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

#22870 Mar 30, 2013
NoMo wrote:
<quoted text>
Watching you have a meltdown is HYSTERICAL!!!
You know what's even better? Watching Alan Osmond's garbage spew this past week come back and hit him right in his hateful face.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/t/video/person-week...
You define that post I wrote a melt down? Really? Well I have said you have some strange interpretation values and you prove it again :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22872 Mar 30, 2013
OOdle wrote:
<quoted text>Mormons have spent millions of dollars and have not dug up one shred of truth that any of their beliefs are true.
lol...I'm game. I'll play idiot like your thinking and agree with, "Gee, really Oodle? Wow!"

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22873 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So, somebody in Rome wrote:
Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
One flesh, not one dozen. Where does it teach polygamy in that verse if it was "instituted by God?" Why didn't make Adam and Eve, and Tammy, and Betty... if it was "instituted by God?"
Why did he tell the kings of Israel:
"17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17).
If it was "instituted by God?" Just because the Bible mentions a trait or act of an individual, even a godly person, does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorsed such. The mentioning of Noah becoming drunk and disgracing himself is mentioned, but certainly not condoned (Gen. 9: 20ff.). I submit that God was not pleased with polygamy, an aberrant from the monogamous marriage God put in place, but that he did two things:(1). God tolerated polygamy during the maturation of his people and (2) he sought to regulate the evil practice.
We know that God intended for one man, one woman and that this relationship was to be for the duration (Matt. 19: 4ff., the only allowable cause for divorce is fornication). Yet, we also read of a divorce provision for a cause other than fornication (Deut. 24: 1-4). This divorce concession was not given for the pleasure of flippant husbands, but was actually for the protection of the women. Thus it was relative to polygamy. God put in place monogamous marriage, but man within a short time became dissatisfied with one woman (Gen. 4: 19). Hence, God then sought to regulate the polygamous practice (Ex. 21: 10). Notwithstanding, God was never pleased with polygamy or divorce for a cause other than fornication (cp. Mal. 3: 16).
Polygamy is expressly denounced pertaining to the leaders of God’s people.
"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach," "6: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly" (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1).
The expression "husband of one wife" (andra mias gunaikos) was provided by the Holy Spirit and must be respected. The Holy Spirit could have worded this requirement a number of ways. This construction requires marriage (present marriage) but forbids polygamy.
Thus in the case of the Hebrew leaders (the kings) and in the case of the rulers of God’s people today (cp. Heb. 13: 17), having more than one wife is expressly forbidden. Why would one think such would not also follow regarding those under these men?
Someone in Rome wrote all of that, when?
By the way, if you have any doubts of what I said about who and by what agenda set forth the Bible and the NT that is minus polygamy stories and any one of Israelite leadership partaking in polygamy, than read some recent words from the new pope...
"For now, though, "the discipline of celibacy stands firm," he said, adding that priests should quit if they can't abstain from sex or if they get a woman pregnant."
And you wonder not where the doctrine of Jesus always being single and a virgin came from. It wasn't from the NT, just saying.
Lil

Salt Lake City, UT

#22874 Mar 30, 2013
ormonism teaches that when a couple gets married in the LDS Temple, they are being married for time and all eternity, or, as they say,“being sealed to each other for eternity.” They do not believe in marriage “until death do us part.” Although there is a time when the “until death do they part” applies. This is when a woman who is sealed to a man in the temple has a husband who dies. She may then marry another man. This marriage would be a “sealing for time only” and not for eternity.

Mormons generally use Matthew 16:19 to prove that marriage is for eternity or “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven…” In doing this, they fail to take into account the true meaning of this scripture. Jesus is speaking to Peter and the apostles and says,

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(KJV).

The Biblical cross reference to this verse is John 20:23. The subject is the forgiveness of sins, not marriage. As theologian J. Carl Laney explains it, Christ was saying that “based on one’s response to the Gospel, the apostles could declare,‘Because you have rejected Christ, you are bound to the law and to its penalty.’ Or,‘Because you have received Christ, you are free from the law and its penalty’.” Christ “offers the disciples the privilege of giving assurance of the forgiveness of sins by correctly announcing the terms of forgiveness.” This passage in Matthew is not talking about marriage for eternity; the subject is the forgiveness of sins through Christ which was to be announced through His disciples.

