Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32098 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.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28173 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>The hater doing her hating work is still in the room? Who doesn't pay tithes? I know many Mos that don't pay tithes or maybe pay them here and there and I know Mos that pay them like they pay their rent on time every month.
Really? Should a mission president also be a corporation? Should the lizards claim there are no paid "local" clergy when in fact they are lying? Should "stipends" involve hundreds of thousands of dollars? Tax evaders are criminals and the cult not only encourages these crimes, they make them a requirement. Mormonism is the grifter rotary club of religions.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28174 Oct 10, 2013
Oh darn, he was using his "just a man" voice.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/5...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#28175 Oct 10, 2013
NoMo wrote:
Oh darn, he was using his "just a man" voice.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/5...
Man voice? lol...fricking funny! He was spot on! What he said was accurate and true. "Oct. 5, Christofferson said, "Some (note he didn't say all so to be accurate in the usage of the word 'some'?)feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."
He changed it and I think he should have left it. Far left feminists are against how the traditional family is. These far left feminists are for fatherless bastard children whom are to be raised by a dozen child agencies from birth to HS graduation while they work. And if financially able they hire a nanny to care for the emotional well being of their child they won't give them because the job is more important than the child. This present generation is full of far left feminists opting out of having a male counterpart so they can have bastard kids they usually have others raise for them while they busy themselves with work and whatever.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#28176 Oct 10, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Should a mission president also be a corporation? Should the lizards claim there are no paid "local" clergy when in fact they are lying? Should "stipends" involve hundreds of thousands of dollars? Tax evaders are criminals and the cult not only encourages these crimes, they make them a requirement. Mormonism is the grifter rotary club of religions.
First, they don't claim there's 'absolutely' no paid clergy as you say it. If it was as literal as a statement as you erroneously claim it, then no one in the Mormon church would be receiving wages while in a office. And we know some receive a wage. But the wage isn't for being clergy. You should learn the difference.

You didn't answer the question. Try and concentrate okay? You made a statement and I asked a question. You said one or more people in elevated offices of the Mormon church don't pay tithes. What offices and why don't they pay tithes?
Next, a mission president is a temporary position, you knew that correct? You know that every single position in the Mormon church is temporary? You realize that when seventies are released they go back to living off their own money and or retirement income? You realize when a mission president is released they go back to working and living off their income and or retirement? Those assigned to the temples as full time workers are there in a temporary position and though housing is afforded to them like missionaries and mission presidents etc they usually live off their own savings and or retirement during the mission. I know this because distant relatives of mine were full time temple workers and left Utah for a Netherland temple and were there for 4 years. Their savings and retirement were the mainstay of their income though the church gave them a one bedroom apt. And they paid tithes.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28177 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Man voice? lol...fricking funny! He was spot on! What he said was accurate and true. "Oct. 5, Christofferson said, "Some (note he didn't say all so to be accurate in the usage of the word 'some'?)feminist thinkers view homemaking with outright contempt, arguing it demeans women and that the relentless demands of raising children are a form of exploitation."
He changed it and I think he should have left it. Far left feminists are against how the traditional family is. These far left feminists are for fatherless bastard children whom are to be raised by a dozen child agencies from birth to HS graduation while they work. And if financially able they hire a nanny to care for the emotional well being of their child they won't give them because the job is more important than the child. This present generation is full of far left feminists opting out of having a male counterpart so they can have bastard kids they usually have others raise for them while they busy themselves with work and whatever.
...and as usual, you miss the point. If he is inspired by god to say what he said, why the edit?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28179 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
First, they don't claim there's 'absolutely' no paid clergy as you say it. If it was as literal as a statement as you erroneously claim it, then no one in the Mormon church would be receiving wages while in a office. And we know some receive a wage. But the wage isn't for being clergy. You should learn the difference.
You didn't answer the question. Try and concentrate okay? You made a statement and I asked a question. You said one or more people in elevated offices of the Mormon church don't pay tithes. What offices and why don't they pay tithes?
Next, a mission president is a temporary position, you knew that correct? You know that every single position in the Mormon church is temporary? You realize that when seventies are released they go back to living off their own money and or retirement income? You realize when a mission president is released they go back to working and living off their income and or retirement? Those assigned to the temples as full time workers are there in a temporary position and though housing is afforded to them like missionaries and mission presidents etc they usually live off their own savings and or retirement during the mission. I know this because distant relatives of mine were full time temple workers and left Utah for a Netherland temple and were there for 4 years. Their savings and retirement were the mainstay of their income though the church gave them a one bedroom apt. A they paid tithes.
Start at page 80. Page 83 is about not paying tithing.

