Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 Full story: CNN 32,004

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.

Full Story

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#33233 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>No confusion. You're a bigot that doesn't support polygamy. You have no logical right to cry bigot of others when you wear that definition proudly to suppress marriage yourself. When you are willing to support all forms of marriage that should be legal, then you can logically call names as you do. Till then a confused trolling bigot you'll remain. Understand?
Also, you confused yourself again. I explained I supported opinions and or voting rights. Unconfuse yourself as you seem to think having an opinion has specified limits by your warped thinking.
Also, Pearl's non-supportive stance demoralizes and even depresses those that chose to be soldiers in a military force. Those of Pearl's thinking once demoralized and depressed soldiers in Vietnam and those returning from Vietnam. Soldiers from that war still living will tell an assortment of first hand stories of how some of their buddies couldn't take the "baby killer" names and disrespect and took their lives. Others became total drunks and drug addicts because it seemed to them the US was totally against them and hated them. But it was just a small percentage of Pearl non-supporters who were very vocal that caused so much grief and death to soldiers to have such a negative view of themselves as a soldier. So don't tell me negative input doesn't affect a soldier's right and decision to be a soldier.
There you go again with your polygamy conspiracy theory...do you also support polyandry?
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33234 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No confusion. You're a bigot that doesn't support polygamy. You have no logical right to cry bigot of others when you wear that definition proudly to suppress marriage yourself. When you are willing to support all forms of marriage that should be legal, then you can logically call names as you do. Till then a confused trolling bigot you'll remain. Understand?
Also, you confused yourself again. I explained I supported opinions and or voting rights. Unconfuse yourself as you seem to think having an opinion has specified limits by your warped thinking.
Also, Pearl's non-supportive stance demoralizes and even depresses those that chose to be soldiers in a military force. Those of Pearl's thinking once demoralized and depressed soldiers in Vietnam and those returning from Vietnam. Soldiers from that war still living will tell an assortment of first hand stories of how some of their buddies couldn't take the "baby killer" names and disrespect and took their lives. Others became total drunks and drug addicts because it seemed to them the US was totally against them and hated them. But it was just a small percentage of Pearl non-supporters who were very vocal that caused so much grief and death to soldiers to have such a negative view of themselves as a soldier. So don't tell me negative input doesn't affect a soldier's right and decision to be a soldier.
I don't get to vote on whether or not a person can be a soldier, so my opinion has no bearing on their right to be a soldier. Get it? Now do you think I should have a vote whether or not one can be a soldier? Should I have a vote on what a person can be, as in a soldier? Should I have a vote on what a person is, as in a spouse in a gay marriage?
And if you think my non-support stance demoralizes the military imagine how demoralizing it would be for them if I had a vote on their right to be a soldier. For an answer let's ask a gay person how demoralized they are when it comes to voting their human right to marry.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33235 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No confusion. You're a bigot that doesn't support polygamy. You have no logical right to cry bigot of others when you wear that definition proudly to suppress marriage yourself. When you are willing to support all forms of marriage that should be legal, then you can logically call names as you do. Till then a confused trolling bigot you'll remain. Understand?
Also, you confused yourself again. I explained I supported opinions and or voting rights. Unconfuse yourself as you seem to think having an opinion has specified limits by your warped thinking.
Also, Pearl's non-supportive stance demoralizes and even depresses those that chose to be soldiers in a military force. Those of Pearl's thinking once demoralized and depressed soldiers in Vietnam and those returning from Vietnam. Soldiers from that war still living will tell an assortment of first hand stories of how some of their buddies couldn't take the "baby killer" names and disrespect and took their lives. Others became total drunks and drug addicts because it seemed to them the US was totally against them and hated them. But it was just a small percentage of Pearl non-supporters who were very vocal that caused so much grief and death to soldiers to have such a negative view of themselves as a soldier. So don't tell me negative input doesn't affect a soldier's right and decision to be a soldier.
And this claim that Vietnam vets were killing themselves because of "vocal non-supporters" is mostly bullshit. Those guys were victims of that war. You think that maybe being put in the position of having to kill women and children didn't have an affect on them. Some of them were indeed "baby killers", with little choice in the matter. You think think they could handle killing kids fine but being disrespected back home was more than they could tolerate? Nothing can mess with a mans mind like war. Being called baby killers was just stoking the fire that was already there. They were ticking time bombs. I've never known a Vietnam vet that wasn't a mess with lots of issues because of that war. A lot of those guys were destroyed by that war and a lot of them didn't volunteer, they were drafted, they had little or no choice. It's not like the wars of today. Big difference. So I have a different opinion of the drafted soldier. Apples and oranges.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33236 Mar 29, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... and I do my best to search and read the gospel...(including the Bible)... and follow as many commandments as I can.
