Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32098 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

#20043 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is lots of first hand evidence he did it has been posted and given to you in detail with 3 pages of footnotes that you can verify you saying there is none does not make it so.
You pasted references.
Next, do you know what a first hand account is? I'll explain it to you to help you out.
A first hand account statement is a statement from a 'witness' that is claiming to have had 'first hand eye witness' testimony that something happened/took place and they 'saw it' happen.
That said, you better wake up and smell some real time coffee dude because there are only a 'few''first hand testimonies' claiming to have either seen Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma or claimed to see Smith and a woman other than Emma enter a bed chamber.
These are the few accounts that people have used to substantiate Smith was having sex with other women.
The real question is do you know of these "specific" accounts? I do. If you do or you can locate them on the web, paste their statement in whole from a link.
I'll tell you now. One of the most famous first hand accounts of Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma was stated in a court hearing. She claimed to have went with them to a house. She claimed to have readied there bed chamber. She claimed to have seen them go into it. She claimed to have seen them have sex. She swore on a Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law.
Guess what? The lawyer showed by questions that she was nothing but a bald faced liar. She didn't go to the house with them on the day she said it happened. She didn't ready the bed chamber. She didn't even enter it. And than she admitted she didn't see them have sex.
The other witness in the same court hearing seeing how that woman had made a liar of herself, that she committed perjury and lied to a judge and court room, when she afterwards came up for her testimony of what she knew of Smith having sexual relations with other women other than Emma, know what she said? Not a fricking thing. Refused to give comment. Refused to answer questions. This was a witness who had came there to swear on a Bible and tell her first hand account of having seen ??Smith engaged in sex with other women. Ans when it came to say her statement she refused to say anything.
The information isn't as concrete provable that Smith was sexing thirty plus women in three years as you would wish existed.
So paste just four (4) of your first hand accounts from your 'eye witnesses' and lets discuss the validity of what they said shall we?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20044 Feb 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lying for the Lord" is another long held tradition of the LDS church:
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
Apparently, Mormons are great lovers of a good lie.
Oh I love it when you say something without understanding the underlying context...lol
You were a Mormon for 30 years. That means lying for the Lord was a common everyday thing for you to do. That means you were a great lover of many many good lies. And that would maybe explain your nasty habit of lying when you do lie? lol...fricking sweet is the info you spill from your lips :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20045 Feb 11, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does the bible say that God commanded Abraham to take a second wife. Feel free to prove me wrong with something like a bible verse, and not those fictional scriptures you follow.
Well let's see.
If God didn't command Abraham to have Sarah's handmaid, than we should have read about God ripping Sarah a new *utt hole for enticing her husband into committing adultery. And because Abraham listened to his wife as Adam listened to Eve's enticement, we should have read of God disciplining Abraham for having committed adultery because the marriage wasn't recognized by God, thus making it an illegal marriage. Thus we should have read about both Sarah and Abraham being disciplined by the Lord in a most vexing manner for their most wicked behavior.
But I read nothing about that. Just the unfaithfulness of Sarah at an old age, well beyond child bearing age, hearing she would become pregnate with child and laughed disbelieving it, like you laugh and disbelieve in apostles and prophets existing today. You and Sarah are well alike in your disbeliefs :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20046 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT an ill well you would be as useless at poker as you are posting here
Dt 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you,“You are not to go back that way again.”
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
We went over this long ago. You apparently forgot.
Solomon took unto himself 'many wives' that led his heart astray from the Lord.
David took 'one wife to many' with Bathsheba and his heart was led astray from God. But his heart hadn't been led astray from the Lord prior to having many wives before he ever saw Bathsheba. Before Bathsheba David was said to be a man of the Lord, a righteous man before the Lord. A man that the Lord was well pleased with.
