Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 20 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

Father overtime

Salt Lake City, UT

#19892 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.
Paul said he saw both Jesus and god...1+1=2

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19893 Feb 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol I rejected a doctrine who quotes a false prophet. Thanks for the history lesson, though. Good times!
lol...when Jesus was taking his message first to the Jews by his apostles and disciples, most of the people hearing that 'new' message said the same thing as you, they rejected a doctrine not of Moses or the prophets who was promoted by a false Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth.
You're welcome :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19894 Feb 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Also Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Hate to burst your bubble there, bub, but you're following the wrong guy.
Hate to burst you bubble there, bub, but people like you walked, talked, listened to and rejected the very God that put breath in their life. And you think you'd know the truth if it was presented to you? I doubt it.
Tell me this. If you met a guy from a religion with twelve apostles and a prophet and he told you all sorts of strange stuff and than left to let you consider the information he shared with you. If another man over hearing the conversation sat down and told you the prophet had been arrested on several charges and was executed for them. Then told you how the head guy denied even knowing that prophet, that another accused the prophet of greed and sold him out to the authorities for a bag of silver and then killed himself. That the prophet had all sorts of women following him, attending to his needs and rumours were many that he was doing them, that when he died all those apostles did splits ville to save themselves from being found and killed, that the prophet supposedly rose from the dead and none of the apostles believed it, how interested would you be in such chaos?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19895 Feb 5, 2013
Protester wrote:
Also, when you compare the kind of person Joseph Smith was, compared to the Apostles, you have to ask why God would use an unrepentant criminal who never changed his ways, and was continuing to lie to the very end.
Peter the closest to Jesus in faith as the NT claims denied even knowing him when his life was threatened.
Peter was an attempted murder. He attacked a man not even hurting anyone. He was just detaining Jesus as a guard and what did Peter do? He pulled out a sword and aimed for his head to split it open like a chopped piece of wood. He missed of course and took off the man's ear.
The fact that Peter carried a sword insinuates the other apostles and disciples also did. That means there are 'probably' more unknown stories of physical assaults on others by the apostles.
Judas had a lust/love for the almighty coin. He loved it so much that his love/lust for it became greater than his appreciation for human life.
Judas even complained to Jesus himself of using collected items on himself instead of the poor.
It's a fact Jesus had a female following. They were there at his death and at his resurrection. You can bet there were plenty of rumours by the locals who didn't like Jesus.
Than we have Doubting Thomas and his name explains it all.
Than after being repeated told concerning his bodily resurrection, the apostles especially after his death wouldn't believe it. They even denied it happened. They were really irked that Jesus first appeared to a woman and not one of them! And they essentially called her a liar that she had seen and spoken to Jesus.
Worse, the apostles faith was so weak that they all wanted "PROOF" that Jesus had indeed risen.
And you speak of Smith being a criminal and unrepentant in comparison to the type of faithless losers Jesus choose for apostles? Why am I not surprised...lol :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19896 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't ever remember any stories of Jesus trying to marry the Apostles wives while they were preaching his gospel. Smith is no Jesus.
I didn't read any stories like that either. But Jews by law in the time of Jesus could marry five wives. So what Jesus did or didn't do regarding matrimonial relationships, it's still in the earth or possibly on one of the five miles of shelves in the Vatican archives.
Either way, I think God would follow his own laws as he commanded us to follow them, including commandments for relationships, it just makes sense. He factually had a bevy of women followers and it obviously disturbed Judas. If Jesus was so anti-marital relationship as many like you believe he was, don't you think instead of it being an opinion of Paul, Paul would have stated the Lord commanded that those weak to the flesh should marry but it was better to be faithful and single? Don't you think Jesus would have made sure all his disciples were single or divorced with no wish to remarry for his church offices? If Jesus was so against marriage don't you think it would have been written to be a bishop or deacon one must be single and never married?
The RCC fathers that set forth what was in the NT, they made sure marriage was not an important item except in two cases. They made sure polygamy was never mentioned in a single verse after it's existence in Jewish writings for 4000 years. They made sure not to include 'marriage stories' as are contained through out the OT.
