Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31992 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

#33003 Mar 9, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Salt is crucial... it helps preserve food... an your body needs it (Sodium)....
When they give you an IV electrolytes they give you salt and sugar. Imagine that.
What I am saying is that treasure is another mans trash.
There are places where they have gold mines, there are places that don't... that is what I was trying to say about salt....

To people who don't have salt it is a treasure when you get it.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33004 Mar 9, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you keep wanting to speak of the credibility of his imagination, maybe you might want to consider the following Smith never had a chance to read about. I found it on a couple places on the net.
In 1834 the Catholic priest Dionisio José Chonay was commissioned by the Catholic church to translate The Title of the Lords of Totonicapán, written in 1554 in the Quiché language. He had this to say in comment of that book ....
"This manuscript consists of thirty-one quarto pages; but translation of the first pages is omitted because they are on the creation of the world, of Adam, the Earthly Paradise in which Eve was deceived not by a serpent but by Lucifer himself, as an Angel of Light. It deals with the posterity of Adam, following in every respect the same order as in Genesis and the sacred books as far as the captivity of Babylonia. The manuscript assumes that the three great Quiché nations with which it particularly deals are descendants of the Ten Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel, whom Shalmaneser reduced to perpetual captivity and who, finding themselves on the border of Assyria, resolved to emigrate.(Recinos 1953, 163-164, 166)"
http://www.mormontopics.com/new_findings/zora...
Catholic priest looking for the Ten Lost tribes doesn't constitute hope for the Book of Mormon. i would need a lot more evidence of them finding any reference to Adam and Eve than missing pages no one can see any longer. This is only using one fairy tale to support another fairy tale.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33005 Mar 9, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The son in law and Stowel's sons had obviously according to the various accounts of that trail, not been part of treasure digging. Stowel and even Emma's father had been digging for treasure for a long, long time and probably prior to Smith's own birth. We have the following from a local paper...
"The Palmyra Herald described "digging for money hid in the earth" as "a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment."20 - Palmyra Herald. July 24, 1822. http://www.omninerd.com/articles/The_1826_Tri...
Fact one; Smith at no previous time had been taken to court nor had his dad been taken to court for fraud etc concerning treasure digging. Because at the trial it was made known that that Smith had a previous rep for finding things before he met Stowel, that means Smith had a certain success rate for finding things.
Second fact. I was wrong. And because I was wrong and you didn't know it proves your lack of reading what you said you actually read. I made a mistake in the names. Because the son in law was such a central figure I thought he was the one called Bainbridge. He wasn't. The person who actually filed the complaint was Peter G Bridgeman, a Methodist Minister who lost some of his flock to Smith and his early preaching prior to the printing of the BOM. So the compulsion for the complaint to most is obvious.
You can try and spin it all you wish. But if Smith had actually found anything besides salt. someone would have been able to say what he actually found, and show it. Emma's father may have been looking for treasure, but apparently looking and finding are two different things. No record of Smith finding anything for him, either. "The money moved."

