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.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31895 Jan 25, 2014
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey completely stupid
I am not Mormon, I am anti -mormon, your above statement is ludicrous to say the least.
Your Faith believes God was once a Man the Bible directly contradicts that belief
Your faith believes you and I are spirit brothers and sisters to Lucifer the Devil as is Jesus the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your Faith believes those of dark skin in this world are that way because they stayed neutral in the war against Lucifer and those of white skin were those who sided with Jesus. Again the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your Faith believes we can become Gods and have our own planets etc etc and the Bible explicitly contradicts this.
Your so called Prophet founder of the LDS faith died in a shoot out in Jail trying to kill police officers of the Law,
who had some 33+ wives many children and many still married to living men. He hide this from his first wife Ema and all the rest. He is a Pedophile pervert who made many prophecies that never came to pass and thus is a False prophet.
He claims the BOM was given to him by God yet it contradicts the Bible the word of God that predates the BOM by thousands of years.
YOUR faith is simply false and those who die putting their faith in that lie for Salvation are lost as Jesus and the Bible explicitly teach.
Your faith worships a false Jesus that never existed in any time any where.
You realize all you just said proves what I said, that all you can do is paste what others have stated? That you never make your own arguments? That you totally avoid becoming engaged in debates about Mormonism that would require you to make an actual argument from your own thoughts?
You're a paster. And your a pathetic paster because it's all you know how to do obviously. You know nothing of how to form an actual argument to base an opinion from. You're nothing but a copy cat that relies on other peoples writings to have something to paste. You're the worst waste of your own time.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31896 Jan 25, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is why I think the charge is fair. Mormonism teaches it's leaders are called by God through the power of the priesthood, by revelation. You express this in the 5th Article of Faith
Hey living, watch dana's reply to this as the same as he states it can be factually applied to another time dimension by his present logic.

"Jerusalem Clay Tablet Times News"

The times reports today of past events that the prophet believed to be *od took on a man named Peter a while back whom we knew to be a tax collector. Apparently this *od had a bad day because it seems Peter has been said to have denied even knowing him not once, but three times to three different people to save himself from being executed by roving mobs looking for followers of this prophet *od called Jesus. Seems a real *od with real perfect powers would never have made such a mistake to place such a person with such duties of his new religion who would later deny knowing him.
On other matters, this Jesus *od seems to have had another bad day for choosing adherents like Judas Iscariot as a leader as he is reported to have committed suicide by hanging himself after turning his *od over to Jewish soldiers.
This Jesus *od just doesn't seem to have the qualifications for an actual *od because he just seems to have a knack for choosing the wrong people as leaders. Seems as soon as this Jesus *od was arrested all his leaders ran and hid to save themselves from being jailed, beaten and or executed by roving mobs looking for them. What happened to true martyrdom and dying for the good cause instead of running from it to save one's life out of fear?
In other news it's reported that after the death of this Jesus *od, a split in this new religion took place as none of the leaders believed what this Jesus *od taught that he would raise himself from the dead and come back to them. Rumors have it none of the leaders believe what he said as being able to be done. One's doubts has earned him the nick name "Doubting Thomas" he doubts what his *od taught him so much.
Than we have astonishing news that someone resembling the Jesus *od is walking about claiming to be him. The leaders this Jesus *od choose refused to believe it was him till it's said the person with identical scars made them feel his scars and than with proof they claimed it was him and admitted what he claimed was true. How does such a true and everlasting omnipotent *od of truth and perfectness choose such a bunch of misfits that deny him and all he stands for? Seems the Jesus *od could have choose people that wouldn't doubt him or deny him and would at least believe what he taught.
Sound familiar to your accusation dana? "Yeap, the God of the Mormon church is really good at picking those Bishops."
Except 2000 years ago you would have phrased it... "Yeap, the *od of the Jesus church is really good at picking those apostles."
No am not