Let’s look at this issue of marriage further. In Matthew 22:23 you will find the full story about the Sadducees who came to Jesus with the question about what would be the marital status in the next life of a woman who married an oldest brother who then dies and by Jewish laws she was required to marry the next brother, who also died, as did each of the seven brothers she had to marry upon the death of each one. The question that was asked by the Sadducees was who would be her husband in the next life, since she had married all of them in succession.

Matthew 22:29-30 says,
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (KJV).
Lil

Salt Lake City, UT

#22875 Mar 30, 2013
Cont:

Mark 12:24-25 says,
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do you not therefore err, because ye know not, the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven (KJV).

And in Luke 20:34-36 we read,
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry and are given in marriage: But they which shall be counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.(KJV)

So, we have three of the apostles, who heard Jesus speaking on this very subject. All record what He said and meant. Jesus said that the people who believed those married here on Earth would also be married in Heaven were in error. It was believed by the ungodly Sadducees and not a doctrine of Christ.

Since: Sep 12

Reeds Spring, MO

#22876 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
Cont:

Mark 12:24-25 says,
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do you not therefore err, because ye know not, the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven (KJV).

And in Luke 20:34-36 we read,
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry and are given in marriage: But they which shall be counted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.(KJV)

So, we have three of the apostles, who heard Jesus speaking on this very subject. All record what He said and meant. Jesus said that the people who believed those married here on Earth would also be married in Heaven were in error. It was believed by the ungodly Sadducees and not a doctrine of Christ.
Only the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, or eternal marriage. They were attempting to entrap Jesus. Just like the Pharisees had earlier.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22879 Mar 30, 2013
OOdle wrote:
<quoted text>It is no secret dummy. It is common knowledge that BYU spends millions on archealogy. Please google this so you don't stay ignorant the rest of your miserable uninformed life.
I'll play cards with you and lay down your a misinformed liar card.
The BOM speaks of elephants.
Mayan/Aztec buildings have modern elephant head relief's with ears, tusks and a trunk. Strange if modern elephants have never been on the Americas, Mayans/Aztecs logically shouldn't have known how to carve them into their buildings. Just saying.
And that is how it began with the Bible. People like you claimed a bunch of people made up fairy tales and set forth the Bible. Slowly, century after century, this and that of geography, events and people began to be proven to have existed in Bible stories.
So what did people like you do who could no longer state the entire Bible was a fairy tale? People like you began to concentrate on the story of the God of the Bible and still claim that part is a fairy tale since non-god things are being proved more and more to have existed and taken place.
South and Central America are still under the canopy of jungle and 90% still unexplored if not more concerning ruins and ancient things still in the earth and marshes and lakes. And archaeology and the BOM is still in it's infancy. So to judge it as you do is a fools judgement. Just saying.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22880 Mar 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
"Now as for myself, Dana, I'm hardly the epitome of goodness and virtue. When you disagree with me, it's straight to overinflated claims, personal attacks, and statements about others intelligence. This is why I don't buy my own BS, because when I have something of substance to say, I'll say anything that sounds good even if it isn't true and when challenged, I won't respond unless it's with some childish rant, just read my past posts for proof. I try and get a raise out of anyone, that's what I do best I think. And most people accommodate me in childish rants but I like doing that. I'm not guiltless by any means but I do have a bit of honesty I display from time to time.
Hate facing yourself, do you?
Lil

Salt Lake City, UT

#22881 Mar 30, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, or eternal marriage. They were attempting to entrap Jesus. Just like the Pharisees had earlier.
Wrong!

