Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31996 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.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32713 Feb 19, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"....we suggested as possible sources..." Still waiting for YOUR CLAIM of official documented evidence of PLAGIARIZED sources.
I can't help stupid. Given you 4 already.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32714 Feb 19, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll be frank here. You're a fricking moron by it's very definition this time.
I never said the word Adieu didn't exist in the BOM oh bright one. Smith could have used a German word if he wanted to. he said he was making a translation. You forget that to claim he made the book up. But if you want to make your claims accurate, you have to stick with what Smith claimed, not what you claim. He made a translation he claimed from a different language. To tough to handle for a reply?
And if word similarity and sentence familiarity equals plagiarism to you, the writers of the first four books in the NT are all liars and frauds according to your logic. Even Jesus according to your logic plagiarized the old testament writers. And the Jews plagiarized the Epic of Gilgamesh.
You can either be intelligent and seek an actual explanation with sources or, continue to do as you do and have your own logic used to prove what you believe is false by your same logic used for Smith.
You're the idiot who denied that french was used in the Book of Mormon, not me. I proved it, now you are crapping your pants. Get over it.

What even is more ignorant is you claim concerning the 4 gospels. They were telling the same story, quoting the same person. Smith was not. He was making up imaginary people and imaginary events based on stories created by other people about different subjects. THE FACT YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE IS YOUR PROBLEM! People who use their heads for something beside holding their hats can see the difference.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32715 Feb 19, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact one. Mo one has ever reasonably explained away the source for the BOM. No one.
For me it isn't about whether the BOM was brought to be by the inspiration of God or from Smith's own momentary literary genius he would never have again of if Satan inspired him, The last theory a fairly new theory because some Christian researchers understand their are just to many holes in the theory that Smith wrote it all of his own thinking.
See, here are facts pro and con have established knowingly and unknowingly from each other.
Con state Smith had access to libraries in Palmyra and another town he lived close to that had a library prior to the writing of the BOM. Pro admit the same thing. But what the Con won't reveal and say nothing about that the Pro reveal, is that both of these libraries required MEMBERSHIPS (like modern libraries) to rent/borrow books. Both libraries still have record ledgers of members from Smith's time era of when he lived near these two libraries. What the Con won't tell you is that not a single Smith family member name was a member of either library. That means books weren't rented/borrowed from Smith or any of his family. And the names of those working as scribes or their family members weren't also written as members.
That means Smith didn't use the only two libraries he could have used as sources for reading material prior to writing the BOM.
Libraries are a no go.
So that leaves us with books other people had that Smith could have rented/borrowed from. And so far, prior to the BOM being written, not in journals, not in public documents, not in writings critical of Smith before and after his death or in newspaper articles did anyone state where Smith was borrowing books from them to read for any reason.
Smith had a small library put together in Nauvoo after ther BOM was printed. It also had a membership list. Guess what. Smith's name isn't on it though others close to him are on it.
Whhat this means is though Smith read and he evidently read newspapers and letters, Smith wasn't real keen on book reading out side the Bible. And of the Bible, even his mother stated once that by 18 Smith hadn't read all the way through the Bible once while under her roof. If Smith was such a book reader, seems Smith would have read through the Bible cover to cover several times by the age of 18.
Point being. The reason critics state "it's assumed" and "it's believed" and "people think" and "it's possible" and "it's likely" of where Smith got his ideas is because they don't really know so they have to speculate. And speculation isn't evidence. It's speculation. Understand?
Amazing. Source? I'll wait, because I think you pulled that out of your butt. Please prove me wrong.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32716 Feb 19, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
The dude you say he plagiarized from Ethan Smith... wrote "The View of the Hebrews".
What is ironic about the plagiarism claim is that the book was written in 1825. Smith got his first visit and started preaching about what he had seen and what he had learned in the year 1823. The Book of Mormon was written (or published) in 1830.
But if you do the research you will find wiki is wrong with the date 1823. Look at the book Ethan Smith wrote and when it was published. 1825.
Now, Ethan Smith could have gotten the idea that he believed that the Native American came from the Ten Tribes. We know they lived around the same time... we know they may have known the same people or perhaps even each other.
But, since we were not there we do not know for sure that Ethan did not get the idea from Joseph Smith.
However, being in agreement that the Native Americans came from the Ten Tribes. Joseph Smith did more than just had the idea or agreed with the idea. He translated the Book of Mormon (which is the history of how Lehi and his people came from Jerusalem to American
The first edition of "View of the Hebrews" was in 1823. Keep trying. It also wasn't the only book at that time speculating the Jewish/Native American theory which is clearly now false.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32717 Feb 19, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
They did more than take away their rights (you know the ones in the CONSTITUTION).
They beat and raped the women and girls... they killed the men and boys.
They torched their houses.
They whipped them.
Falsely imprisoned them.
Tarred and Feathered them.
You think this is the same as not getting the vote the way you wanted it? lol. wow... what a comparison.
I'll be as touched by your outrage when you show the same level towards all the people murdered by the Mormons at Mountain Meadows.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32718 Feb 19, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
... and you know why they did this in Missouri?
because there were more Mormons than there were non-Mormon residents. The non-Mormons ran them off because they were afraid the Mormons would out-vote them... and they would loose the vote.
So, the Mormons were driven out by a smaller group of people? Were they sissies?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32719 Feb 19, 2014
Burka's coming soon to Mormonism!