United States

#31897 Jan 25, 2014
Who are you people

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31898 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
A child doesn't shit at "will" Eliminate his need to shit than you've changed a biological function, instinct, nature. Changing where the child shits doesn't change the nature at work here, making him hold it, doesn't change the nature at work. Your not changing behavior, he still needs to shit. Now that I've put that in crude layman terms, perhaps you can make some sense of the subject matter.
....and to wrap up all this talk so to speak, you went from it not being possible to change human nature/instinct to stating the only way to making a change, is to eliminate one or more functions of human nature/instinct. Eliminating something isn't is making a change. It's making something cease to be, to no longer have an existence, to not be a part of anything any more. Eliminating isn't change.
Change is to take something from how it naturally/normally functions/appears and cause it to behave/look differently in a different manner than it normally works/looks.
The human nature/instinct of an infant to toddler is to expel waste when the urge to release said waste is felt. That's human nature/instinct in it's raw unchanged human behavior taking place. Parental behavior teaches the toddler to manipulate and control that bodily urge. That's change.
What you are now specifying is that the raw animal human nature/instinct can't be changed which in the field of psychology is called natural urges, those things we as humans are born with. Like defecating and fighting and eating and having sex. Those are all human nature/instincts in their raw form where they would exist if no laws existed to control such urges.
Human nature/instincts are all essentially labeled urges. Urges to defecate, urges to fight, urges to mate, urges to eat, urges to move about and explore. You can eliminate an urge by death obviously. But you can also change how an urge functions in it's raw state to make it function differently by laws and rules and traditions as taught by society.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31899 Jan 25, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the Church's leadership is called by inspiration. Personally, I don't believe this is always the case in all Church callings, but that's my opinion. That being said... Callings are not only given to fill positions in the Church, rather they are for the individual, just as your paste points out. It is up to that individual to learn and grow, and more importantly to rely on The Lord to fulfill that particular calling. In helping him/herself, they are also helping those they are called to serve. Now bring in our weaknesses and capacity to sin. There are going to be those who fall short and succumb to their shortcomings, as we are not perfect. Heavenly Father provides the path, it is up to us to follow him and stay on that path. That's something not all are going to do. What I'm trying to express is that just because God calls a person through the Priesthood doesn't mean perfection is going to be the result. We ALL are incapable of perfection. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it in our daily lives.
Now, back to why I feel it wasn't a fair comment. This incident and many others like it happen quite often in other Christian denominations (and faiths) by men also "called by God." Because they are "called by God" shouldn't they be held to the same standard? I say, if you are, yes. They are purported "Men of God." But they're men and they are subjected to their own weaknesses and sin. It's all unfortunate that these things happen, and unfortunately will continue to happen. If you sin, and make no attempts to change and put off that sin, your sin will eventually find you out and expose you. As we see everyday.
Crazy,