Since: Sep 12

Reeds Spring, MO

#22882 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
So, you believe that the Sadducees believed in the resurrection and in eternal marriage? Can you show me where they held and practiced this belief?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22883 Mar 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Nomo in months past posts has said the most out right vile things that she could ever fathom to think of to say to me from her black heart because she thinks these things she says hurts my emotions.
Nomo has wished me death, to wither up and die, to crawl back to hell and said so many other things it's not even worth mentioning and 90% of all she said was because of how she feels I feel when we speak about same sex marriage conversations.
She has wished the death and disappearance and destruction of Mormon leaders over and over and over.
She has vomited her seething hatred, anger and dark foul cursings upon anyone that disagrees with her stance on same sex marriage and or homosexuality.
She has said these things for months and you think I lie? Why don't you take a trip to 4 or 5 months past of her posts and begin to read forward. I need not lie about what she has posted as what she has factually stated.
As to you and your dad, you have described a most disrespectful relationship from you to him, that is what you did. You also once described your relationship with your mom as not the best either. But that is neither here nor there. You and nomo talk about respect and such and than you disrespect others and when it's done to you in a similar manner, it's like you two call out like wounded kids "foul! foul! stop it!" You two don't take the same medicine you dish out very well.
And you two have been surmised by many, many people in many threads as being hateful and vile in how you speak to people for months if not longer. So yes, you two have made it known by your posts in how you two speak that you two are very vile and hateful when it comes to responses to others. You two have hardly any civility to yourselves when you speak to others.
And so you did notice my post's :) How's it like? Thought I'd give it a change and become vile and venomous as you and nomo are at times. I really don't like it, quite a disgusting way to be I feel. How do you two manage it?
And accusing her of a death is irresponsible? So to you and she it's responsible to hold people accountable to deaths who didn't even know a child? That's your reproach? That's your logic?
Nomo holds Mormons in general accountable for every suicide that happens to a Mormon child. She especially holds the leaders and parents accountable and she doesn't give a rat's *ss how the suicide happened or why it happened. As long as one takes place, nomo bangs on that like a drum and proclaims leaders and parents murderers! She has claimed that over and over that leaders and parents of Mormon kids committing suicide are responsible for their deaths! That's the equivalent of calling them MURDERERS which she has called them on occasion.
And you find fault with me for accusing her of the same exact thing by her own measured usage of reason and logic to call Mormon leaders and parents murderers??? Why am I not surprised you would think that way.
You just never think before you speak dude, just saying. You defend nomo for calling people murderers of children they may or may not have even known but I am wrong to use her same logic? Fricking just to funny and really way to fricking sad.
Sounds like justification for your ugliness. "Mommy, she did it first!"

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22884 Mar 30, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you believe that the Sadducees believed in the resurrection and in eternal marriage? Can you show me where they held and practiced this belief?
Well, if they didn't believe in resurrection, they certainly didn't believe in marriage. They were trying to trap Jesus in a conflict with his teachings of resurrection with the marriage question. But while supporting the belief we are to be resurrected, he was clearly saying there was no conflict because there will be no marriages. We are not going to be resurrected and then it's just back to business as usual.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22885 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate facing yourself, do you?
lol...nooo. I'm cool with me. I just hate to pretend to be you and nomo from time to time, that's tough on the psychic seriously. Don't know how you two survive yourselves.

Since: Sep 12

Reeds Spring, MO

#22886 Mar 30, 2013
Lil wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
In Acts 23:8 it states "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. Furthermore, since the Sadducees lived according to the Law of Moses, a lesser law, the law of marriage contained within it was for this life only.

BTW- your post above was a word for word rip-off from this website: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-cc/cc-etern...