If you don't understand that than that is on you. However, it is apparent you need anger management classes. Life is to short to be angry all the time.
Yeah Mouse, we get it. You're a Mormon, you're a victim. You're a victim, you're a Mormon. Same thing and the only point of view you are capable of offering. You could just respond to each post with either, "I'm a victim, I'm a Mormon" and save yourself a lot of posting. We will know what your perspective is.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33237 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, let me do a quick explanation and see if Nomo catches on to it.
I support your right as a US citizen to decide to not support our US troops just as I support peoples right to vote for or against ssm. It's a US right by our constitution to have an opinion even if other people don't like that opinion. And I support them in having that opinion whether I agree or disagree with their opinion.
Understand Nomo?
Your post is moot.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33238 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting statement. Have you wondered why Dana who is pro-military hasn't challenged your position? Probably because he doesn't want to lose your support of his whacko immature posts you have congratulated him of making.
Why don't you support the military and or it's forces? How do you justify living in a country that exists because of the protections the military forces provide yet you don't support them in that action as you don't support the military? Why do you live in the US under the security the military forces provide you with? Seems a bit of a contradiction. Kind of like saying you don't support the car industry but you have no problems driving a car. Kind of like you saying you won't shop at Walmart because according to you they purposefully support slave labor and like to sell slave labor products but that couch you sit on or the fridge you use made in the Philippines or some country with parts made by slave labor, that's okay to you.
Understand your warped hypocrisy that three fingers are pointing back at you about as you point one at others?
It's weird that if I say, I don't support slave labor {oh the horror} and you say, the military uses slave labor, then, you would think it unusual I wouldn't support the military. Wouldn't that be reason enough alone? Actually there are many reasons. But let's start with a minor one that you might grasp. Do you think there are people out in the world that would kill you, for no other reason than because you are an American?{I'm sure you must think that, you're one of the most paranoid people I've ever spoke to} So who made you, as an American, a target? Was it something you personally did? Something the public at large did? No, it was the actions of the U.S. government and military that made so many hate America.
The Iranian coup back in the fifties wasn't about promoting democracy. We were the bad guys. And you know that's not the only time the CIA betrayed our trust, while at the same time instilling a seething hate for us in foreign lands.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33239 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one, NOT I, that stated if slave labor is used you are against those that support that slave labor by using the goods produced with slave labor. That's your twisted logic, not mine. And since it's your twisted logic, prove you do as you say others should do. Can you do that? I doubt it.
.
Yeah, I guess it kinda makes sense you would claim it's twisted of me to be against slave labor. I guess that means you take the opposing view and wholeheartedly support salve labor?
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33240 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Um nothing that'll match your sick perverse sense of abnormal logic, that's for sure!
Another example of your perverse logic. I never said stats exist from Canada for gay to minor marriages. I said no such thing existed. But from your perverse twisted reasoning you claim it exists and ask me to find what doesn't actually exist. How many examples do you need to prove your abnormal reasoning you deem logical? Hmmm?
Next. There are no accurate US or Canadian stats for polygamy because polygamy is illegal in both countries. You didn't know that? Really? But I know from web sites that your state has tens of thousands of polygamous marriages happening and most are not driven by religious doctrine and or prophets/leaders. But you live in Utah and know that fact right? Now's the time to sarcastically ask me if I think you're really that stupid that you wouldn't know that fact as you live in Utah.
You are the irrational prejudicial bigoted demented one. You are the one that want's to use hate and disgust and vile thoughts to define marriage to two people only. Your the one that with sheer vile hated and bigoted prejudice wants to redefine marriage with full bigoted prejudiced reasoning like the people you hate and rage about.
You are who you hate. Can you comprehend that fact? Can you?
Well there's an interesting claim. Most polygamous marriages in Utah are not based on religious reasons? That's a fact huh? I'd like to hear more about this one. You say you got this fact from websites? Wanna share those? I'm just finding this hard to believe, course if you've got facts I look forward to seeing them.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33241 Mar 29, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I am of the opinion after reading that post you make less of your experiences by clouding the experiences with so many questions. The extraordinary happened whether you chalk it up to a supreme being or not. But the possibility of an existence of an afterlife denotes some type structure/organization as it exists here. That just as some have claimed the ability to see that world so many never have, maybe it works the same for them in the same way. That insinuates control is taking place by something or someone as to who can cross that line of this world and that world. Just an opinion mind you.
And I'm of the opinion that you make jump to conclusions from your experiences. The event only seems extraordinary because it's unusual to you or us in general, because we have no proven explanation. And none of that insinuates control by a being deciding who crosses over any "line" realm, sphere or dimension. To think we have an answer when we have so little facts to work with is pompous, ignorant and stupid to say the least.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33242 Mar 29, 2014