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/...

"Controversial LDS Article Raises Concern of 'Rape Culture'
(KUTV) There is controversy stirring over an article in the LDS Church publication the "Ensign." The featured article for the March issue tackles "What is the Lord's Standard for Morality," The article just released has fired up LDS marriage and family therapists, some who say takes women back 35 years with this one simple article.

One major point causing concern is something referred to as the "rape mentality" many are saying is portrayed in this article as the standard for behavior. But that's not all, the therapists we spoke to say the overall tone of the article creates fear instead of a healthy conversation about human sexuality which is an important part of life from beginning to end.

The talk in question was given by Tad R. Callister an LDS general authority at BYU Idaho. He says, "Our dress not only affects our thoughts and actions, but the thoughts and actions of others." He goes on to say, "the dress of women has a powerful impact on the minds and passions of men, if it's too low, too high, too tight it might prompt improper thoughts in the mind of a young man striving to be pure."

The talk went unnoticed until it was printed in the church publication the "Ensign." LDS therapists nationwide took to their blogs outraged by the "rape culture" ideology where women are responsible for a man's sexual actions.

Kristin Hodson and Alisha Worthington are sisters, active LDS members and therapists who deal with sex issues. They say this talk not only belittles women but men. The women believe, "it lowers men down to not much more than an animal, just walking around with these lustful thoughts and breaking out like the Incredible Hulk and attack a woman if she is dressed in not the right way." They say the message of fear and strict standards for women are not based in evidence, but based on cases in the Middle East where women who are dressed literally from head to toe are sexually assaulted and raped on a daily basis.

In the article Callister says that, "in the end most women will get the type of man they dress for." This is the wrong message according to therapists who work with women on issues of self-worth. Hodson says, "it's a very confusing line for women - they need to dress sexy enough to attract a man, but modest enough not to induce lustful thoughts."

The article explicitly states there should be one voice on the issue of morality and parents, counselors and teachers should not be considered. Hodson says members of the LDS church should remember they are, "a church of families, strengthening the family and empowering parents to talk to kids about sex is more important than ever."

The article also brings up issues of concern to several therapists where sex talk with adults is referred to as procreation on a childlike level instead of tackling the issue head on. There is concern that there is only fear, not talk of love and the good that comes from healthy sexual relationships.

You can always expect the Leaders to put foot in mouth at church headquarters. You can almost set you clock by it. Lord's anointed, my ass! LOL!!!
Pud

Delaware, OH

#32720 Feb 19, 2014
Joyce Roy Bean, the only law west of the Pecos, considered being a Mormon a hanging offense, but considered killing a "Chinaman" a misdemeanor offense. Roy might have been on to something. LOL

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32721 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the Mormons were driven out by a smaller group of people? Were they sissies?
You are such a putz.

You think the black population were a bunch of sissies too? They used to murder them and that was the end of it. They used to cut of half their foot so they couldn't run or whip them til they died to get others the others to comply to be submissive.

These people came into the Mormons houses with weapons to terrorize them... the Mormons were doing their daily business you think they carried guns under their dresses or hats. The Mormons were not there to fight. They attacked them unknowingly... so they would not be prepared to fight.

You really are a putz if you want to keep this argument going.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32722 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Could if I wanted to. Many churches even post their records online for anyone to see. Let's see the LDS church do that one. Just don't hold your breath.
If you could stop lying for one minute and just tell the truth!

Why would a Church post EVERYTHING they have all their worth online to make them vulnerable to being robbed during services.

That is Crazy Talk.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32723 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
The first edition of "View of the Hebrews" was in 1823. Keep trying. It also wasn't the only book at that time speculating the Jewish/Native American theory which is clearly now false.
lol Give it up dude.... look at the publication... it specifically says 1825. It doesn't say second edition.

No it is not CLEARLY now false... the only thing that is false is your statement because they identify first edition, second, third, whatever.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#32724 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be as touched by your outrage when you show the same level towards all the people murdered by the Mormons at Mountain Meadows.
Are you kidding me?