You can twist what you want to mean what you wish it to mean by taking what was said out of context but it'll never mean you're correct.
According to your twisted way of interpreting the above verses, a king must have one horse, one wife, one piece of gold and one piece of silver.
"Oh no!" you'll exclaim. "My interpretation means a king can have many horses, one wife, many pieces of gold and many pieces of silver."
Yeah figures...lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20047 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
NOT an ill well you would be as useless at poker as you are posting here
Dt 17:16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you,“You are not to go back that way again.”
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
Dt 17:18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites.
Dt 17:19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
Dt 17:20 and not consider himself better than his brothers and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Dt 17:17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. did you get that pretty sure this qualifies as ill words.
Despite his world–renowned wisdom, Solomon’s peaceful and prosperous rule ended in idolatrous scandal and civil strife, for “his wives turned his heart after other gods”(1 Kings 11:4).
MATTHEW 19:4–6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied,“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said,‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one.”
BTW when I copy and paste the Bible is that bad too??? LOL
My bad, I was having a flash back of Dana asking about those verses, not you. My apologies. But I'm ready to further discuss them :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20049 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post shows no common sense but a lot of prejudice and hatred.
If Christians wanted to cover up anything, there would be no mistakes made by any disciple in the Bible at all. Instead, the truth is there, showing them as ordinary people, along with their mistakes and the lessons we should learn from their actions, both good and bad.
Before jumping on everything done by others, including the lies you told in your post by assuming things, take a look at yourself -- you need to work on yourself before trying convince others that you’re superior to anybody.
You should try and be less judgemental and just give a wee try to understanding the context of what is being said in a discussion before, you jump in feet first thinking you know what you prove you don't.
The other poster was speaking of how atrocious and horrendous the acts of modern men thinking themselves Christians were in consideration to things they did and said.
I was just showing that modern Christianity smooths over what type of apostles Jesus enlisted to be his right and left hand men and to appoint them positions of authority to run his church.
Jesus called all non-Jews dogs. Nice thing to say coming from a loving saviour unless you take time to understand the context of what was said.
Modern Christianity makes it appear it was nothing that Peter denied knowing and following Jesus as his saviour and God.
God the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus really was and Peter denied that personal revelation. Peter cast his pearl to the swine for fear of going to jail and or being put to death for following Jesus's teaches and being the primary apostolic leader.
Peter took all that he knew, all that had been given to him through his faith and tossed it all away for fear of losing his life. Do you have any clue what an atrocious and horrendous thing that was to do? It was evilly wicked. And Modern Christianity paints that story like Peter told a tiny white lie and God patted peter's head forgiving him and said give me a big hug!
Fricking idiots. And you judge me as having prejudice and being hateful because I can appreciate that gravity of what Peter did and it's serious nature? Yeah bring on some more of your judgements please...
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20050 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
We went over this long ago. You apparently forgot.
Solomon took unto himself 'many wives' that led his heart astray from the Lord.
David took 'one wife to many' with Bathsheba and his heart was led astray from God. But his heart hadn't been led astray from the Lord prior to having many wives before he ever saw Bathsheba. Before Bathsheba David was said to be a man of the Lord, a righteous man before the Lord. A man that the Lord was well pleased with.
You can twist what you want to mean what you wish it to mean by taking what was said out of context but it'll never mean you're correct.
According to your twisted way of interpreting the above verses, a king must have one horse, one wife, one piece of gold and one piece of silver.
"Oh no!" you'll exclaim. "My interpretation means a king can have many horses, one wife, many pieces of gold and many pieces of silver."
Yeah figures...lol.
I do not take one verse out of context and make it a pretext as you do.