Your post was inspirational and I totally agree... we all come down here and we are expected to do our Duty and it's up to us to fulfill that mission. Your post was well presented and well spoken.:)
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31900 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drunk? Are you high? Did you read the post without glasses? Did you forget how to assume the obvious when you read something that seems amiss in context? I used the word eliminate in the first of my statement. I then obviously misspelled it illuminate later. The fact that you thought the word was correct in context is your bad not mine when I used the word correctly before I began to misspell it incorrectly. You should have written to ask if when I said illuminate if I actually meant eliminate which I would have said yes, by bad for spelling. But the context of the actual implied meaning was the same as the originally correctly spelled word I used in the beginning. You should have understood that.
Well I did you give you the benefit of doubt the first time you used the wrong word, but the second time you did it, I began to wonder. That coupled with the fact that you completely misunderstood the context of the phrase "eliminate" and read something far different into my post, other than what was said, well at that point I had to assume you were;
A. Self medicating
B. Stupid
C Not reading what I'm writing
D. Not capable of following a train of thought that isn't already implanted in your skull.
You ramble, your inconsistent, and when you demonstrate your incompetence of understanding and or dialogue you consistently try to pass it of as someone elses failure.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31901 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Now back to your original statement I addressed..........
"Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all then you would have changed something." Read that sentence carefully. To not crap or piss would be to eliminate the biological function to piss or crap. Understand your words? You said.... "Try making that toddler not "crap and piss" at all.." Doing that would be eliminating the total need to expel bodily waste by pissing and crapping. That was your statement of what you meant.
One can obviously change HOW one craps and pisses as to WHEN they crap and piss. But one cannot eliminate the need to crap and piss. Understand your confusion?
Human nature/instinct from it's raw form (i.e. not regulated, not controlled, not manipulated, not redirected) can be changed to be regulated, controlled, manipulated and redirected.
Again these posts just seem to zoom past your head. Your complete lack of comprehending my posts, then claiming "That was your statement of what you meant." and all the while insisting I should NOT interpret your posts literally, or other than what the say is becoming a drag. I just wanted to make note of that fact.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31902 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...fricking get a dictionary! To eliminate something IS NOT to change something. Are you making up definitions to suit your twisted thinking? Obviously.
Eliminate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eliminate
Full Definition of ELIMINATE transitive verb 1 a : to put an end to or get rid of : remove < eliminate errors> b : to remove from consideration < eliminate someone as ...
Change - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change
Definition of CHANGE. 1: the act, process, or result of changing: as . a: alteration <a change in the weather> b: transformation <a time of vast social change> <going ...
Fricking get a check on your grammar please. To eliminate something IS NOT to have changed something. To eliminate something is to make something cease to be, to make it not to exist, to remove it from an equation so it doesn't any longer exist.
I have an experiment we could try. Go to your vehicle and eliminate one of the tires. Next time you try to drive it we can see if there is change.
But once again you didn't follow the concept, so I'll state it thus; try to change the instinct to defecate,{for the sake of argument and in your context I will stipulate for the moment that it is an instinct } in fact try to change it by forbidding it. Can't do it you say? Could it be, because you can't change human nature by forbidding it?
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31903 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
pearl wrote...
1. And by your logic, the only reason we haven't killed each other off as a species, is because societies laws prevent us from doing so.
1a. Science of the fields of behavior believes that to be true. It might take a while to be accomplished but it would happen. Laws for humans killing other humans are regulated for when and why a human can kill another human to abate humans from doing "over kill" of each other. Obviously you're not aware of that fact. Obviously you're not aware of how this world would be for humans if suddenly over night all laws in all cultures/societies were removed for humans killing each other. A movie was made about this where for one 24 hour period on earth anyone could kill anyone of any age by any means. The movie actually reflected what would take place if their was no restrictions for humans killing each other on a year to year scenario.
The laws threatening one with death for killing another keeps most people from killing other people who would consider doing it just once or many times. So laws do in fact restrict and change other wise human nature/instinct to act impulsively or purposefully with or without thought.
Do you even think this stuff through? If laws changed humans nature from killing at will to not killing at will, and there's been various laws against killing for eons and the laws is suddenly eliminated {that means to abolish or remove, take away} and people started killing at will, then the nature to kill was still there, it hadn't changed, it was right there just beneath the surface,
You've claimed that without laws, we as species would wipe our self out. That there would be twenty four hour killing just like in the animal kingdom,{I think that's how you put it} Is that what you think goes on, animals wipe out their own species? No, they don't wipe out there own species, oh my, how could that be? Because they live by the laws already there, in nature, the laws of limited competition. And killing isn't even forbidden in the animal kingdom, and yet, they haven't wiped themselves out. But you seem to think that mankind is so flawed, that he would destroy all of life on a whim.
Would Chaos ensue if laws were eliminated {that means to get rid of}, if it became each man for himself? Yes.. Why? Not because man has an innate nature to rebel and kill, but because panic would soon encompass the masses, Mob mentality would fester. Man will kill each other for natural resources or out of fear. Not because he has a nature to kill at random. Your view of mankind is pretty sad to say the least.
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#31904 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You realize all you just said proves what I said, that all you can do is paste what others have stated? That you never make your own arguments? That you totally avoid becoming engaged in debates about Mormonism that would require you to make an actual argument from your own thoughts?
You're a paster. And your a pathetic paster because it's all you know how to do obviously. You know nothing of how to form an actual argument to base an opinion from. You're nothing but a copy cat that relies on other peoples writings to have something to paste. You're the worst waste of your own time.
Why you are a loser and your faith is false.

An Example of 100's

I state you believe in a different Jesus than Christians do, like the Hindu's do like Muslims do.

YOU state prove it.

So I post copy and paste from an article that references the BofM J&D the bible because they are some 6000-8000 characters and to type all of it would take hours.

They are all footnoted from the original books all of which you should own as an LDS I own a copy of everything I have posted and sourced.

The fact that you dismiss the truth solely on the basis that I have cut and pasted an item shows your are Stupid a loser and that you have no ability to defend your faith.

If your faith was true my quotes my cut and pastes false you would point out the errors but you can't so the only thing left for a Prideful sinner to do who is caught up in Rebellion is slander and name call. To mud sling to try and make cut and pasting some how evil.