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again with your polygamy conspiracy theory...do you also support polyandry?
It's not a theory. And yes. If I want to support marriage and state I'm for equality, than I need to be able to support polygyny (polygamy & polyandry) and monogamy among consenting adults. If I want to do as you do and support one and reject one or both others, than I label myself as you have labeled yourself a hypocritical prejudicial bigot proving equality is only as equal as you want it to be.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33243 Mar 29, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text> I don't get to vote on whether or not a person can be a soldier, so my opinion has no bearing on their right to be a soldier. Get it? Now do you think I should have a vote whether or not one can be a soldier? Should I have a vote on what a person can be, as in a soldier? Should I have a vote on what a person is, as in a spouse in a gay marriage?
And if you think my non-support stance demoralizes the military imagine how demoralizing it would be for them if I had a vote on their right to be a soldier. For an answer let's ask a gay person how demoralized they are when it comes to voting their human right to marry.
First. not all heteros and gays want to be engaged in marriage and couldn't care if it existed or was done away with tomorrow and everyone just went back to community type union celebrations as it use to be. So a person that votes no on ssm is only hurting a few who want it for an option.
And walking up to a soldier and telling them you don't support what they do and it would be better in your opinion if they stopped being a soldier because you don't like nor support military personnel, you've done as much psychological damage as if you had said the same but to a gay person about ssm rights. So voting isn't the real issue. People and state legislators state by state are voting for ssm that once said no to it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33244 Mar 29, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>And this claim that Vietnam vets were killing themselves because of "vocal non-supporters" is mostly bullshit.
No it's not BS. Your uninformed opinion is bs. Try reading web stats on Viet vet suicides and causes and get rid of your bs. Just a suggestion.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33245 Mar 29, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>It's weird that if I say, I don't support slave labor {oh the horror} and you say, the military uses slave labor, then, you would think it unusual I wouldn't support the military. Wouldn't that be reason enough alone? Actually there are many reasons. But let's start with a minor one that you might grasp. Do you think there are people out in the world that would kill you, for no other reason than because you are an American?{I'm sure you must think that, you're one of the most paranoid people I've ever spoke to} So who made you, as an American, a target? Was it something you personally did? Something the public at large did? No, it was the actions of the U.S. government and military that made so many hate America.
The Iranian coup back in the fifties wasn't about promoting democracy. We were the bad guys. And you know that's not the only time the CIA betrayed our trust, while at the same time instilling a seething hate for us in foreign lands.
The point(as you usually miss it)is that I was being sarcastic, extreme in what I stated. I alluded to that when I made that post and you missed it to as usual. The actual point is that the US military no more uses, endorses slave labor than Walmart does by knowing purpose. Wages of civilians in foreign countries not as modern as our own in the concepts of work and wages earn what we call "slave wages". They earn "slave wages" because they have economies that afford slave wages unlike our own. Their wages can get them a roof over their head to call their own. Those same wages here in the US wouldn't afford one to have a roof over their head.
Us prisoners aren't slaves. But they earn the equivalent of slave wages because their prisoners, not slaves, being punished for breaking the law(s).
But I used your logic that anyone being paid what you call "slave wages" could erroneously be applied to US prisoners to show how twisted your thinking could be applied to other instances.
Also you stated you were against Walmart for selling products made with slave labor and asked why I would(if I did it)buy those products thus indirectly by your logic being a supporter of slave labor, remember? Do I need to paste your very own words to help you remember what you said?
You didn't answer my challenge that you also indirectly by your twisted logic support the slave labor that went into one or more items of your furniture and electrical appliances. Thus you reflect your own hypocrisy by stating/suggesting I do what you also do. So now how will you justify the fact you indirectly support slave labor eh?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33246 Mar 29, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I guess it kinda makes sense you would claim it's twisted of me to be against slave labor. I guess that means you take the opposing view and wholeheartedly support salve labor?
No. Sad try. You claim to be against slave labor and you have bought and use products in your home that were made with what you call slave labor. To your twisted logic that means you also support and endorse slave labor products while in hypocrisy you claim to not support it. You really need to get your story straight seriously.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33247 Mar 29, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Well there's an interesting claim. Most polygamous marriages in Utah are not based on religious reasons? That's a fact huh? I'd like to hear more about this one. You say you got this fact from websites? Wanna share those? I'm just finding this hard to believe, course if you've got facts I look forward to seeing them.
I read to learn for the reason of knowing things. I'll assume you had no interest to learn of polygamists in Utah and that's why you lack knowledge about it. That's okay. Here's some info. I was incorrect to use the word "most". my bad.