https://ia601808.us.archive.org/21/items/Miss...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#28181 Oct 10, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
...and as usual, you miss the point. If he is inspired by god to say what he said, why the edit?
That's funny, that was a joke right? You really didn't want me to believe that "Oh darn, he was using his "just a man" voice." actually was to be translated to mean "If he is inspired by god to say what he said, why the edit?"
Well according to how you stated it, Paul used his 'man voice' too. I suppose according to your thinking on this we could say Peter was also inspired of God to deny God and his relationship with him three times in a row.
You take things far too literally.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28182 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>That's funny, that was a joke right? You really didn't want me to believe that "Oh darn, he was using his "just a man" voice." actually was to be translated to mean "If he is inspired by god to say what he said, why the edit?"
Well according to how you stated it, Paul used his 'man voice' too. I suppose according to your thinking on this we could say Peter was also inspired of God to deny God and his relationship with him three times in a row.
You take things far too literally.
Ask PaKKKer..he requires edits

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#28183 Oct 10, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask PaKKKer..he requires edits
Paul let us know when he was using his "mans voice" and when he was giving gospel. What's funny is that the talks are reviewed and approved before being given in Conference. But Mormonism has a long tradition of "we said, but didn't really mean it" all the way to "we never taught that" depending to how embarrassing the statements are. And PaKKKer has a long history of having diarrhea of the mouth.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#28184 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny, that was a joke right? You really didn't want me to believe that "Oh darn, he was using his "just a man" voice." actually was to be translated to mean "If he is inspired by god to say what he said, why the edit?"
Well according to how you stated it, Paul used his 'man voice' too. I suppose according to your thinking on this we could say Peter was also inspired of God to deny God and his relationship with him three times in a row.
You take things far too literally.
More like she is taking what Mormonism claims as if they meant it. Because they do. But you have shown you have no standards you hold them too when it comes to just being honest.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28185 Oct 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>More like she is taking what Mormonism claims as if they meant it. Because they do. But you have shown you have no standards you hold them too when it comes to just being honest.
And they didn't edit Oaks..
Realpeople

Ashburn, VA

#28186 Oct 11, 2013
They are not because they are quick to follow joseph smith and the fake book of mormon that is man made up by a man who wants to have sex with multiple women and call them wives.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#28187 Oct 11, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask PaKKKer..he requires edits
If inspiration from the Spirit was 100% spot on, the speaker not requiring to edit or change what they said, then judas was inspired to turn his Lord over to a death squad. Peter was also inspired to deny his Lord since he also like Judas spoke from the inspiration of the spirit. And all the apostles gathered after Jesus's death who heard from Mary that Jesus was alive called her a liar by the inspiration of the Spirit and, maintained their doubts that Jesus was resurrected by the inspiration of the Spirit.
That is your and dana's logic, that if someone is of God than all they say is of the spirit and it doesn't need to be edited.
With that said, if the Bible is inspired of God, seems he edits his book as each new version is set forth since the first one was put together in Rome that only contained several books.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#28188 Oct 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
More like she is taking what Mormonism claims as if they meant it. Because they do. But you have shown you have no standards you hold them too when it comes to just being honest.
Umm not. We live in a era of political correctness ushered in by the far liberal left. If one is to survive today, one has to be very mindful of what we say and how it's said. That's a far left liberal fact don't you know?
By the way, I don't hold people to my standards. Kind of stupid and an ignorant thing to do in my opinion as we all have different standards. But I do hold people to the standards they claim/state they function/live by. Like you for instance. I was raised to know how an actual Christian speaks and acts. Their slow to anger and usually quick to forgive and strive for politeness over having a garbage mouth. They usually live what they believe and hypocrisy isn't a part of their character. So when you claimed you're one of those Christians and you speak other wise, I hold you to the standards you claim to be of that you don't display.
Those men that speak at conference or the bishop or teacher that speaks from what they hope is inspiration of the Spirit, as most hope to have the influence from when they speak no matter their Christian religion be they minister or Sunday school teacher, they all edit their words. It isn't an ungodly crime to clean up a speech though you twistedly think it is.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28189 Oct 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>If inspiration from the Spirit was 100% spot on, the speaker not requiring to edit or change what they said, then judas was inspired to turn his Lord over to a death squad. Peter was also inspired to deny his Lord since he also like Judas spoke from the inspiration of the spirit. And all the apostles gathered after Jesus's death who heard from Mary that Jesus was alive called her a liar by the inspiration of the Spirit and, maintained their doubts that Jesus was resurrected by the inspiration of the Spirit.
That is your and dana's logic, that if someone is of God than all they say is of the spirit and it doesn't need to be edited.
With that said, if the Bible is inspired of God, seems he edits his book as each new version is set forth since the first one was put together in Rome that only contained several books.
Elohim doesn't like the term "feminist thinkers"