My post included verses before and after Det 17.

You see you must take in all the verses of the whole Bible to come up with sound doctrine so It is clear from the Verses in Genesis to Deuteronomy to Galatians where elders are only to have one wife as are laymen.

What the LDS does is take on verse that is fairly clear yet has some wiggle room as does Deuteronomy 17 and then make a case why it might not be.

But if you chose to be fair you take all the verses in the Bible that pertain to Marriage and you will find no wiggle room one man one woman to be married no more no less.

Now in the case of Moses David Solomon they did not have the NT that we have today but even then God judge them fairly and it is clear they knew better but chose not to listen to the Spirits leading. We have the complete revelation in Jesus the Christ as did Joseph Smith and like him you and I are with out excuses.

The biggest Problem with J.Smiths wives is he hid them from his 1st wife married legally married women, and married children.

In light of scripture Joseph Smith clearly was a false prophet the Bible tells us so.
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20051 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You pasted references.
Next, do you know what a first hand account is? I'll explain it to you to help you out.
A first hand account statement is a statement from a 'witness' that is claiming to have had 'first hand eye witness' testimony that something happened/took place and they 'saw it' happen.
That said, you better wake up and smell some real time coffee dude because there are only a 'few''first hand testimonies' claiming to have either seen Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma or claimed to see Smith and a woman other than Emma enter a bed chamber.
These are the few accounts that people have used to substantiate Smith was having sex with other women.
The real question is do you know of these "specific" accounts? I do. If you do or you can locate them on the web, paste their statement in whole from a link.
I'll tell you now. One of the most famous first hand accounts of Smith having sex with a woman other than Emma was stated in a court hearing. She claimed to have went with them to a house. She claimed to have readied there bed chamber. She claimed to have seen them go into it. She claimed to have seen them have sex. She swore on a Bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law.
Guess what? The lawyer showed by questions that she was nothing but a bald faced liar. She didn't go to the house with them on the day she said it happened. She didn't ready the bed chamber. She didn't even enter it. And than she admitted she didn't see them have sex.
The other witness in the same court hearing seeing how that woman had made a liar of herself, that she committed perjury and lied to a judge and court room, when she afterwards came up for her testimony of what she knew of Smith having sexual relations with other women other than Emma, know what she said? Not a fricking thing. Refused to give comment. Refused to answer questions. This was a witness who had came there to swear on a Bible and tell her first hand account of having seen ??Smith engaged in sex with other women. Ans when it came to say her statement she refused to say anything.
The information isn't as concrete provable that Smith was sexing thirty plus women in three years as you would wish existed.
So paste just four (4) of your first hand accounts from your 'eye witnesses' and lets discuss the validity of what they said shall we?
I posted links that have these references that are first hand accounts that you have chosen to ignore. I given you first hand accounts that you can not refute.

If I posted the whole thing all 4000 pages of documentation then you would rant about cutting and pasting. READ it TEST it till then your posts are just gibberish from a rambling idiot.

AGAIN I have posted accounts you ignore because the truth is scaring the behegees out of you.

I post Cases X Y Z and then you try to argue about Cases A B and C that I never brought up or even once referneced.

I show you exhibit Z that shows J.S. had sex with children and you choose to argue about Exhibit B LOL you are a child.

If you are unwilling to address the evidence I have brought forth at least be honest and tell the forum you have not got a clue how to refute it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20052 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
including the lies you told in your post by assuming things,
Let's go over one of what you call a lie shall we? Maybe your idiocy will wane a bit and you intelligence will fill it's void?