The first 50 'popes' were all single and unmarried. The bishops and cardinals of high positions remained unmarried. Lower 'unimportant' clergy could get away with being 'faithless' and married or 'weak to the flesh' if divorced. But for the first fifty popes, the RCC made an 'unwritten' rule that it was best to be single and to avoid marriage.
Than with the 51st pope there came a change with the church's view on marriage and it's clergy. It like did a 180 degree turn. Suddenly 'mortal' marriage became one of the holy sacraments, the fifth I believe. And it wasn't released as church doctrine till the 12th century.
What does that mean? It means anything that may have existed concerning Jesus and marriage has been destroyed by the early RCC fathers or hasn't been discovered from the earth yet.
As I told you, I don't like to make a sound judgement if facts don't exist for it to be a fact :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19897 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.
That leaves you to explain some things that need logical answers as you think it's logical that there was just one God with three personages/personalities.
Jesus said there was only one God the Father. Jesus said there was one greater than himself. How can Jesus be greater than himself if he is God the Father? Hmm? God is God according to you and a single being. There fore it would be a lie for God to claim another part of himself was more powerful than the sum of his self as being a single being.
Than we have what we call purposeful deceit. While being baptised in the river Jordan by John and upon his coming up out of the water, according to your one God belief, God wanted those there to witness his baptism, including his cousin, to believe that God was a voice from heaven, a bird descending and Jesus stating a loud and for some joking purpose, this is me in whom I am well pleased.
Me thinks your one God belief has a lot of problems.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19898 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.
Oh, I forgot one of the best lies he stated according to your one God belief. That was when he rose from the dead and when Mary saw him and wanted to touch him, God said she couldn't touch him because he hadn't risen to see himself yet. That was a great one liner lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19899 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the last person to be talking about judging anything or anyone. The same for the LDS church.
I didn't judge him. Smurf like you leaves anyone open to repeating what it is you do. No one has to judge to repeat what one actually has done.
Smurf has judged many people of many religions in these threads. That's a fact. So when he claims he hasn't he has made himself his own liar, not I.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19900 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what most people want is for the LDS church to take responsibility for what happened. Mormons still make excuses today blaming everything and everybody but the church. The LDS church is responsible for what happen because of what the leaders were preaching at the time. If you don't know much about the Mormon reformation of the 1850's, you should look into it.
The Catholic church has offered apologies for the Spanish inquisition, and the Southern Baptist church has offered apologies for their racists teachings in the beginning, supporting slavery. But the Mormon church won't take responsibility for anything.
That's like saying Americans today want the Japanese people of today to offer an official apology for pearl Harbour. I saw a special just lately. A tv crew was recording the experiences of a world war two vet that fought the Japanese. At one point the reporter asked the vet if he still hated the Japanese for the war they brought to America. He gave the reporter a puzzled look and said, "Why would I hate a people that had no involvement in that war?"
Here's the facts.
It's an opinion without any facts that Young commanded the massacre.
It's a fact that Mormons of the Cedar City area did plan and carry out the MM massacre.
It's a fact that when Young found out what happened, he did his best to hide the facts that his own elders had committed the massacre.
It's a fact the hearing was a joke and the trials for the guilty were jokes.
If Young is guilty of anything it's being an accessory to murder after the fact. But Peter attempted murder on an innocent man so not a lot to speak of there.
The Mormon church offered what it believed it should offer by way of an apology to an incident that no one for over a century had anything to do with.
Personally, I think living people demanding apologies from other living people for things they never did is about as looney tunes as any one can get be it a person or an organization. Have native Indians apologized for the wagon train massacres their ancestors committed? Have native Americans apologized for the Custer massacre? How many Americans today print apologies in newspapers for the enslavement of American natives and blacks?
Where do we take this apology thing to? When do you quit with it?
As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead and I'll add, let the dead forgive the dead.
Father overtime

