen it's your allegations of your father I would wager is the truth.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25742
May 16, 2013
 
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep trying, but it has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Mormonism.
Your reaction has everything to do with the way you don't use truth to attack Mormonism.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25743
May 16, 2013
 
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the stories of married couples who weren't given their temple recommends because they admitted to having oral sex..tell them the WOW is optional.
I'll call you a liar right off the bat as you lie for effect. I'm quite familiar with some anti-Mormon sites that don't have that info and if they did, that news would make their top headline news for a few years, that to have a temple recommend Mormon leaders have said certain sexual actions behind the closed doors between a married Mormon couple can never be performed. Liar for effect.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25744
May 16, 2013
 
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the stories of married couples who weren't given their temple recommends because they admitted to having oral sex..tell them the WOW is optional.
You have my apology.

I have been conditioned to reading so much sarcastic lying BS from you about Mormons that I doubt anything you claim of Mormons any more.
I did some reading.
Prior to Kimball, sex in the bedroom was that for Mormons.
During Kimballs leadership in a time era of 'free love' and 'shacking up' etc that was flooding our society, Kimball did set some strict guidelines against many sexual acts by Mormon couples but temple Mormon couples especially including oral sex.
But after the kimball era, the leadership has 'loosened' up a bit on it's 'Kimball era guidelines of what not to do in the bedroom' if you wanted a temple recommend.

Their latest stance...
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic...

For the past two decades, the First Presidency’s guidance about sexual relations between married persons has typically been phrased in terms of the appropriate purposes of sexual relations between husband and wife, as opposed to addressing the appropriateness of specific acts. Here are a couple examples:

[S]exual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.[6]

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.[7]

[6] Church Handbook, 1998.

[7] True to the Faith, 2004.

See, I know when to be nice and admit I was wrong. You should try it sometime :)

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25745
May 16, 2013
 
Thank you

Thank you for accusing me of 8 crimes, of which none have been actually presented.

So you're off to a good start
Father overtime wrote:
Behold, Osirica the black supremacist. You have displayed the 8 attributes of one that agrees with genicide. Congratulations!!!

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25746
May 16, 2013
 
Ok do you understand it's not a 50/50 thing?

The passage has NOTHING implied about SKIN COLOR. A "MARK" which was derived from "AN OATH".

And a MARK...

tell me this...

how do you even consider that "a mark" means "entire body changed color"?

Why don't you just accept it was a mark?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that Cain did or didn't have his skin colour changed. Since I don't know I can't take a side.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25747
May 16, 2013
 
In fact...

No Surprise

The Bible says in English that God set a mark upon Cain.

WHy don't you accept what the Bible says? A mark is a discoloration on one part of the surface.

Why don't you accept what the bible says?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25748
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually our debates have revolved around you claiming you were such an attentive, active Mormon for 30 years and you knew some of everything about Mormonism and that's why you have claimed you knew what you were talking about when debating Mormonism.
And these debates have everything to do with the truthfulness of Mormon history and how their either lied about or spoken correctly of. You strive to lie and I strive to correct.
You're so full of crap you need a enema.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25749
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. You stated Smith excommunicated people for breaking the WoW that wasn't a commandment that even he and Emma didn't observe all the time. Liar for Jesus. Smith would have had to of excommunicate himself first before he excommunicated anyone else.
I led you to the water, I can't force you to drink it. Stay intentionally stupid.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25750
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right. You stated Smith excommunicated people for breaking the WoW that wasn't a commandment that even he and Emma didn't observe all the time. Liar for Jesus. Smith would have had to of excommunicate himself first before he excommunicated anyone else.
And again, you're trying to save face about the fact I didn't mention Young. Lair for Smith.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25751
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You see hypocrisy because you're looking from the outside in and with limited understanding and reasoning for why things were the way they were then.
I see hypocrisy because I'm not an idiot for the Mormon church. A 3 yr old could see this one.
Did you know even hot soup and hot chocolate was forbidden at one time? That ALL hot drinks, even hot water flavoured or not was frowned against. Wine wasn't considered a strong drink by many members so they still drank it. And most members ate meat without being observant of the sparingly part.
A point that is pointless. Smith did excommunicate people for breaking the WoW.
The WoW was a work in progress in those early decades. Than the 1900s came along and "hot drinks" took on a complete different definition. Now today hot drinks has been levied at caffeinated drinks hot or cold.
A revelation from God was a "work in progress"? Couldn't God make himself clear? More proof it was all made up crap from Smith and had nothing to do with God.
So you can just claim hypocrisy. Or one can also understand the WoW seems not to be totally understood any more today than it was understood in Smith's time.
When you claim God said "don't do" something to you directly and you do it, while excommunicating people doing it, that is hypocrisy.

Any child can understand it.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25752
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proven anything as usual. You made a statement that leveled your dad to being a racist all his life. Yet you failed to explain some things concerning his 'racism' while being a lifelong 'active' Mormon.
If anything didn't happen it's your allegations of your father I would wager is the truth.
The fact you think you know more about my father than me is pathetic. You have reached a new low in ignorance. You know less about him then you do even Mormonism.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25753
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proven anything as usual. You made a statement that leveled your dad to being a racist all his life. Yet you failed to explain some things concerning his 'racism' while being a lifelong 'active' Mormon.
If anything didn't happen it's your allegations of your father I would wager is the truth.
And you are trying to be a cheap ass Daniel Peterson by attacking the messenger, instead of the message. My Dad as nothing to do with the teachings of Mormonism or it's truthfulness. He was just stupid enough to fall for them.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25754
May 17, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You have my apology.
I have been conditioned to reading so much sarcastic lying BS from you about Mormons that I doubt anything you claim of Mormons any more.
I did some reading.
Prior to Kimball, sex in the bedroom was that for Mormons.
During Kimballs leadership in a time era of 'free love' and 'shacking up' etc that was flooding our society, Kimball did set some strict guidelines against many sexual acts by Mormon couples but temple Mormon couples especially including oral sex.
But after the kimball era, the leadership has 'loosened' up a bit on it's 'Kimball era guidelines of what not to do in the bedroom' if you wanted a temple recommend.
Their latest stance...
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/03/17/prophetic...
For the past two decades, the First Presidency’s guidance about sexual relations between married persons has typically been phrased in terms of the appropriate purposes of sexual relations between husband and wife, as opposed to addressing the appropriateness of specific acts. Here are a couple examples:
[S]exual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.[6]
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love within marriage.[7]
[6] Church Handbook, 1998.
[7] True to the Faith, 2004.
See, I know when to be nice and admit I was wrong. You should try it sometime :)
More proof they just make it up as they go along.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25755
May 17, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
Thank you
Thank you for accusing me of 8 crimes, of which none have been actually presented.
So you're off to a good start
<quoted text>
It's a common cheap Mormon trick when they can't deny the truth. I've been called everything in the book by Mormons because I have been out spoken about Mormonism perversions. When you have a sick disgusting excuse for a faith, you have to get in the gutter to defend it.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25756
May 17, 2013
 
osirica wrote:
In fact...
No Surprise
The Bible says in English that God set a mark upon Cain.
WHy don't you accept what the Bible says? A mark is a discoloration on one part of the surface.
Why don't you accept what the bible says?
Because he would have to then admit that Mormonism is full of crap.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

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 ]
•••