Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 20 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.

“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

Ozark, 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?

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#28195 Oct 11, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>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?
I've been here long enough to know that you rarely, if ever, answer questions posed to you. Yet, you expect others to answer yours when, in reality, you have no interest in hearing them. Your questions are only designed to mock and ridicule the beliefs of others which do not fall "lock step" with your own.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28196 Oct 12, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>I've been here long enough to know that you rarely, if ever, answer questions posed to you. Yet, you expect others to answer yours when, in reality, you have no interest in hearing them. Your questions are only designed to mock and ridicule the beliefs of others which do not fall "lock step" with your own.
You rarely, if ever answer them either...so I really didn't expect an answer from you.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#28197 Oct 12, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>You rarely, if ever answer them either...so I really didn't expect an answer from you.
I have attempted to answer your questions in the past, but learned very quickly you weren't really interested in the answers. Only to mock, deride, ridicule, and jeer. The term "pearls before swine" comes to mind.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#28198 Oct 12, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>I have attempted to answer your questions in the past, but learned very quickly you weren't really interested in the answers. Only to mock, deride, ridicule, and jeer. The term "pearls before swine" comes to mind.
Sooo, I guess a conversation about mo-men who have divorced, remarried and are now sealed to two women is out of the question?

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#28199 Oct 12, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>Sooo, I guess a conversation about mo-men who have divorced, remarried and are now sealed to two women is out of the question?
If you actually were interested in having a conversation, but since you're not... I would say so. BTW- Oaks was not divorced. His wife passed away.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#28200 Oct 12, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>Sooo, I guess a conversation about mo-men who have divorced, remarried and are now sealed to two women is out of the question?
Ahhh... You sneaky little monkey. That's where you were going all along, wasn't it? You're really not interested in widowers. You're interested in those who have been sealed, divorced, and resealed. Hahahahahaha!!!

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
colette draeger May 2 RANSOM PRIDE 1
laura black Apr 29 hhhhhh 1
jews Apr 29 RANSOM PRIDE 1
Review: Slickrock Towing And Recovery (Nov '12) Apr 27 Upset tenant 26
Review: CMC Heating And Air Conditioning Apr 27 Kurt Cooks 2
Obama is pure evil. Apr 24 goodness 1
Centurylink really sucks Apr 24 dman 1
More from around the web

Salt Lake City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]