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33006 Mar 9, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
To you it isn't considered a treasure to your thinking.
In the 1800s especially in the NE US finding a ground source for salt above or beneath ground was a treasure. It meant a source of great income. Even the constable in naming popular things to be found included salt. So finding a source to mine salt from was a treasure. It wasn't easy to locate salt in the 1800s.
http://fopnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/pr...
He wasn't looking for salt, he was looking for Spanish gold. Never found it. You and Liz and try to spin salt to pretend he actually found something of monetary value, but salt was as common at that time as it is today. People don't take salt to the bank.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33007 Mar 9, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The comment was written by a woman who isn't happy being a Mormon is obvious. People that are part of something and are unhappy in being a part of that something, their the first to give a biased opinion which she.
I saw that guy Chucky respond to you and he had a point. She first insinuated all Mormon missionaries are taught "...missionaries are taught, both explicitly and implicitly, to credit God with anything that goes right in their missions and to blame themselves for anything that goes wrong." She stated missionaries are taught what she said without variance... "...both explicitly and implicitly...".
The problem is instead of having some quotes from missionaries stating that what she claimed was force fed down their gullets their whole mission causing them severe depression and even thoughts of suicide and asking to see a shrink because their failure at being a missionary caused their ego to all but disappear, she just makes mention she's gathering a few comments from returned missionaries that experienced one or more things she claimed.
She than does a double back and states in opposition to her first claim, "Not every missionary feels damaged by the message, but many do."
Like Chucky asked, many do? What many? Where are her numbers coming from that she states most/many missionaries come home depressed, suicidal, mentally defeated and seeking counseling from such a mind crushing two year ordeal to become the larger number of the mentally ill in Utah?
That was one I saw Chucky didn't mention. She insinuated a large portion of the mentally ill in Utah were Mormons.
"And while I’m sure that many factors contribute to Utah’s status as the state with the highest rate of mental illness, I imagine that the shame and guilt of failing to meet deeply internalized and genuinely impossible standards play a significant part."
A minute fraction of the Utah population would fall under her description of "ACTIVE" Mormons who experience "...shame and guilt of failing to meet deeply internalized and genuinely impossible standards play a significant part."
Did you get that from her? She stated active Mormons failing to meet their high standards "...play a significant part..." of all those in Utah that experience mental illnesses because of shame and guilt.
Most of Utah is made up of NON-ACTIVE AND NON-MORMONS who never will experience any shame or guilt for not failing to meet church standards they don't follow.
"A minute fraction?" To hear from you, we would be lucky to find any active Mormons in Utah. Bunk, and BS.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/sto...

" Seventy percent of Utah's residents are Mormon. When Express Scripts issued its first national survey of prescription drug use in 2002, it sparked a heated debate across Utah about what, if any role, the church played in the state's high dependence on antidepressants such as Prozac and Zoloft.

"In Mormon culture females are supposed accept a calling. They are to be constantly smiling over their family of five. They are supposed to take supper across the street to an ill neighbor and then put up with their husband when he comes home from work and smile about it the whole time. There is this sense that Mrs. Jones down street is doing the same thing, and there is this undercurrent of competition. To be a good mother and wife, women have to put on this mask of perfection. They can't show their tears, depression or agony," Canning said."

You are doing exactly what the woman said happens in Mormonism. Any thing the would appear good, and the LDS church is the reason for it. If it looks bad, all of a sudden the church has nothing to do with it, it's their fault.

She was 100% correct. Blind people can see it, but brainwashed ones can't.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#33008 Mar 9, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't looking for salt, he was looking for Spanish gold. Never found it. You and Liz and try to spin salt to pretend he actually found something of monetary value, but salt was as common at that time as it is today. People don't take salt to the bank.
Oh I'm not saying what he was looking for... because I don't know...

I was just putting in my opinion... some places have lots of oil... some don't... some have lots of salt some don't.

