Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31994 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.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32816 Feb 24, 2014
kris wrote:
the problem i have is rarely rarely do you ever see them teaching from the bible its almost allways the book of mormon
I study the bible with my husband... and we study the history of religion... and I love it... I don't know what other people do. But this year in class at Church we are studying the OT.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32819 Feb 24, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Straining on gnats tries to prove that a near illiterate person of an eight grade education reads and reads and reads from one and all available sources and creates a story in just over a year of 616 pages, claiming 116 pages lost with witnesses and he has to re-write and with very few corrections has published a first draft that accomplished literary giants have never even contemplated trying to do themselves.
Straining at gnats as yourself wish to prove how easy it was done. Yet you falter proving that actual point of how easily it was done. You're the one claiming you know how he produced the BOM and you continually fail to prove your point beyond theories of how you think he did it. You strain at gnats to prove what you can't.
And the ignorant refuse to see even the nose on their face. You're a joke.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32820 Feb 24, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The details didn't matter. You and critics claim he knew he was creating a story of fiction from his mind and whatever sources. It shouldn't have mattered that 116 pages were lost. He should have recreated the 116 pages and if someone presented those pages as their own in book form after Smith claiming his loss of them, it would be evidence that person stole the pages or received the stolen pages and falsely claimed them of their own, even if re-written. Understand?
BS, they could have compare the handwriting of the manuscripts. Your crap is thick tonight, and not even remotely intelligent.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32821 Feb 25, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you covered the land of punt?
Do you have some interesting reading about it?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32822 Feb 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the ignorant refuse to see even the nose on their face. You're a joke.
You are just mean.

He is trying to be serious and you always come back putting everyone down. You are just mean that is what people see and think when you act like that.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32823 Feb 25, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just mean.
He is trying to be serious and you always come back putting everyone down. You are just mean that is what people see and think when you act like that.
I only put you or him down when you intentionally being dumb.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32824 Feb 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I only put you or him down when you intentionally being dumb.
That is not true. You put everyone down that you don't agree with... even Jesus Christ. Come on be truthful.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32825 Feb 25, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true. You put everyone down that you don't agree with... even Jesus Christ. Come on be truthful.
You're pathetic.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32826 Feb 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the ignorant refuse to see even the nose on their face. You're a joke.
Have you ever even considered what it is you want me to accept that you think is true and makes all the sense in the world for a theory to believe in? Some of your theory goes as follows.
At or before 14, Smith has had an idea forming for how to build and organize a brand new religion so he can cheat and swindle and screw all sorts of females married and unmarried.
At 14 Smith pretends to have a vision he first just tells to family. Than he tells it to ministers so they can have all sorts of mean and rude and nasty things to say of him at 14.
By 17 Smith has made sure to make it impossible for any one to know he has read volume after volume of anything dealing with the Native American Indians that people think are descend from Israelites because he has a book he wants to publish to cheat and swindle people out of their money with.
By age 21 while marrying Emma, he has mentally structured his religion and with a photographic mind remembering all he read of Indians being descendants of Jews, he makes metal plates secretly that are gold colored which he'll claim all he info for a book comes from that he'll allow some to see and even feel. And some will think he really has gold plates and will try to kill him for them but that's okay for him.
Between ages 21 to 24 Smith makes a big nothing over falsely translating in front of three different people while looking in a hat to make it look good. He even purposefully has Harris lose 116 hard written pages just so he can write all 116 pages over again.
That's one summery of the theory you want me to believe is true as you believe it. What I believe is you really want to believe it happened that way. That I believe :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32827 Feb 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
BS, they could have compare the handwriting of the manuscripts. Your crap is thick tonight, and not even remotely intelligent.
You can't even make sense of your own twisted theory...lol.

According to you, Smith had a photographic mind. It's the only thing that explains how three different witnesses acting as his scribes stated they saw him looking into a hat as he spoke the words of a story and not from any book.
After 116 pages he apparently made Harris take them and purposefully lose them(why Smith did this you haven't said)so he would have to stick his head back into a hat for 116 brand new pages.
Now the person taking these pages would have re-wrote them and altered the contents to look like it was their work and not Smiths. But that was never done. So maybe Harris destroyed them on his own? This is your theory, not mine.
So any how Smith rejects Harris and jumps on him for losing the 116 pages which Harris is all befuddled about as he did what Smith told him to do.
Smith now uses his wife for a spell begin the book again. Than he uses Cowdery.
That's another summery of your theory you want us to believe. And we believe you believe it.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32828 Feb 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't even make sense of your own twisted theory...lol.
According to you, Smith had a photographic mind. It's the only thing that explains how three different witnesses acting as his scribes stated they saw him looking into a hat as he spoke the words of a story and not from any book.
After 116 pages he apparently made Harris take them and purposefully lose them(why Smith did this you haven't said)so he would have to stick his head back into a hat for 116 brand new pages.
Now the person taking these pages would have re-wrote them and altered the contents to look like it was their work and not Smiths. But that was never done. So maybe Harris destroyed them on his own? This is your theory, not mine.
So any how Smith rejects Harris and jumps on him for losing the 116 pages which Harris is all befuddled about as he did what Smith told him to do.
Smith now uses his wife for a spell begin the book again. Than he uses Cowdery.
That's another summery of your theory you want us to believe. And we believe you believe it.
Where are you getting this stuff?
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32829 Feb 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>