What a loser attempt that is.

pearl

Sandy, UT

#31905 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
....and to wrap up all this talk so to speak, you went from it not being possible to change human nature/instinct to stating the only way to making a change, is to eliminate one or more functions of human nature/instinct. Eliminating something isn't is making a change. It's making something cease to be, to no longer have an existence, to not be a part of anything any more. Eliminating isn't change.
Change is to take something from how it naturally/normally functions/appears and cause it to behave/look differently in a different manner than it normally works/looks.
The human nature/instinct of an infant to toddler is to expel waste when the urge to release said waste is felt. That's human nature/instinct in it's raw unchanged human behavior taking place. Parental behavior teaches the toddler to manipulate and control that bodily urge. That's change.
What you are now specifying is that the raw animal human nature/instinct can't be changed which in the field of psychology is called natural urges, those things we as humans are born with. Like defecating and fighting and eating and having sex. Those are all human nature/instincts in their raw form where they would exist if no laws existed to control such urges.
Human nature/instincts are all essentially labeled urges. Urges to defecate, urges to fight, urges to mate, urges to eat, urges to move about and explore. You can eliminate an urge by death obviously. But you can also change how an urge functions in it's raw state to make it function differently by laws and rules and traditions as taught by society.
You know, you are really all over the board. Your claims stretch and retract like a rubber band. Here's a short list;
1. Those things we as humans are born with. Like defecating and fighting and eating and having sex. Those are all human nature/instincts in their raw form.
2. Killing, sex, personal interactions with each other tribe against tribe, that's all human behavior.
3. To kill is instinct.
4 Killing...that's all human behavior.
5. I further explained the difference between human instinct and behavior.
6. Human behavior {not human instinct as I corrected myself a few pages back} can be changed by laws.
6a. You claimed human instinct couldn't be changed, I disagreed.
7. Anything beyond instinct to fight or flight to exist is termed human behavior.
You must realize that your arguments are confounded and twisted right? You must see how vacuous those claims become when you can't keep them coordinated.
Mankinds behavior is based in incentive, Mankinds nature is based in instinct and each concept performs within their parameter.
So yes, lets wrap this up.
Show me how you change mankinds nature to be creative by forbidding it.
Demonstrate how you change mankinds nature to be spiritual by outlawing it.
Explain how outlawing mankinds innate curiosity changes that nature.
And surely by your claim mankinds nature/instinct to reason be forbidden thus changed.
Give us a strategy for changing mankinds self awareness by forbidding it.
And while your at it, prove to us that if you outlaw freedom to an entire culture of people, that they will change and not want freedom.
And yes, please exhibit how you can change mankinds inborn nature to adapt by forbidding it.
Bodily function? Forbid blushing, outlaw sweating, make a law against goosebumps while listening to a live symphony.
Mankinds behavior is based in incentive, Makninds nature is based in instinct. Learn the difference. Only then will you be capable of a coherent dialog. I'm bout done, you?
MORMON vs MOONBAT

Gridley, CA

#31906 Jan 25, 2014
L.

You better go soak that copy paste hand in some hot oil so you don't have to do two much speachuhfyin.

For thirty years you have been studying Christianity, the God of the Jews, the Israelites when their fellow tribesmen weren't hauled off to parts north

and the concept that GOD makes the CLAIM
His HOME is in HEAVEN

and that He was there at the LAYING of the FOUNDATION of THIS world
when all the sons of God shouted for joy

after "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But the dragon wasn't strong enough to prevail, so there NO LONGER a PLACE LEFT
IN HEAVEN for HIM" -
not IT but HIM
"and his angels" -

NONE of that
seems to YOU like HE HAD A DWELLING PLACE BEFORE THIS WORLD WAS.
Nope
God was homeless

even though Christ said He has "many mansions".

You are not concerned how ridiculous that is
compared to the one small book you have.

This SAME MAN LIKE CREATURE
REPRESENTING HIMSELF -***as***
a MAN
and our FATHER
who was in HEAVEN
before this world WAS

WAS HOMELESS
BEFORE HE founded THIS WORLD
and ISN'T a MAN.
concerned in Brasil wrote:
<quoted text>
Why you are a loser and your faith is false.
MORMON vs MOONBAT

Gridley, CA

#31909 Jan 25, 2014
You came in here and copy pasted from a place run by a man named
the Reverend Mister Slick,

saying you agreed with it

that God the Father is not God the Father of either those who Christ told pray "OUR FATHER who ART in HEAVEN" not on Earth where Christ was standing,

NOR CHRIST H.I.M.S.E.L.F. and that GOD DIDN'T KNOW HE'S NOT A MAN.