United States

#19903 Feb 6, 2013
Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father sums it up. 1+1=2.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19905 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't read any stories like that either. But Jews by law in the time of Jesus could marry five wives.
He couldn't have married 5 women who were already married.
So what Jesus did or didn't do regarding matrimonial relationships, it's still in the earth or possibly on one of the five miles of shelves in the Vatican archives.
That burden would be on you to prove.
Either way, I think God would follow his own laws as he commanded us to follow them, including commandments for relationships, it just makes sense. He factually had a bevy of women followers and it obviously disturbed Judas. If Jesus was so anti-marital relationship as many like you believe he was, don't you think instead of it being an opinion of Paul, Paul would have stated the Lord commanded that those weak to the flesh should marry but it was better to be faithful and single? Don't you think Jesus would have made sure all his disciples were single or divorced with no wish to remarry for his church offices? If Jesus was so against marriage don't you think it would have been written to be a bishop or deacon one must be single and never married?
It was written they were to have only one wife, and there is zero record of Jesus ever having been married. Paul also wrote that you should marry only if you couldn't control your lust. That single people can serve the Lord better. No one has said Jesus was anti marriage, only that he taught against eternal marriage, and that he had better things to do then get married.
The RCC fathers that set forth what was in the NT, they made sure marriage was not an important item except in two cases. They made sure polygamy was never mentioned in a single verse after it's existence in Jewish writings for 4000 years. They made sure not to include 'marriage stories' as are contained through out the OT.
Paranoia will destroy ya. We have copies of most of the gospels written before the Church put them together in one collection. They show no tampering. Failed again.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19906 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That leaves you to explain some things that need logical answers as you think it's logical that there was just one God with three personages/personalities.
Jesus said there was only one God the Father. Jesus said there was one greater than himself. How can Jesus be greater than himself if he is God the Father? Hmm? God is God according to you and a single being. There fore it would be a lie for God to claim another part of himself was more powerful than the sum of his self as being a single being.
Than we have what we call purposeful deceit. While being baptised in the river Jordan by John and upon his coming up out of the water, according to your one God belief, God wanted those there to witness his baptism, including his cousin, to believe that God was a voice from heaven, a bird descending and Jesus stating a loud and for some joking purpose, this is me in whom I am well pleased.
Me thinks your one God belief has a lot of problems.
No more than the LDS belief that God today was once a man. If true, he didn't create the heavens and the earth. Some other God would have had to do that. Add to that where God said said there were no God's before him, and there will be none after and the LDS teaching is now total BS.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19908 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying Americans today want the Japanese people of today to offer an official apology for pearl Harbour. I saw a special just lately. A tv crew was recording the experiences of a world war two vet that fought the Japanese. At one point the reporter asked the vet if he still hated the Japanese for the war they brought to America. He gave the reporter a puzzled look and said, "Why would I hate a people that had no involvement in that war?"
Here's the facts.
It's an opinion without any facts that Young commanded the massacre.
It's a fact that Mormons of the Cedar City area did plan and carry out the MM massacre.
It's a fact that when Young found out what happened, he did his best to hide the facts that his own elders had committed the massacre.
It's a fact the hearing was a joke and the trials for the guilty were jokes.
If Young is guilty of anything it's being an accessory to murder after the fact. But Peter attempted murder on an innocent man so not a lot to speak of there.
The Mormon church offered what it believed it should offer by way of an apology to an incident that no one for over a century had anything to do with.
Personally, I think living people demanding apologies from other living people for things they never did is about as looney tunes as any one can get be it a person or an organization. Have native Indians apologized for the wagon train massacres their ancestors committed? Have native Americans apologized for the Custer massacre? How many Americans today print apologies in newspapers for the enslavement of American natives and blacks?
Where do we take this apology thing to? When do you quit with it?
As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead and I'll add, let the dead forgive the dead.
Still full of it, and making excuses for perverts, sicko's, degenerates calling themselves prophets, and apostles. You don't see it because you don't want to see it and you are a damn fool.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19909 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He couldn't have married 5 women who were already married.