I don't know anything about him looking for treasure.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33009 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic priest looking for the Ten Lost tribes doesn't constitute hope for the Book of Mormon. i would need a lot more evidence of them finding any reference to Adam and Eve than missing pages no one can see any longer. This is only using one fairy tale to support another fairy tale.
Umm no. You don't get this. This was a Catholic priest that wasn't looking for any lost tribes. Nice of you to want it that way but it isn't.
That priest was one of several that translated the original copy of that book. He excluded it because it went against his faith. But he did mention what he was excluding, understanding? He probably knew the names of the monks that came to the Americas and had a part in destroying thousands of those books as they went from city to city. Some of those books apparently mentioned things the monks found blasphemous because the people they were helping to conquer, before they first came there, these natives had knowledge of things in their Bible. That one single book proves it.
Now do you understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33010 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try and spin it all you wish. But if Smith had actually found anything besides salt. someone would have been able to say what he actually found, and show it. Emma's father may have been looking for treasure, but apparently looking and finding are two different things. No record of Smith finding anything for him, either. "The money moved."
Your purposeful ignorance stymies the mind at times, really.
Stowel stated Smith said there was coins in a bag and they found them in the ground on the hill he claimed they were at.
Stowel claimed Smith said a salt spring was at a certain location and stated they found it there.
That came from that trial. What don't you understand of what Stowel claimed under oath? You're the one in the past that claimed things said under oath in court was verifiable fact. Remember?
Another person at the trial stated as they dug, they saw a chest and hit it with a shovel. But that it sunk lower each time they tried to get at it.
Stowel and another testifyed that at least a feather(not the box)had been found after digging where Smith said it would be.
So that's a bag of coins, a salt spring, the top of a box seen and tapped on in one instance and a feather found but not the box in another incident.
Coins, salt spring, top of box seen, feather found.
That's four items claimed by two individuals.
Your only avenue now is to discredit the entire trial, all witnesses and the judge as all being looney. Go ahead and do it :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33011 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't looking for salt, he was looking for Spanish gold. Never found it. You and Liz and try to spin salt to pretend he actually found something of monetary value, but salt was as common at that time as it is today. People don't take salt to the bank.
No. Stowel was looking for a Spanish silver mine who he had Smith looking for. Not Spanish gold.
Smith looked for what Stowel hoped to find. I realize you didn't read how it works for them at that time but it's the same in our time. A person wants/hopes to find an item. They find someone that others usually recommend as being good for finding lost items or treasures. They go to that person and tell them what they want and the finder attempts to find that thing. Understand? Apparently Stowel wanted to find salt on his property. Smith found a salt spring. Bitter for you to digest I know but Stowel, not I claimed it happened.
And that was a stupid statement that salt was as common in the early 1800s as it is now. How fricking ignorant will you go to being? You don't have a clue about the long drawn out process it took in the 1800s to have just a bag of good pure salt. Salt was costly because it took so long to produce.
By the way, salt was good as money in America as it was used in trade for items if one didn't have actual currency. Read some fricking history please.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33012 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
...but salt was as common at that time as it is today. People don't take salt to the bank.
http://beyondtheshaker.com/pages/Salt-Guide-H...

During the Revolutionary War, the British enlisted American Loyalists to intercept the Patriots' salt supplies in order to prevent them from being able to preserve their food. And in the War of 1812, the money-strapped government paid their soldiers with salt brine.

Right, salt so common in the 17th and 18th centuries and not worth any value according to you lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33013 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
"A minute fraction?" To hear from you, we would be lucky to find any active Mormons in Utah. Bunk, and BS.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/sto...
" Seventy percent of Utah's residents are Mormon.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/53909710-20...

For nearly two decades, Utah's population continued to rise while the percentage of its people who are Mormon slowly and steadily declined. Then the recession hit, jobs dried up and people hunkered down.

Utah's population is 62.2 percent LDS and that percentage hasn't moved much in the past three years.

That makes sense to Pam Perlich, a demographer for the University of Utah, who says the state has become less Mormon over time because people of other persuasions have moved here for economic opportunities.

"And we haven't had much migration to the state in three or four years," she noted.

