Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31997 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

#25740 May 16, 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.
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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25757 May 17, 2013
Liar for Jesus? Lets see what jesus says of those who claim to lie "for" him.

Revelation 2:2 (KJV)

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

John 8:44 (KJV)

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
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.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25758 May 17, 2013
lol and he SHOULD have excommunicated himself. Since he broke...

oh wait. He made the BS religion up. So...

I think we've ended this discussion...

"But Osirica, Smith didn't make it up... the book he found said he was really a prophet. Yes in deed!"

Oh shucks, are we talking about Muhammad or Joseph Smith again?

The Two Panty Raiders

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25759 May 17, 2013
osirica wrote:
lol and he SHOULD have excommunicated himself. Since he broke...
oh wait. He made the BS religion up. So...
I think we've ended this discussion...
"But Osirica, Smith didn't make it up... the book he found said he was really a prophet. Yes in deed!"
Oh shucks, are we talking about Muhammad or Joseph Smith again?
The Two Panty Raiders
Osirica, what is your religious background and experience with the LDS church?

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.

Salt Lake City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I'm getting over you! Thu Noah 2
Review: Haaga Mattress (Nov '15) Wed cool dealzz 3
voting for trump 2016 thread Aug 24 anonymous 1
Trump Aug 24 Paris 20
ancestry findagrave MICHELLE 46983123 Aug 19 KATRINA SMITH 3
Review: Pinky's (Apr '13) Aug 18 Greg 7
Are Aliens Real, if so are they nice or mean? (Oct '12) Aug 16 chance lo co 18

Salt Lake City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salt Lake City Mortgages