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/utah-polygamous-fam...

"Non(Mormon)-affiliated plural families are actually quite common among the estimated 38,000 fundamentalists who practice or believe in polygamy, most living in Utah and other western states, said Anne Wilde, co-founder of a polygamy advocacy group called Principle Voices. The group estimates that about 15,000 are independent like the Williams."

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33248 Mar 30, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>And I'm of the opinion that you make jump to conclusions from your experiences. The event only seems extraordinary because it's unusual to you or us in general, because we have no proven explanation. And none of that insinuates control by a being deciding who crosses over any "line" realm, sphere or dimension. To think we have an answer when we have so little facts to work with is pompous, ignorant and stupid to say the least.
I'll disagree of course. It's ignorant and stupid to say the least of you to make less of such an extraordinary event that so few have happen to themselves. Neither did I say we had an answer. So you're wrong and incorrect to imply/insinuate I said we had one. Understand?
I stated it seems only a small percentage of people actually claim to have had a visit from a person they knew after their death. I stated in theory since it seemed so few had these 'experiences' instead of everyone having them or next to no one ever having them, that denoted some possible type of control of who comes back and who doesn't by the theory there's an afterlife regulated by a supreme intelligence we call God.

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#33249 Mar 30, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah Mouse, we get it. You're a Mormon, you're a victim. You're a victim, you're a Mormon. Same thing and the only point of view you are capable of offering. You could just respond to each post with either, "I'm a victim, I'm a Mormon" and save yourself a lot of posting. We will know what your perspective is.
No you are completely wrong there.

I am a Mormon YESSSSSS!!! I am a Mormon. However, I am not a Victim.

In 1997 I got cancer I was in the hospital for a week in ICU.... 2 days after I got out I graduated from the community college I went to.... SNAP... lol.... I was on the front page of the newspaper the next day I had to be the happiest person there.... or one of the happiest.

Yes I have obstacles I have to endure and overcome... just like everyone else.

My daughter did Relay for Life... she got the most sponsors and was rewarded for her hard work... oh and she was even on the new and she told how important it was to help others and how important the program is.

No I don't look at myself as getting older I'm 44 now and was 27 when I got cancer. I feel like I am living longer not growing older. So if it's so important to label me or if that is your game today I'm a survivor!