YOU ARE HERE to TELL the MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE GROUP of PEOPLE on EARTH as a WHOLE on CHRISTIANITY

That GOD OUR FATHER who ART in HEAVEN
is
going around
BLIND,
not KNOWING He DIDN'T MAKE a SON
BECAUSE He
DOESN'T KNOW, He ISN'T a MAN.
=======

bWAH HAH HAhHhH !

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31910 Jan 25, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey living, watch dana's reply to this as the same as he states it can be factually applied to another time dimension by his present logic.
"Jerusalem Clay Tablet Times News"
The times reports today of past events that the prophet believed to be *od took on a man named Peter a while back whom we knew to be a tax collector. Apparently this *od had a bad day because it seems Peter has been said to have denied even knowing him not once, but three times to three different people to save himself from being executed by roving mobs looking for followers of this prophet *od called Jesus. Seems a real *od with real perfect powers would never have made such a mistake to place such a person with such duties of his new religion who would later deny knowing him.
On other matters, this Jesus *od seems to have had another bad day for choosing adherents like Judas Iscariot as a leader as he is reported to have committed suicide by hanging himself after turning his *od over to Jewish soldiers.
This Jesus *od just doesn't seem to have the qualifications for an actual *od because he just seems to have a knack for choosing the wrong people as leaders. Seems as soon as this Jesus *od was arrested all his leaders ran and hid to save themselves from being jailed, beaten and or executed by roving mobs looking for them. What happened to true martyrdom and dying for the good cause instead of running from it to save one's life out of fear?
In other news it's reported that after the death of this Jesus *od, a split in this new religion took place as none of the leaders believed what this Jesus *od taught that he would raise himself from the dead and come back to them. Rumors have it none of the leaders believe what he said as being able to be done. One's doubts has earned him the nick name "Doubting Thomas" he doubts what his *od taught him so much.
Than we have astonishing news that someone resembling the Jesus *od is walking about claiming to be him. The leaders this Jesus *od choose refused to believe it was him till it's said the person with identical scars made them feel his scars and than with proof they claimed it was him and admitted what he claimed was true. How does such a true and everlasting omnipotent *od of truth and perfectness choose such a bunch of misfits that deny him and all he stands for? Seems the Jesus *od could have choose people that wouldn't doubt him or deny him and would at least believe what he taught.
Sound familiar to your accusation dana? "Yeap, the God of the Mormon church is really good at picking those Bishops."
Except 2000 years ago you would have phrased it... "Yeap, the *od of the Jesus church is really good at picking those apostles."
Didn't see any child molesters in that list.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31911 Jan 25, 2014
As usual, you are the only one here given an intelligent response, so I'll address this in the same manner.
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the Church's leadership is called by inspiration. Personally, I don't believe this is always the case in all Church callings, but that's my opinion.
And as that is your personal belief, I'm not debating that. What I'm pointing out is what the LDS church is claiming.
That being said... Callings are not only given to fill positions in the Church, rather they are for the individual, just as your paste points out. It is up to that individual to learn and grow, and more importantly to rely on The Lord to fulfill that particular calling. In helping him/herself, they are also helping those they are called to serve. Now bring in our weaknesses and capacity to sin. There are going to be those who fall short and succumb to their shortcomings, as we are not perfect. Heavenly Father provides the path, it is up to us to follow him and stay on that path. That's something not all are going to do. What I'm trying to express is that just because God calls a person through the Priesthood doesn't mean perfection is going to be the result. We ALL are incapable of perfection. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it in our daily lives.
I'm not asking for perfection at the Bishop's level. I'm just asking why God would put a child molester in that position to begin with? God would certainly know the man's heart. And what I'm really debating here is whether or not God even had anything to do with the process at all. Mormonism is teaching trust where it honestly shouldn't always be given. It isn't men doing the calling, but God. If you can't trust God who can you trust? But I see the whole system as big lie. There is no revelation, there is no priesthood, just people depending on feelings and impressions, and because of it the perverts can get in, just like in the Catholic church.
Now, back to why I feel it wasn't a fair comment. This incident and many others like it happen quite often in other Christian denominations (and faiths) by men also "called by God." Because they are "called by God" shouldn't they be held to the same standard? I say, if you are, yes. They are purported "Men of God." But they're men and they are subjected to their own weaknesses and sin. It's all unfortunate that these things happen, and unfortunately will continue to happen. If you sin, and make no attempts to change and put off that sin, your sin will eventually find you out and expose you. As we see everyday.
We take a man's word on whether or not he is called of God, but we watch his actions and works to judge it true or not. We don't put our faith in his works but in our relationship with Jesus Christ. We don't look to any living man on the level Mormons do their Prophets, as being to only spokesman for God on Earth.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31912 Jan 25, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Again these posts just seem to zoom past your head. Your complete lack of comprehending my posts, then claiming "That was your statement of what you meant." and all the while insisting I should NOT interpret your posts literally, or other than what the say is becoming a drag. I just wanted to make note of that fact.
You're starting to catch on to his deceptions. He thinks he's clever, but he is only fooling himself.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#31913 Jan 26, 2014
Re: "Name Removal" "Resigning Membership" in the Mormon Church