You have no clue what my feelings are on Mountain Meadows.... is this your way to "pry" it out of me?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32726 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
When you stop being totally ignorant. I have always said you get the respect you give.
Ignorant? I address your comments as you present them and you find my comments of what you say ignorant?...lol...that's funny.
Next, I would rather deal with your ignorant comments than your childish replies. At least the adult Dana is behind the ignorance as when you post in childishness all I can contend with is childishness. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32727 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Crazy challenges me all the time. The difference is that he is honest. I've stopped expecting honesty from you over a year ago. There is no level of stupid you will not go to, to try to protect the LDS church. The only thing that is simple is your mind.
I put you to task to what you claim. I have did that for a long time.
I have put you to task for your stating rumors were next to God's own truths.
I have put you to task for all your extreme remarks.
I have put you to task for all your purposeful rude, vile, derogatory comments/remarks.

Those are the reasons you don't like to have conversations with me. You don't like being called out for all the crap you have said of others and to others by me, reminding you that you're an adult, not some pissed off child.

This that you said... " The only thing that is simple is your mind." ...another childish remark.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#32728 Feb 20, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help stupid. Given you 4 already.
No, you can't help yourself, that's your issue, not me.

You first stated in this argument their was factual proof of Smith plagiarizing sources.
You haven't showed those facts. Because they don't exist.
You switched over to he stole his ideas from sources.
Now you're pissed because I keep asking for your factual proved plagiarized sources you can't produce.
So I'll stop rubbing your incorrectness in your face :)
But as you now state as I already knew from the eighties when I read material on this, critics and non-critics have "ideas" of where Smith could have gotten his ideas from that has been true all along.
But there are no factually proved sources for where Smith actually plagiarized a source. Only ideas and assumptions.
Pud

Delaware, OH

#32729 Feb 20, 2014
Best documentary on the LDS is South Park episode 123.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32730 Feb 20, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could stop lying for one minute and just tell the truth!
Why would a Church post EVERYTHING they have all their worth online to make them vulnerable to being robbed during services.
That is Crazy Talk.
Took me just 2 seconds to ind this one.

http://www.brentwoodbaptist.com/pdf/BudgetDet...

I guess they have nothing to hide, unlike the LDS church. But crooks always try to hide what they are doing. The only thing crazy is to claim otherwise.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32731 Feb 20, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a putz.
You think the black population were a bunch of sissies too? They used to murder them and that was the end of it. They used to cut of half their foot so they couldn't run or whip them til they died to get others the others to comply to be submissive.
These people came into the Mormons houses with weapons to terrorize them... the Mormons were doing their daily business you think they carried guns under their dresses or hats. The Mormons were not there to fight. They attacked them unknowingly... so they would not be prepared to fight.
You really are a putz if you want to keep this argument going.
You're comparing the Mormons to those forced into bondage? OK, Mormonism is a form of religious slavery. LOL!!!

You're gonna claim the early Aints didn't have guns? Put the crack pipe down. You're a putz whether you keep this conversation going or not. LOL!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32732 Feb 20, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
lol Give it up dude.... look at the publication... it specifically says 1825. It doesn't say second edition.
No it is not CLEARLY now false... the only thing that is false is your statement because they identify first edition, second, third, whatever.
Well I can download a copy of the 1823 edition here:
http://books.google.com/books...

And read the 1825 edition online here:
http://mit.irr.org/view-of-hebrews-1825-editi...

So, stay stupid, my friend. LOL!!!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#32734 Feb 20, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you can't help yourself, that's your issue, not me.
You first stated in this argument their was factual proof of Smith plagiarizing sources.
You haven't showed those facts. Because they don't exist.
You switched over to he stole his ideas from sources.
Now you're pissed because I keep asking for your factual proved plagiarized sources you can't produce.
So I'll stop rubbing your incorrectness in your face :)
But as you now state as I already knew from the eighties when I read material on this, critics and non-critics have "ideas" of where Smith could have gotten his ideas from that has been true all along.
But there are no factually proved sources for where Smith actually plagiarized a source. Only ideas and assumptions.
Hey, we all understand it is hard idiots to comprehend what is as plain as the nose on their face. We get it, you're too stupid to see it. Everybody else does.

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.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thomas Gibson Fired from a oeCriminal Mindsa Af... 4 hr Needhotch 2
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr cpeter1313 311,871
News Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to divorce? 18 hr Jesses_Girl 5
News Viewer's Guide: Look for trust, temperament the... Sat Plum2662 2
News Daniel Radcliffe calls Hollywood racism 'undeni... Sat TrapMusic 7
News Sources: KTVK drops 'Good Morning Arizona' pers... (Mar '09) Sat chuckles 989
News BUSTED: Cops caught on video pepper-spraying ha... Sat TrapMusic 3
More from around the web