You can't make a theory based on both settings, that Smith and others claimed he translated the BOM from God and Smith and others knew he made it all up from his mind. You have to use one or the other theory to make a point.
But of course you can. One does not contradict the other.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32830 Feb 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Straining on gnats tries to prove that a near illiterate person of an eight grade education reads and reads and reads from one and all available sources and creates a story in just over a year of 616 pages, claiming 116 pages lost with witnesses and he has to re-write and with very few corrections has published a first draft that accomplished literary giants have never even contemplated trying to do themselves.
Straining at gnats as yourself wish to prove how easy it was done. Yet you falter proving that actual point of how easily it was done. You're the one claiming you know how he produced the BOM and you continually fail to prove your point beyond theories of how you think he did it. You strain at gnats to prove what you can't.
Since when is an eighth grade education considered near illiterate? And what the hell is near illiterate anyway? Is that like being kinda pregnant?
Pud

Lewis Center, OH

#32831 Feb 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever even considered what it is you want me to accept that you think is true and makes all the sense in the world for a theory to believe in? Some of your theory goes as follows.
At or before 14, Smith has had an idea forming for how to build and organize a brand new religion so he can cheat and swindle and screw all sorts of females married and unmarried.
At 14 Smith pretends to have a vision he first just tells to family. Than he tells it to ministers so they can have all sorts of mean and rude and nasty things to say of him at 14.
By 17 Smith has made sure to make it impossible for any one to know he has read volume after volume of anything dealing with the Native American Indians that people think are descend from Israelites because he has a book he wants to publish to cheat and swindle people out of their money with.
By age 21 while marrying Emma, he has mentally structured his religion and with a photographic mind remembering all he read of Indians being descendants of Jews, he makes metal plates secretly that are gold colored which he'll claim all he info for a book comes from that he'll allow some to see and even feel. And some will think he really has gold plates and will try to kill him for them but that's okay for him.
Between ages 21 to 24 Smith makes a big nothing over falsely translating in front of three different people while looking in a hat to make it look good. He even purposefully has Harris lose 116 hard written pages just so he can write all 116 pages over again.
That's one summery of the theory you want me to believe is true as you believe it. What I believe is you really want to believe it happened that way. That I believe :)
South Park Episode 123 handled this very well. Show us the DNA evidence.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32832 Feb 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Where are you getting this stuff?
From the critics point of view/theory of what Smith wasn't according to them.
According to them and Dana....
Smith wasn't a prophet.
Smith wasn't influenced or guided by God.
Smith did everything from his own accord, his own genius.