There is no real time consensus of how many active Mormons Utah has. I saw on three different sites by ex-mo and Mormon that stated they felt about 50% were active in the attending once or more a month group.
Well attending once a month isn't actually an "active" described Mormon. Temple Mormons make up the "active" group of those attending each Sunday with callings etc.
So the actual percentage of "real time attending temple Mormons" would be a minute fraction of all Utah Mormons that are inactive and non-temple participants.
That author of that article was extreme, like you like to be. Simple to understand.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33014 Mar 10, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
http://beyondtheshaker.com/pages/Salt-Guide-H...
During the Revolutionary War, the British enlisted American Loyalists to intercept the Patriots' salt supplies in order to prevent them from being able to preserve their food. And in the War of 1812, the money-strapped government paid their soldiers with salt brine.
Right, salt so common in the 17th and 18th centuries and not worth any value according to you lol.
Keep spinning, Smith wasn't looking in hopes of finding salt. LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33015 Mar 10, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/53909710-20...
For nearly two decades, Utah's population continued to rise while the percentage of its people who are Mormon slowly and steadily declined. Then the recession hit, jobs dried up and people hunkered down.
Utah's population is 62.2 percent LDS and that percentage hasn't moved much in the past three years.
That makes sense to Pam Perlich, a demographer for the University of Utah, who says the state has become less Mormon over time because people of other persuasions have moved here for economic opportunities.
"And we haven't had much migration to the state in three or four years," she noted.
There is no real time consensus of how many active Mormons Utah has. I saw on three different sites by ex-mo and Mormon that stated they felt about 50% were active in the attending once or more a month group.
Well attending once a month isn't actually an "active" described Mormon. Temple Mormons make up the "active" group of those attending each Sunday with callings etc.
So the actual percentage of "real time attending temple Mormons" would be a minute fraction of all Utah Mormons that are inactive and non-temple participants.
That author of that article was extreme, like you like to be. Simple to understand.
Only you would describe 62% as "a minute fraction". LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33016 Mar 10, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Your purposeful ignorance stymies the mind at times, really.
Stowel stated Smith said there was coins in a bag and they found them in the ground on the hill he claimed they were at.
No he didn't. You don't know what he said he found. "The money moved" LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33017 Mar 10, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Stowel was looking for a Spanish silver mine who he had Smith looking for. Not Spanish gold.
Smith looked for what Stowel hoped to find. I realize you didn't read how it works for them at that time but it's the same in our time. A person wants/hopes to find an item. They find someone that others usually recommend as being good for finding lost items or treasures. They go to that person and tell them what they want and the finder attempts to find that thing. Understand? Apparently Stowel wanted to find salt on his property. Smith found a salt spring. Bitter for you to digest I know but Stowel, not I claimed it happened.
And that was a stupid statement that salt was as common in the early 1800s as it is now. How fricking ignorant will you go to being? You don't have a clue about the long drawn out process it took in the 1800s to have just a bag of good pure salt. Salt was costly because it took so long to produce.
By the way, salt was good as money in America as it was used in trade for items if one didn't have actual currency. Read some fricking history please.
Any lie or deception to try to save the LDS church will work for you. Salt isn't gold, or silver. You are so pathetic. LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#33018 Mar 10, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since you keep wanting to speak of the credibility of his imagination, maybe you might want to consider the following Smith never had a chance to read about. I found it on a couple places on the net.
In 1834 the Catholic priest Dionisio José Chonay was commissioned by the Catholic church to translate The Title of the Lords of Totonicapán, written in 1554 in the Quiché language. He had this to say in comment of that book ....
"This manuscript consists of thirty-one quarto pages; but translation of the first pages is omitted because they are on the creation of the world, of Adam, the Earthly Paradise in which Eve was deceived not by a serpent but by Lucifer himself, as an Angel of Light. It deals with the posterity of Adam, following in every respect the same order as in Genesis and the sacred books as far as the captivity of Babylonia. The manuscript assumes that the three great Quiché nations with which it particularly deals are descendants of the Ten Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel, whom Shalmaneser reduced to perpetual captivity and who, finding themselves on the border of Assyria, resolved to emigrate.(Recinos 1953, 163-164, 166)"
http://www.mormontopics.com/new_findings/zora...
The rumors had been going around concerning that for years. He didn't have to have the original manuscript. You are getting more ignorant by the minute again, and boring.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33019 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep spinning, Smith wasn't looking in hopes of finding salt. LOL!!!
You're really reflecting that childish idiocy again seriously. Why? Why can't you accept fact?
Stowel wanted to find salt, not Smith. Smith didn't own land. So finding salt for a salt mine or an area where salt could be taken from wouldn't benefit him but for a small finder fee. Stowel wanted to find salt on his property so he could process it and sell it for a profit. Stowel wanted to find salt among other things. That's why Smith looked in his hat or whatever he had and told Stowel where to find the salt he wanted Smith to find for him. Can you understand that? Can you quit spinning this to mean what the evidence says your wrong about? Can you?
Stowel wanted to know if any coins were buried on his property.
Stowel wanted to know if salt was on his property to process.
Stowel had Smith do his hat thing to tell him where the coins might be if they existed. They found the coins. Stowel stated they found the coins where Smith said they'd be.
Stowel had Smith do his hat thing to find salt. Smith told him where the salt was located. Stowel stated they found the salt where Smith said it would be.
You really with true idiocy hate those facts as stated in that trial don't you. Now you don't have a fricking ounce of honesty to admit you were wrong.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33020 Mar 10, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Only you would describe 62% as "a minute fraction". LOL!!!
I have all the patience for the slow of mind.