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28190 Oct 11, 2013
Oaks is a polygamist. He's sealed to 2 women for ever and ever. What if those poor dears can't stand him? Do women get a choice in polygamist Mormon heaven?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#28191 Oct 11, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Elohim doesn't like the term "feminist thinkers"
It's funny how Mormonism is always proving the verse "thinking they are wise, they became fools". From the LDS leadership all the way to No Surprise. LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#28192 Oct 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm not. We live in a era of political correctness ushered in by the far liberal left. If one is to survive today, one has to be very mindful of what we say and how it's said. That's a far left liberal fact don't you know?
By the way, I don't hold people to my standards. Kind of stupid and an ignorant thing to do in my opinion as we all have different standards. But I do hold people to the standards they claim/state they function/live by. Like you for instance. I was raised to know how an actual Christian speaks and acts. Their slow to anger and usually quick to forgive and strive for politeness over having a garbage mouth. They usually live what they believe and hypocrisy isn't a part of their character. So when you claimed you're one of those Christians and you speak other wise, I hold you to the standards you claim to be of that you don't display.
Those men that speak at conference or the bishop or teacher that speaks from what they hope is inspiration of the Spirit, as most hope to have the influence from when they speak no matter their Christian religion be they minister or Sunday school teacher, they all edit their words. It isn't an ungodly crime to clean up a speech though you twistedly think it is.
Well, you have no standards, and you work to prove that in every post, so at least you have that to claim to fame.

Since: Sep 12

Willow Springs, MO

#28193 Oct 11, 2013
NoMo wrote:
Oaks is a polygamist. He's sealed to 2 women for ever and ever. What if those poor dears can't stand him? Do women get a choice in polygamist Mormon heaven?
If anything, Oaks would be considered a "celestial polygamist." Not a polygamist in the terms that you are inferring. He was married and sealed to his first wife in 1952, who passed away in 1998. In 2000, he then remarried and was sealed to his second wife. Are you inferring that he should have never been remarried because he was previously married to his first wife? Would that opinion hold true for every widowed person? No one should be allowed to remarry?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28194 Oct 11, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>If anything, Oaks would be considered a "celestial polygamist." Not a polygamist in the terms that you are inferring. He was married and sealed to his first wife in 1952, who passed away in 1998. In 2000, he then remarried and was sealed to his second wife. Are you inferring that he should have never been remarried because he was previously married to his first wife? Would that opinion hold true for every widowed person? No one should be allowed to remarry?
No. As a celestial polygamist(lol) what if those women don't want to be sealed to him...do they have a choice or are they stuck for eternity? What if they don't want to be sealed to a man? Are they doomed to the lower levels?

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
DACA illegal in Utah have jobs Americans would ... 13 hr Rob 1
News 'These kids are fighting back': Salt Lake stude... Feb 21 JBRAWL 1
News Salt Lake church shields Utah mom from deportation Feb 20 Bloodonhishands 2
News Romney declines to say whether he'd run for Uta... Feb 20 Bloodonhishands 16
Review: Malinda Marie Atkins Feb 19 MALINDA 1
Utah Concealed Carry Class Feb 18 hdavenport 1
Bountiful, Utah Concealed Carry Class Feb 18 hdavenport 1

North Salt Lake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

North Salt Lake Mortgages