<quoted text>
That burden would be on you to prove.
<quoted text>
It was written they were to have only one wife, and there is zero record of Jesus ever having been married. Paul also wrote that you should marry only if you couldn't control your lust. That single people can serve the Lord better. No one has said Jesus was anti marriage, only that he taught against eternal marriage, and that he had better things to do then get married.
<quoted text>
Paranoia will destroy ya. We have copies of most of the gospels written before the Church put them together in one collection. They show no tampering. Failed again.
Says who? You? God endorsed monogamy and polygamy unions/relationships. He allowed Jewish men to have five wives. He allowed a half brother and half sister to marry each other, you know Abe and Sarah? God taught we're suppose to be married to him. And you think if God wanted wives he couldn't have them, even if they were married? He made a donkey talk and caused the box carrying the Arc of the Covenant to expel a power to kill men. God can do anything, even have the wives of mortal men if he so choose.
There is no burden for me to show Jesus was married. The RCC has went out of it's way long before anyone claimed Jesus was married, to show proof he wasn't married and never would have married. Ever considered that? Why would the RCC from it's earliest times try and prove Jesus was never married when it wasn't being contested that he was? The OT is full of marriage stories and polygamy and the NT is totally absent of marriage stories and polygamy. Never considered that either?
And um, we have what the RCC put together and called the new testament. We only have the writings from four of the twelve witnesses that walked with Jesus. Their writings are in the NT. Where are the writings of the other eight that testify of his birth, ministry, death and resurrection?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19910 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than the LDS belief that God today was once a man. If true, he didn't create the heavens and the earth. Some other God would have had to do that. Add to that where God said said there were no God's before him, and there will be none after and the LDS teaching is now total BS.
You know what's total BS? You claiming to have been a Mormon and how now as an ex-Mormon you set yourself out to others as an expert of that religion and it's beliefs.
According to LDS teachings, having taken on a human form didn't lessen God's power at any point of his relationship with his father or his father and his father, etc. Each was perfect without fault. A rare character trait according to all the spirits that aren't perfect. That is Mormon 101 and you should know it and you don't.
Jesus was never as a 'mortal human' with faults. He was created as a spirit and he sought perfectiveness and attained it. He had no faults because he did no faults. He was as his father had been before him. Now it's Jesus's turn to become God the Father of his own place and time in the cosmos after the judgement day has happened. God the Father shall be here in his creations. Lucifer will be cast out into the cosmos where a place for him and his followers has been created for him to dwell in. Jesus shall go and create a time and place of his own and he will have a son, a son that is perfect and will learn to be as his Father Jesus is. Those are Mormon 101 teachings. And you don't understand them and you were a member for 30 years not paying attention to anything as often happens to kids born into that church. You took things for granted.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19911 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Still full of it, and making excuses for perverts, sicko's, degenerates calling themselves prophets, and apostles. You don't see it because you don't want to see it and you are a damn fool.
Two thousand years ago, if I was a Jew and following a Jewish guy called Jesus and twelve apostles and prophets and you were a Jew, you would be stating the same thing to me then that you state now having heard what those apostles had done that you called ungodly, evil, perverts, sicko's and degenerates. You don't see it now and you wouldn't have seen it then 2000 years ago when God himself was walking in your own city.
History is replaying itself and it isn't a matter of coincidence.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19914 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? You? God endorsed monogamy and polygamy unions/relationships. He allowed Jewish men to have five wives. He allowed a half brother and half sister to marry each other, you know Abe and Sarah? God taught we're suppose to be married to him. And you think if God wanted wives he couldn't have them, even if they were married? He made a donkey talk and caused the box carrying the Arc of the Covenant to expel a power to kill men. God can do anything, even have the wives of mortal men if he so choose.
There is no burden for me to show Jesus was married. The RCC has went out of it's way long before anyone claimed Jesus was married, to show proof he wasn't married and never would have married. Ever considered that? Why would the RCC from it's earliest times try and prove Jesus was never married when it wasn't being contested that he was? The OT is full of marriage stories and polygamy and the NT is totally absent of marriage stories and polygamy. Never considered that either?
And um, we have what the RCC put together and called the new testament. We only have the writings from four of the twelve witnesses that walked with Jesus. Their writings are in the NT. Where are the writings of the other eight that testify of his birth, ministry, death and resurrection?