When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples.2Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples.3Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.4So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them,“Whom do you seek?”5They answered Him,“Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them,“I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.6So when He said to them,“I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground.7Therefore He again asked them,“Whom do you seek?” And they said,“Jesus the Nazarene.”8Jesus answered,“I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,”9to fulfill the word which He spoke,“Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.”
..
Now all seems to be going okay. Jesus seems to have 'pacified' the situation from a tense one to one where the officers, priests and guards began to relax seeing there would be no resistance from Jesus or his disciples.
So one of the guards reaching to take Jesus into custody as has been interpreted by scholars at this point receives a violent reprieve from Peter.
..
”10Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave’s name was Malchus.11So Jesus said to Peter,“Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”
..
Peter didn't try to aim so perfectly as to only slice off that slave's ear that was a guard for the high priest. Peter had been obviously aiming to split that guard's skull into two halves for trying to take his Lord away. As the other poster likes to equate our present terminology for that of 2000 years ago, Peter committed first degree attempted murder. Peter tried to murder a guard in a situation that Jesus had diffused so violence wouldn't happen and his disciples wouldn't be hurt and killed by the guards.
There is no lie to that story. You have lied claiming what I said was a lie, that is true :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20053 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
You're like a simple little ant whos so egotistical that he rejects the idea of people because he can't see them coming at him in time to hide.
lolol...that's it? That's your attempt at belittling me? Please tell me you can do better than that? You come into the thread speaking like some good Christian and one of the first things you do as a good Christian is belittle someone with your pathetic attempts at sarcasm? Why am I not surprised....lol....fricking too funny....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20054 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity is based on proof, including the ongoing fulfillment of prophecies.
It doesn't surprise me you would say such a lame statement. Since Christianity is based on proof as you say it is, please prove Jesus lived. Prove he was even born. Shown un-doubtable proof that Jesus was born of a virgin and was the most perfect person to walk this earth.
Just a hint, there is no proof for any of that. Not for Jesus or his church or anything. There is evidence that alludes to a person named Jesus that did exist. But you have to have faith that Jesus even existed because there is no proof for his existence. That's what having faith in Jesus is all about don't ya know :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20056 Feb 11, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, but few people would've followed that religion, plus their main goal is to deceive Christians.
Christians deceive themselves all the time. They need no one's help in accomplishing that task lol. Christians of different religions blister each other over who's doctrine is the best and most correct interpretation and who's isn't every single day 24/7/12.
They have a 'get together day' and they act all chummy in unity. But back behind the pulpit and arming their missionaries with their doctrines, their out there in the trenches trying to get people from this Christian religion to join their Christian religion.
They'll have no qualms for speaking how wrong another religion is. Baptists against Methodists, Methodists against Presbyterian's, Seventh Day Adventists against the Church of Christ, Baptists against Baptists, Methodists against Methodists, etc, etc.
Christianity has fought against itself since it was first reformed in Rome. Just saying.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20057 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity.
I love non-thought out posts like yours :)
The reason Christianity isn't Christian is because they deny several essential doctrines of the early church that Jesus set forth himself. Modern Christians find excuses not to believe in there existence which proves their nothing but fake wannabes.
Modern Christians deny the existence of apostles, prophets, seventies, revelation by and through prophets and apostles, they don't believe a bishop needs to be married. They don't believe a deacon needs to be married. Most Christian churches have no position but a minister. Most don't have missionaries. Most don't believe in baptism by immersion. Many don't believe a baptism is needed at all. Many teach a doctrine of faith and preach against works and faith.
Modern Christianity is a fraud of what early Christianity was once. And those are facts Jack.
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20058 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I love non-thought out posts like yours :)
The reason Christianity isn't Christian is because they deny several essential doctrines of the early church that Jesus set forth himself. Modern Christians find excuses not to believe in there existence which proves their nothing but fake wannabes.
Modern Christians deny the existence of apostles, prophets, seventies, revelation by and through prophets and apostles, they don't believe a bishop needs to be married. They don't believe a deacon needs to be married. Most Christian churches have no position but a minister. Most don't have missionaries. Most don't believe in baptism by immersion. Many don't believe a baptism is needed at all. Many teach a doctrine of faith and preach against works and faith.
Modern Christianity is a fraud of what early Christianity was once. And those are facts Jack.
Actually as any one who is not a dumb dumb like you can see there is not one fact in your post.

The is not one shred of evidence or one statement that can be tested and verified as factual.

Its all from the your delusional mind. 100% incoherent gibberish.

If LDS are Christian as YOU Claim why as a follower of Evangelical Christian beliefs am I not Mormon too?

You are Polytheistic as a Mormon you believe there are many God's like in Greek Mythology.

I am Monotheistic like the first Christians were.

Can these two beliefs Many Gods only One God be reconciled and called the same Beliefs have the same name?

NO its absurd its like saying snakes and ants are all insects.

By your beliefs as a MORMON you are not a Christian.

YOUR beliefs are as far from Christian beliefs as is paganism or witchcraft.

Truth Matters

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#20059 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
... blah, blah, blah...
If you know the Bible so well, then why don't you know the history of it?

This is not taught by the Mormon Church. It is strictly Biblical history.

/////

Christ set up his Church "The Church of Jesus Christ" during his ministry. Money, power, and evil changed it.

Then came the Dark Ages.

The Roman Catholics forbid anyone without "their authority" to own a copy of the Bible... for monetary purposes.

"The original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin". This was done to ensure people did not have the ability to possess the knowledge of the Word of God on their own for their own agenda. The only way to obtain the knowledge or power was to pay for it.

All of the different break offs of the different Christian Church's came as a result of the Dark Ages. That is why there are Different Christian sects NOT different Christian GODS.