Thus according to the critics it only makes sense by their claims of Smith being a regular non-God influenced guy Smith had to have a photographic mind. Nothing else explains how someone could read so much literature between 14 and 24 to construct what would be a total of 616 pages in about a 3 year period.
We have witnesses that stated what smith did as he spoke and they never said he spoke as he read books. To further elaborate of what I didn't include earlier, they stated Smith used a hat, glass like spectacles and sometimes used nothing as he looked at the metal plates critics claim he made himself(or had someone make them for him).
So from the critics theory, they have a guy with an eight grade education that never obviously wrote anything but a letter prior to the BOM but who the critics claim studied all sorts of literature on natives and Jews for at least 7 years to ready himself to write a book that he planned to build a religion from.
How don't you see their theory? Do you see another I'm missing?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32833 Feb 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>But of course you can. One does not contradict the other.
Actually in correct context you can't. That's like proving God doesn't exist by using the theory of evolution as evidence. That's like proving God exists by using the the theory of evolution as evidence. Doesn't work. Never will work in either case.
Well you can't prove Smith was a prophet and was guided by God by using the critics point that he wasn't a prophet and wasn't influenced by God. Neither can you prove Smith wasn't a prophet and wasn't influenced by using the believers point that he was a prophet and was influenced by God. Just won't work.
Pro and con can attack each others theories and that's it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32834 Feb 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Since when is an eighth grade education considered near illiterate? And what the hell is near illiterate anyway? Is that like being kinda pregnant?
I had a cousin that was raised on a ranch/farm in the sixties and seventies that was schooled in a one room school house in Montana because the kids were so far from any towns and school budgets had no budget for buses to travel 60+ miles twice a day for a dozen to two dozen kids.
I know what kind of an educational curriculum the teach had to spread out over kids aged 6 to teens. I know they missed school in the spring and fall for planting and harvesting. I know they missed school for cattle drives the community was involved in each spring and fall. I know in the winter they missed many days due to snowy roads not yet plowed.
So I can easily imagine how that school setting was for Smith and kids in the early 1800s. And many kids though they learned the alphabet and how to read and write some and do basic addition and subtraction IF, if they paid attention in class, by today's educational standards most of those kids would be considered near illiterate and uneducated. They didn't have school books as we have them. The teacher might teach from a book.
Also one detail critics won't elaborate upon that proves my point of Smith being uneducated, as he formed his church, he had other very studied and educated people doing accounts, writing, recording and finances for the most part of his being the leader of his church from it's infancy to his death. You can find that out with a simple search. After the BOM printing Smith wrote letters and in a diary and such in his later years but not much else.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32836 Feb 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I had a cousin that was raised on a ranch/farm in the sixties and seventies that was schooled in a one room school house in Montana because the kids were so far from any towns and school budgets had no budget for buses to travel 60+ miles twice a day for a dozen to two dozen kids.
I know what kind of an educational curriculum the teach had to spread out over kids aged 6 to teens. I know they missed school in the spring and fall for planting and harvesting. I know they missed school for cattle drives the community was involved in each spring and fall. I know in the winter they missed many days due to snowy roads not yet plowed.
So I can easily imagine how that school setting was for Smith and kids in the early 1800s. And many kids though they learned the alphabet and how to read and write some and do basic addition and subtraction IF, if they paid attention in class, by today's educational standards most of those kids would be considered near illiterate and uneducated. They didn't have school books as we have them. The teacher might teach from a book.
Also one detail critics won't elaborate upon that proves my point of Smith being uneducated, as he formed his church, he had other very studied and educated people doing accounts, writing, recording and finances for the most part of his being the leader of his church from it's infancy to his death. You can find that out with a simple search. After the BOM printing Smith wrote letters and in a diary and such in his later years but not much else.
So is your cousin illiterate?
One would think that if he could read, "see Dick and Jane run", that would make him literate. How much more formal schooling in reading does one need once they learn the basics of reading? I mean ya know, not to be considered "near illiterate"?
And the one detail you "think" proves your point that Smith was near illiterate or uneducated lacks any kind of basis to prove anything. His mother could read, you really think that a mother who can read and write doesn't teach her children to read and write? His wife could read and write. At a time when schooling according to you was hard to come by, yet the two most important women in his life could do both? Women at the turn of the nineteenth century knowing how to read and write, oh my! But for some reason Boy Joe just didn't receive that kind of instruction? Just from the part of the country that he grew up in would make him much more likely to have received reading and writing lessons. That fact that he had other people recording and taking dictation, certainly doesn't prove him uneducated, hence the reason critics probably don't address it. That's another leap on your part.
And that one book the teacher taught from was most likely a bible, you know that, so if one could read, they probably knew their bible.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32837 Feb 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually in correct context you can't. That's like proving God doesn't exist by using the theory of evolution as evidence. That's like proving God exists by using the the theory of evolution as evidence. Doesn't work. Never will work in either case.
Well you can't prove Smith was a prophet and was guided by God by using the critics point that he wasn't a prophet and wasn't influenced by God. Neither can you prove Smith wasn't a prophet and wasn't influenced by using the believers point that he was a prophet and was influenced by God. Just won't work.
Pro and con can attack each others theories and that's it.
Let me refresh your memory, "You can't make a theory based on both settings, that Smith and others claimed he translated the BOM from God and Smith and others knew he made it all up from his mind" That's not a pro vs. con and it is what many do claim.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#32838 Feb 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
From the critics point of view/theory of what Smith wasn't according to them.
According to them and Dana....
Smith wasn't a prophet.
Smith wasn't influenced or guided by God.
Smith did everything from his own accord, his own genius.
Thus according to the critics it only makes sense by their claims of Smith being a regular non-God influenced guy Smith had to have a photographic mind. Nothing else explains how someone could read so much literature between 14 and 24 to construct what would be a total of 616 pages in about a 3 year period.
We have witnesses that stated what smith did as he spoke and they never said he spoke as he read books. To further elaborate of what I didn't include earlier, they stated Smith used a hat, glass like spectacles and sometimes used nothing as he looked at the metal plates critics claim he made himself(or had someone make them for him).
So from the critics theory, they have a guy with an eight grade education that never obviously wrote anything but a letter prior to the BOM but who the critics claim studied all sorts of literature on natives and Jews for at least 7 years to ready himself to write a book that he planned to build a religion from.
How don't you see their theory? Do you see another I'm missing?
No it doesn't make sense that he had to have a photographic memory. You just keep leaping like a frog, don't ya? Why the claim he would have to read so much in a specific time period? You think it would take a miracle to come up a story {much of it from The Bible}, of over six hundred pages in three years?
Now I have a honest question, was Smith supposedly reading directly from the plates all the times he was translating or was he sometimes reading from his stones that were in a hat,{I can't believe I'm saying this} while the plates sat covered on the table he worked from?

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
News Bill to ban airport smoking soars through Senat... 9 hr Scrow Tumm 5
LDS Church ( WAKE UP ) Jun 23 wormwood 2
Read About MTC Corporation on Job Corps Fraud Blog (May '10) Jun 21 deblferg58 2
Evolution is obvious (Dec '11) Jun 18 Socialism Now 56
Magic Players (Nov '14) Jun 15 IonaBurris 2
Who knows Leann Wills (Apr '13) Jun 15 nedra 2
LDS Church ( REPENT) Jun 14 REPENT REPENT 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

North Salt Lake Mortgages