1. There is no Church beyond what DC 10:67-68 says. Literally, legally there is no Mormon Church.

2. There used to be a Church, but it was dissolved by the Edmunds-Tucker Act over the polygamy issue. It was never reorganized as a Church with members.

3. Typical American protestant churches have members. Leaders in those Churches have fiduciary duties to their members. Members have legal rights in their Church.

4. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a registered trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It isn't an organization. It is like a slogan ("Just Do It") or brand ("Coke Zero") or d/b/a ("Kentucky Fried Chicken" owned by YUM! Brands, Inc.) http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...


5. The COTPOTCOJCOLDS is what is called a corporation-sole. It has only one shareholder/member. Currently Thomas S. Monson is that shareholder/member. He owes you no duty. You have no voice, rights, or say of any kind regarding the operation of the corporation.(Note: There is also a Corporation of the Presiding Bishop OTCOJCOLDS and various other local Corporations of the President of the ________ Stake that are also set up as corporation-soles. I understand that the Oakland Temple property is owned by the COTPOT Oakland Stake OTCOJCOLDS. In addition to the corporation-soles there are a bevy of subsidiary corporations like Intellectual Reserve, Inc. which holds the intellectual property rights of the Church.)

6. The COTPOTCOJCOLDS (probably, it could be a subsidiary) owns and maintains a computer system. That system includes records of all people who have been blessed as a baby in a Mormon meeting. Confusingly they call these people "members", which they are not.(Note: Not even "members" by their own doctrine which requires baptism and confirmation--but blessed children are counted as "members" in the computer system and resulting published and reported statistics--and none are legal "members/shareholders ".)

7. Once you are in that computer system, you will never be out of that computer system. Ever. If you "resign" your "membership" what you are actually doing is asking them to annotate your record in the computer system to say you do not submit to them (they call this apostasy). When they excommunicate you they are simply annotating your record to memorialize you as a sinner (one of the sins could be apostasy).(Note: This is true in America. In the UK they have a statute saying that if a person wants out of a religion, the religion has to really remove all record of them. The Church was sued and lost a suit on this point about a decade ago and now actually remove the names of UK members who resign--at least from computer systems in the UK, I'm fairly certain they keep a separate record in the US. The two guys who won that lawsuit were awarded damages of some-odd thousand pounds.)

8. Mormon leaders clearly teach and believe, based on scattered scriptural teachings (maybe most clearly set forth in D&C 128, really you should check it out) that the record that they keep is sealed on earth and sealed in heaven, it will be presented to God as an offering of the Sons of Levi (them) and if your name is not found in good standing therein, you will be damned in your progress and not found in the sealing chain back to the literal Adam and Eve. If your record is annotated, God cannot accept you, he is bound by their annotations. Your salvation depends on their approval, they believe.

8. I'm not arguing that anyone should or shouldn't "ask for your name to be removed" or "resign your membership" and so forth. I just think most people don't realize that these are metaphors and they don't realize what actually happens in fact.
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)
tess2.uspto.gov

LOL!!!
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#31914 Jan 26, 2014
Why does the Book of Mormon mention Silk (Alma 1:29)? LDS Apologist John Welch cites several New World fabrics as possible matches for Linen and Silk (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, pg. 162). Agave fibers and fig bark for Linen? Ceiba fibers, pineapple fibers and rabbit hair for Silk? Welch concludes with the staggering claim 'Mesoamerica evidently exhibits almost an embarrassment of riches for the "silk" and "linen" of Alma 1:29. All but the most trivializing critics should be satisfied with the parallels.'(pg. 164) My response to Welch: You'll have to forgive my trivializing nature but rabbit hair doesn't equal silk in my book.