The Church Jesus originally set up was corrupted because of the Roman Catholics and their agenda. Their agenda and their corruption was finally exposed by Martin Luther...

"Luther declared his intolerance for the Roman Church’s corruption on Halloween in 1517, by nailing his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door. Luther, who would be exiled in the months following the Diet of Worms Council in 1521 that was designed to martyr him, would translate the New Testament into German for the first time from the 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus, and publish it in September of 1522... In the 1530’s he would go on to publish the entire Bible in German."

HOWEVER, when it started being distributed... they were "burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books."

To read more about this PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SITE. From the Knowledge I've obtained in studying religions in college, through years of research... this site is very thorough and correct.

http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...

http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...

http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...

The only way to have the TRUTH and I mean the FULL TRUTH is to go back to the ORIGINAL BIBLE...

it had the fullness.

Once it was broken up and taken away from and added to and modified it became NOT the ORIGINAL.

It is necessary for us to take ALL writings into account that ARE

O.R.I.G.I.N.A.L.

There is still more out there.

The Book of Mormon is just one of the O.R.I.G.I.N.A.L. writings discussed here. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is about the writings that originated from the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

Making issue with JS in any way shape or form has always been the desire of corrupted men.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#20060 Feb 11, 2013
POPE RESIGNS

- 1st pope to do so in 700 years

- "Church officials tried to relay a climate of calm confidence in the running of a 2,000-year-old institution, but the decision could lead to uncertainty in a Church already besieged by scandal for covering up sexual abuse of children by priests."

Interesting article published:

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-resigns-saying-no-...
concerned in Eygpt

Aberdeen, UK

#20061 Feb 11, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know the Bible so well, then why don't you know the history of it?
This is not taught by the Mormon Church. It is strictly Biblical history.
/////
..........Cut for space....

HOWEVER, when it started being distributed... they were "burned as soon as the Bishop could confiscate them, but copies trickled through and actually ended up in the bedroom of King Henry VIII. The more the King and Bishop resisted its distribution, the more fascinated the public at large became. The church declared it contained thousands of errors as they torched hundreds of New Testaments confiscated by the clergy, while in fact, they burned them because they could find no errors at all. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of Tyndale's forbidden books."
To read more about this PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SITE. From the Knowledge I've obtained in studying religions in college, through years of research... this site is very thorough and correct.
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...
The only way to have the TRUTH and I mean the FULL TRUTH is to go back to the ORIGINAL BIBLE...
it had the fullness.
Once it was broken up and taken away from and added to and modified it became NOT the ORIGINAL.
It is necessary for us to take ALL writings into account that ARE
O.R.I.G.I.N.A.L.
There is still more out there.
The Book of Mormon is just one of the O.R.I.G.I.N.A.L. writings discussed here. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is about the writings that originated from the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.
Making issue with JS in any way shape or form has always been the desire of corrupted men.
YOU ARE an idiot hands down I could chew this rant to pieces but my time is precious to me.

This will do and this in of itself shows you what an uneducated fool you are with regards to Church History

"
"The original languages of Hebrew and Greek, and the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin". This was done to ensure people did not have the ability to possess the knowledge of the Word of God on their own for their own agenda. The only way to obtain the knowledge or power was to pay for it."

During the Dark ages dumb dumb I was just wondering what language the bibles were in the GREEK orthodox church in Russia Slavic Belarus Lithuania Latvia shall I continue.

The Coptic Christians in Egypt and what is toady Tunisia Algeria Chad. I currently am working with Coptic Christians who still know Greek.

That should suffice as if you did not even remember that the Greek Orthodox Church was going strong then truly you are well..... a dumb dumb

I read your whole post its pathetic every line is as ignorant and absurd as you thinking Christianity was trapped only in Latin.

WOW WOW it must of been so easy for the LDS to brain wash you.

You are posting like a guy whose in these forums LDS some years back who pretended to be RC.