Being ignorant for Mormonism again, I see. It was clearly against the Ten Commandments for a man to marry a woman who was already married. As for the RCC, it is all theory, with no proof. You just wish it was true.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19915 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Two thousand years ago, if I was a Jew and following a Jewish guy called Jesus and twelve apostles and prophets and you were a Jew, you would be stating the same thing to me then that you state now having heard what those apostles had done that you called ungodly, evil, perverts, sicko's and degenerates. You don't see it now and you wouldn't have seen it then 2000 years ago when God himself was walking in your own city.
History is replaying itself and it isn't a matter of coincidence.
As that is all just speculation, it is total BS. 2,000 yrs ago if you were a cow, I would milk you and then eat you for supper. 2,000 yrs ago, if you were in africa, you would be living in a grass hut. Joseph Smith was no Jesus. Jesus was no pervert.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19916 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what's total BS? You claiming to have been a Mormon and how now as an ex-Mormon you set yourself out to others as an expert of that religion and it's beliefs.
According to LDS teachings, having taken on a human form didn't lessen God's power at any point of his relationship with his father or his father and his father, etc. Each was perfect without fault. A rare character trait according to all the spirits that aren't perfect. That is Mormon 101 and you should know it and you don't.
Jesus was never as a 'mortal human' with faults. He was created as a spirit and he sought perfectiveness and attained it. He had no faults because he did no faults. He was as his father had been before him. Now it's Jesus's turn to become God the Father of his own place and time in the cosmos after the judgement day has happened. God the Father shall be here in his creations. Lucifer will be cast out into the cosmos where a place for him and his followers has been created for him to dwell in. Jesus shall go and create a time and place of his own and he will have a son, a son that is perfect and will learn to be as his Father Jesus is. Those are Mormon 101 teachings. And you don't understand them and you were a member for 30 years not paying attention to anything as often happens to kids born into that church. You took things for granted.
Jesus was a God who became a man, not a man who evolved into a God. The whole time he was on earth, he was still God. The Mormon God was not. You don't know crap about LDS teachings if you think otherwise. "As man is, God once was." That is Mormonism 101.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19917 Feb 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Being ignorant for Mormonism again, I see. It was clearly against the Ten Commandments for a man to marry a woman who was already married. As for the RCC, it is all theory, with no proof. You just wish it was true.
Please show me from the ten commandments where it was a command not to marry an already married woman. Waiting... in the mean time I know verses that state a married woman is to be a widow if she marries again.
And you're purposeful ignorance isn't attractive. The men of the church in Rome, they took from all they had and made a bound volume of scripture. They also only allowed the writings of four of the twelve witnesses to be in that bound volume, that's a historical fact you better adjust to. A couple more historical facts you purposefully don't wish to acknowledge as being true but are, is that there are no marriage stories in the NT and there were many in the OT. There is not a single mention of polygamy in the NT but the OT is filled with stories of polygamy.
A magic fairy didn't make it that way. The men in Rome decided what would be in the NT and what wouldn't be in the NT. That's another historical fact. And another historical fact is that those men of that early church that were deciding what to comprise the NT with and which not to include into it, they taught being single was godly. Being married to Jesus and the church (not a woman) would get you into heaven. That is proved because the hierarchy of that church in Rome for the first fifty popes remained single. The pope, the bishops, the cardinals etc all remained SINGLE.
There is no theory except for your purposeful ignorance of well substantiated facts.
If you think those facts are not facts, than take time to explain the following and prove your point.
Where are the written gospels of the other eight apostles that witnessed Jesus's life, his teachings, knew and spoke of his birth and baptism, of his death and his resurrection.
Explain why not a single mention of polygamy isn't contained in the NT.
Explain why a single marriage story between to people isn't in the NT.
Explain why the first fifty popes were all single.
Explain why the marriage between a man and woman wasn't addressed as a sacrament till the 12th century?
Waiting....

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.

South Salt Lake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News POLYGAMY: Utah Co. prosecutors want to see 'big... (Sep '10) 2 hr My nephew held ho... 6
colette draeger May 2 RANSOM PRIDE 1
laura black Apr 29 hhhhhh 1
jews Apr 29 RANSOM PRIDE 1
Review: Slickrock Towing And Recovery (Nov '12) Apr 27 Upset tenant 26
Review: CMC Heating And Air Conditioning Apr 27 Kurt Cooks 2
Obama is pure evil. Apr 24 goodness 1
More from around the web

South Salt Lake People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]