It's all in your perspective. I could feel sorry for myself and be angry, hostile, the whore of Babylon with a bottle of whiskey in my hand stumbling down the hall like you but I choose not to... because it's time to go to Church now and worship God.

Have a great day and try to get over yourself and come back to reality!!!!

WE ALL GO THROUGH HARD TIMES....
WE ALL HAVE OBSTACLES... AND TRIALS...

It's not that you fell in the race... it's how you finish.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#33250 Mar 30, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>It's not a theory. And yes. If I want to support marriage and state I'm for equality, than I need to be able to support polygyny (polygamy & polyandry) and monogamy among consenting adults. If I want to do as you do and support one and reject one or both others, than I label myself as you have labeled yourself a hypocritical prejudicial bigot proving equality is only as equal as you want it to be.
If you want... If you want to support popular vote denying rights to minority classes, please explain how you support poly. It's the silliest thing, you condone bigots and liars throwing money around to remove the rights of gay married couples and yet you support plurals. Does your head spin around if you don't hold it still?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#33251 Mar 30, 2014
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want... If you want to support popular vote denying rights to minority classes, please explain how you support poly. It's the silliest thing, you condone bigots and liars throwing money around to remove the rights of gay married couples and yet you support plurals. Does your head spin around if you don't hold it still?
You deny rights and support the denial of rights to a minority class that should have had marital rights given to them when it came before SCOTUS almost a century ago. Prejudicial religious bias was used for a decision. SCOTUS sought out and included information for how Christianity had reacted to polygamy in the last 2000 years in making their decision. Please explain how you say your for equality in marriage when you deny specific forms of marriage, how do you justify doing that?
Marriage isn't a silly thing. I understand different forms of marriage seem silly to you because you're not for true equality concerning marriage. You're a true prejudicial biased bigot because the only forms of marriage you accept is what you believe in as being correct, a mirrored thought process of those that only believe straight marriages are correct who you call prejudicial bigots.
If supporting prejudicial biased bigots like you who believe monogamous marriages are the only correct and good marriage makes me a prejudicial bigot, then so be it.
PS....true equality isn't your twisted definition of "partial equality." That why I support any form of marriage (including polygyny) so long as it's between consenting agreeing adults.
pearl

Kaysville, UT

#33253 Mar 31, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You deny rights and support the denial of rights to a minority class that should have had marital rights given to them when it came before SCOTUS almost a century ago. Prejudicial religious bias was used for a decision. SCOTUS sought out and included information for how Christianity had reacted to polygamy in the last 2000 years in making their decision. Please explain how you say your for equality in marriage when you deny specific forms of marriage, how do you justify doing that?
Marriage isn't a silly thing. I understand different forms of marriage seem silly to you because you're not for true equality concerning marriage. You're a true prejudicial biased bigot because the only forms of marriage you accept is what you believe in as being correct, a mirrored thought process of those that only believe straight marriages are correct who you call prejudicial bigots.
If supporting prejudicial biased bigots like you who believe monogamous marriages are the only correct and good marriage makes me a prejudicial bigot, then so be it.
PS....true equality isn't your twisted definition of "partial equality." That why I support any form of marriage (including polygyny) so long as it's between consenting agreeing adults.
She didn't say marriage is a silly thing.She said you condoning bigots and liars throwing around money to halt gay marriage while at the same time supporting plural marriage is a silly thing. For crying out loud, pay attention.

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 Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 1 hr piratefighting 27,018
(Mrs.) Marie Osmond 18 hr Call me JC - really 2
female snapchst users. Sat xragnerosx 1
Utah man, 77, charged for sunbathing nude Fri Sneaky Pete 9
last post wins! (Jul '11) Dec 18 Concerned_American 351
Utah Ophthalmologists Improve Vision During Cat... (Nov '13) Dec 16 Pavlos Lombardi 3
Are vitamins from USANA worth price? (Mar '08) Dec 12 Tagumpay 217

Avalanche Warning for Salt Lake County was issued at December 21 at 5:17AM MST

Salt Lake City Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Salt Lake City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Salt Lake City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Salt Lake City

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:20 am PST