Pretty sure its you can't remember your handle it will come to me.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20062 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not take one verse out of context and make it a pretext as you do.
My post included verses before and after Det 17.
You see you must take in all the verses of the whole Bible to come up with sound doctrine so It is clear from the Verses in Genesis to Deuteronomy to Galatians where elders are only to have one wife as are laymen.
What the LDS does is take on verse that is fairly clear yet has some wiggle room as does Deuteronomy 17 and then make a case why it might not be.
But if you chose to be fair you take all the verses in the Bible that pertain to Marriage and you will find no wiggle room one man one woman to be married no more no less.
Now in the case of Moses David Solomon they did not have the NT that we have today but even then God judge them fairly and it is clear they knew better but chose not to listen to the Spirits leading. We have the complete revelation in Jesus the Christ as did Joseph Smith and like him you and I are with out excuses.
The biggest Problem with J.Smiths wives is he hid them from his 1st wife married legally married women, and married children.
In light of scripture Joseph Smith clearly was a false prophet the Bible tells us so.
Forget the LDS for the moment. The fact of the Bible is we read instances of monogamy or what we interpret to be monogamy. But another fact of the Bible is that many prophets/leaders/kings of the Israelite people partook in polygamous marriages. Another fact is a lot of these men were called righteous men and good men while engaged in these relationships. We know in one instance God gave a man who already had several wives, God gave him the wives of a dead king to have. We know polygamy is recorded to have happened as far back as the time of Adam while he was still alive.
The summery is that God not only endorsed monogamy, but when it served God's purposes and reasons, God endorsed polygamy also.
Deny it or take it as the Bible reveals it is up to you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20063 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted links that have these references that are first hand accounts that you have chosen to ignore. I given you first hand accounts that you can not refute.
If I posted the whole thing all 4000 pages of documentation then you would rant about cutting and pasting. READ it TEST it till then your posts are just gibberish from a rambling idiot.
AGAIN I have posted accounts you ignore because the truth is scaring the behegees out of you.
I post Cases X Y Z and then you try to argue about Cases A B and C that I never brought up or even once referneced.
I show you exhibit Z that shows J.S. had sex with children and you choose to argue about Exhibit B LOL you are a child.
If you are unwilling to address the evidence I have brought forth at least be honest and tell the forum you have not got a clue how to refute it.
Nice dodge and side step. Scared to prove your points?

What I know is you turned down a challenge. Scared to face your own sources? Scared to go through their testimonies?
I will state again and give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is.
"So paste just four (4) of your first hand accounts from your 'eye witnesses' and lets discuss the validity of what they said shall we?"
Remember, FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS. No rumours. No second or third or fourth hand accounts. list FOUR (4) FIRST HAND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS you claim exist. Not list them or be your own liar that you claim they exist, but maybe you can't list them because you can't find what you claim exists.
Waiting..........

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#20064 Feb 11, 2013
concerned in Eygpt wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually as any one who is not a dumb dumb like you can see there is not one fact in your post.
The is not one shred of evidence or one statement that can be tested and verified as factual.
Its all from the your delusional mind. 100% incoherent gibberish.
If LDS are Christian as YOU Claim why as a follower of Evangelical Christian beliefs am I not Mormon too?
You are Polytheistic as a Mormon you believe there are many God's like in Greek Mythology.
I am Monotheistic like the first Christians were.
Can these two beliefs Many Gods only One God be reconciled and called the same Beliefs have the same name?
NO its absurd its like saying snakes and ants are all insects.
By your beliefs as a MORMON you are not a Christian.
YOUR beliefs are as far from Christian beliefs as is paganism or witchcraft.
Truth Matters
Now all you're doing is showing me how childish of a little mind you really have. And to think I was giving you some credit for having a level of intelligence that you have totally now proved beyond a reasonable doubt you don't have.
You paste others words.
You call childish names.
You speak like a little child having a rant on the play ground.
My apology for thinking I was speaking to an adult, my sincerest apologies.

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.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 8 min Jukebox 529,218
News All Along "The Watchtower": Is It Legal to Pros... 23 min The Lightbearer 14
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... 41 min Elganned 182
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr waaasssuuup 703,738
News Hundreds of United Methodist clergy bring churc... 2 hr North Mountain 86
The Sign of the Cross 4 hr The Lightbearer 8
News Citing Bible, Trump administration digs in on '... 10 hr C Kersey 7