What about Chariots (Alma 18:9)? There is no evidence of actual wheeled vehicle usage in the 2,000 BC to 400 AD time frame in Ancient America.

Why does the Book of Mormon imply a seven day week (Mosiah 13:18) when it was not known to Ancient Americans? The Mesoamericans used a variety of calendars, none of which match the Old World calendar. The Maya seemed to be oversupplied in the calendar department. One calendar consisted of a 260-day cycle divided into 13 'months' of twenty days.(This calendar was used by most of the ancient Mesoamericans). Each day was presided over by it's own god. Another consists of a 365-day cycle, also divided into 'months' of twenty days, eighteen of them in fact. The five leftover days were called the 'resting, or sleep of the year'. Another consists of a 3276-day cycle divided into four quadrants of 819 days (the product of 7*9*13, all sacred numbers to the Maya). And then, of course, there was the so-called 'long count' calendar, which simply counted days from the creation of the world (August 11, 3114 BC, if anyone wants to know).(Linda Schele,'A Forest of Kings', pg. 78).

Why are Cimeters, an Old-World weapon of war, mentioned in Mosiah 9:16 and other verses when none have been found to exist in the New World? John Sorenson cites a Mesoamerican 'maccuahuitl' for a Cimiter (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, pg. 262). The Maccuahuitl was a hardwood club with obsidian blades. A Cimiter is a heavy, two-handed steel blade. What's wrong with this picture?
Why have some (like Elder Peterson and Elder Brewerton) used the Quetzalcoatl legend to "prove" the Book of Mormon's Christ when the Quetzalcoatl (or feathered serpent) legend dates to 1,000 years before the Book of Mormon's Christ?

When the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these people not mentioned? The Book of Mormon seems to indicate that the continent was empty at the time. 2 Nephi 1:8 One wonders if 'knowledge' of the land had been kept from the natives who had already been there for thousands of years?

Why didn't Nephi compare and contrast the New World with Jerusalem? These were two vastly different places.

cont...
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#31915 Jan 26, 2014
Book of Mormon Metallurgy

Why does the Book of Mormon mention Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi 5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Iron (Jarom 1:8), Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11), Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9)? No evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D."
Why doesn't the art (which is abundant) of the supposed Book of Mormon cultures portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity?

Book of Mormon Animals

Why does the Book of Mormon mention the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat (the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat!), Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants (contrary to the dated information on this site, non-LDS indicate that there is no evidence of elephants in the New World and the mammoth and mastodon of North America have been extinct for thousands years--see Stan Larson's "Quest for the Gold Plates" pages 184-188? None of these animals even existed in America during the era and timescale of Book of Mormon times.
Why aren't animals such as Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths, Turkeys, etc.. mentioned when they were animals that existed? They were unknown to Joseph Smith, but later discovered to have lived here at the time the Nephites were supposed to have co-existed with them.

Book of Mormon Crops

Why is plow agriculture such as Barley (Alma 11:7) and Wheat (Mosiah 9:9) included in the Book of Mormon when it didn't exist during that time period? "There's a whole system of production of wheat and barley ... It's a specialized production of food. You have to know something to make flax [the source of linen], and especially in tropical climates. Grapes and olives ... all these are cultures that are highly developed and amount to systems, and so the Book of Mormon is saying that these systems existed here." (BYU anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny, August 25, 1984 Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City). Welch claims barley existed in the Book of Mormon based on one find in Phoenix, Arizona! Arizona is hardly the setting of the Book of Mormon.

Why aren't the foods known to ancient America such as chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc, etc. included in the Book of Mormon?
concerned in Brasil

Europe

#31916 Jan 26, 2014
Book of Mormon Geography

Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.

Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?

Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?

Why don't gaps exist in the archeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed?

Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: "... the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph ... who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?

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
LDS Church ( WAKE UP ) Thu wormwood 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
Police Great Job Clean It Up Jun 14 LDS Church born a... 1
Shut Down drug Hotels Now Jun 14 Make them leave 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salt Lake City Mortgages