I never said the 62% of Mormons in Utah were a minute fraction. I won't ask how you derived at that as it's be useless to ask.
I said in that post 62% represented the "MORMON" population of Utah.
I never said in that post 62% of the Mormon population represented a minute fraction of the 62% of Mormons in Utah which is what you claim I said. Are you drinking tonight?
I said a minute fraction OF, OF, OF that 62% are actual active temple going Mormons.
I'll repeat that for you one more time so you don't get wrong what I said.
I said a minute fraction OF, OF, OF that 62% are actual active temple going Mormons.
To spell that out for you, that means a much lesser percentage of that 62% are actual every Sunday going temple Mormons.
Because of the wards I was in of three different states and remembering the stated ward numbers and knowing the amount of Mormons attending each Sunday, I would make a logical guess in the "average" sized ward of 300, about 30 to 40 adults can be found(not children)sitting in the pews for sacrament.
I could even get extreme and go to 50 which it wasn't which would be one third of the entire numbered ward of 300.
So of the web sites I saw today, Utah is at 2.9 million. About 1.9 million are Mormons be they active or inactive.
By the ward numbers, that would mean that Utah has some 300,000 to 500,000 actual every single Sunday attending Mormons with temple recommends.
Now I suggested to you before to visit some local Mormon wards and ask how many are in that ward compared to how many show up each Sunday. Better than that, go sit in just the sacrament and count how many show up and than ask the bishop or his counselors how many total ward members there are. Prove my numbers wrong. Prove a million Mormons in Utah attend every single Sunday and all have temple recommends. You'll never prove it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33021 Mar 11, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No he didn't. You don't know what he said he found. "The money moved" LOL!!!
Why do you like to ridicule yourself? Is this some perverse thing you like to do? I don't understand why you do it. Why do you keep thinking they dug one single time? Why do you keep insisting that you believe for the months that Smith worked for Stowel, they dug one single time?
At the trial five, did you get that number? Five, f-i-v-e. 5.
At the trial five specific incidents were spoken about.
One was a chest a witness claimed they tapped and saw that sunk into the earth.
Another was the chest with the feather.
Another was an area where gold would be found.
Another was where a bag of coins would be found.
Another would be where salt would be found.
Now if you wish to continue your present position, please reference the trial you stated in the beginning of this conversation was so reliable for what you initially claimed.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33022 Mar 11, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Any lie or deception to try to save the LDS church will work for you. Salt isn't gold, or silver. You are so pathetic. LOL!!!
This has nothing to do with the LDS church. That's called deflection or as you say it spinning crap so you don't have to owe up to being wrong. That's normal of you as you rarely have the actual honesty to state your wrong when it's proven your wrong.
Salt had value in 1826 for barter, trade and even payment for work.
Finding salt and processing it enabled a person to become fairly rich by 1826 economic standards. Processing salt took time. So few did it unless their was enough to make a profit from it. And those that did it and took the time to process it usually lived very well and had many employees after a while if the source for salt looked to last for years to decades.
You're applying your self sustained idiocy thinking standards of 2014 to 1826 standards and once again, you're wrong doing it.
But you have at your own self inflated opinion that our way of thinking is how they thought in 1826...lol....to sad dude really.

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
Ed Puckett Apr 28 Notyourbusiness 2
trump dont like woman Apr 27 Honestly 16
why will no one help!!!!!! Apr 27 tongangodz 3
News Stockton's new police chief was 'chosen wisely'... Apr 25 Top Cop 4
News Correction: Harvey Milk Boulevard-Salt Lake Cit... Apr 22 jcofe 3
News Several People were Injured at Insane Clown Pos... (May '07) Apr 21 Suzy 71
News Capital of conservative Utah will name street f... Apr 20 Gov Corbutt of th... 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salt Lake City Mortgages