Next time supply your source and give credit where credit is due.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22887 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like justification for your ugliness. "Mommy, she did it first!"
My ugliness? lol...fricking please! And that comes from the guy that loves to get as ugly and foul with his words about Smith and Mormons in general?
That is funny! I would actually have to spend a few months refining my character to even be a novice of ugly speech compared to you and nomo, the masters of ugly speech...
By the way, all I have been doing is running her logic/reasoning ugly speech back at her as she uses it for others. Neither you or she seems to think that should be done back on her.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22888 Mar 30, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
But while supporting the belief we are to be resurrected, he was clearly saying there was no conflict because there will be no marriages.
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22889 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus didn't say it the way you rephrase it.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
You should read the verse as it was written, not as you wish to redefine it.
Jesus stated that IN THE RESURRECTION, he referenced nothing of this mortal life and what happened to those married here who would die a married couple.
He neither didn't answer their question. The woman in this scenario presented by the Sadducee, had by the law of Moses legally wedded seven brothers one after another as they died. Jesus didn't say she would remain married to one brother or all three or none of them. You can show anything from Jesus where he actually answered the original question they asked of him.
Jesus went on to state that in the resurrection AFTER THIS MORTAL LIFE WAS DONE AND OVER, "...they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,.." IN THE RESURRECTION. In the resurrection "..THEY NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE,.."
Jesus said nothing, not a single thing, not even a clue did he give as to what would happen to a couple that was married in the MORTAL LIFE who died. Jesus didn't say their marriage was ended at death and he didn't say it continued on in the resurrection. HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION. GET IT????
The answer Jesus gave had nothing directly to do with their actual question. Jesus made a statement that THEY would neither marry nor be given in marriage IN THE RESURRECTION.
A married couple here in mortal life couldn't be remarried in the after life in the resurrection. Not possible according to what Jesus said. So what he said couldn't pertain to people married in this mortal life that die man and wife. Get it yet?
Jesus was speaking of people that died single. Only single people according to Jesus's statement can be married. So Jesus's statement could have only been referencing single people, not already married people from the mortal life, get it?
If you think you can prove that Jesus was referencing a Sadducee belief that married mortals that died could marry and be given in marriage a second time in the resurrection, please show your proof. Because that is your logic. That the Sadducee believed people in the mortal life that married and died, that in the resurrection the Sadducee believed those married couples could be married and given in marriage a second time.
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22890 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, if you have any doubts of what I said about who and by what agenda set forth the Bible and the NT that is minus polygamy stories and any one of Israelite leadership partaking in polygamy, than read some recent words from the new pope...
"For now, though, "the discipline of celibacy stands firm," he said, adding that priests should quit if they can't abstain from sex or if they get a woman pregnant."
And you wonder not where the doctrine of Jesus always being single and a virgin came from. It wasn't from the NT, just saying.
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22891 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The definment of a one man one woman relationship is of proven Christian origin. We have historical writings proving a monogamous marriage/union between a single man and a single woman came from the church in Rome. We have no evidence that this strict concept was ever taught from the early church Jesus set forth.
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Everyone has an opinion on this. But understand this fact: Jesus never set forth requirements about how marriage was to be of any disciple that held an office he created in his church. The fact is that it was Paul, long after the death of Jesus who set forth writings concerning church positions and marriage status, not Jesus. And at mentioning that it is well to remember Paul's opinion of marriage in spite of what God told us by way of commandment to do.
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
Now were monogamous marriages/unions the custom of even pre-Christian times? of course. But so were polygamous marriages.
Of the warning to the kings of Israel and having to many wives, what does history state that kings of ancient times do that even kings in some countries do today? They acquire things to make themselves appear powerful/important.
Israelite kings were adding things to themselves that God was not giving to them. Understand? The old testament is rife with leaders and kings having polygamous marriages. The marriages given to them by God were sanctioned by God. Any marriages they took unto themselves without God's approval, not they fell into God's disapproval. Just like them taking extra horses and silver and gold etc. The kings of Israel usually had a prophet that told them God's will. When to war, when not to war, where to go, how to handle disputes and the prophet was there to teach the will of God and give revelation. He had what are called 'minor prophets' that took his words and spread them out to the tribes and people.
You can find weak reasons for being offended by polygamy all you want. The fact remains that God through out the OT allowed many prophets/leaders/kings to have multiple wives and never disciplined them unless they took wives God didn't allow for, as was the case with Solomon and David and Bathsheba.
And you forget this one fact. Who brought forth volumes of writings to compile a book that would one day be called the Christian Bible? Anti-polygamists who taught against marriage as Paul for the first 20 popes of that early church in Rome. Polygamy stories do not exist in the NT. No Abraham and Sarah and and other wife stories. No stories of God giving wives of one king to another king. No stories of leaders/prophets/kings having extra wives or why they had them.
Paul clearly taught that to be able to hold an office, a person was only to be married to one wife. Setting the standard of the church. To be "blameless". If there is no sin against polygamy, there would be no breaking of a law, they would be blameless. But the order for the leaders to be married to only one wife says otherwise.
Polygamy was never a bad taste in God's mouth. There is no evidence of it except a warning and it concerns Israelite kings taking unto themselves wives, horses, gold, silver, lands, slaves, etc that God had not blessed them to have. Understand?
God set the standard in Genesis 2:24, one man, one woman, one flesh.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22895 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the fact he was answering a question about a woman who was married 7 times, says you're wrong.
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
I'm not debating marriage. I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong. Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
Open your mind and read what was written, quit reading by your anti-Mormon agenda and you'll begin to understand more than your allowing your self to understand.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Badjudgment 1,779,300
News Donald Trump calls unauthorized immigrants 'ani... 3 min whiney beech 930
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min swampmudd 86,934
News Student arrested for refusing to leave 'die-in' 6 min whiney beech 9
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 min June VanDerMark 345,523
News DHS: 2K children separated from parents 6 min pedofriendlysitet... 72
News Analysis: Tax cuts, spending to raise deficit t... 7 min Asspony lying bitch 48
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 14 min OccupyThis 32
News Trump's land of delusion 15 min Spocko 631