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.

Yannia

Hyattsville, MD

#23041 Apr 5, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text> That is a very good point. First the Bible is true so long as it is translated correctly.
// Now...
When you say, "There is documentation...comparatively proving The Book of Mormon and The Dead Sea Scrolls testimony of Jesus Christ were consistently the same..."

I want to know the title and author of that book please. Because everything I've researched and/or studied declares that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the books of the Old Testament w/ the exception of Esther. In fact, more often than not they are worded nearly verbatim. The Book of Mormon is one of the "newer" books that claims to be "scripture," but it is so far off base when compared to the Bible in whole (Old and New Testament) that it is remarkable in the least and ridiculous at the most. There are teachings in the BOM that are completely and totally contradictory to the Word of God as most Christians know it - the Bible - and who decides when it is "translated correctly"? You? I'm not being a smart aleck. I'm asking a serious question of you...

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#23042 Apr 5, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I get what you're saying, Protester. Let me ask you a question, please. If I accept Christ as my Savior and repent of my sins, am I not "earning" my salvation by repenting? What if I repent of my sins, but do not change from within? What if I continue to live my life the same way I did, before I repented? Will I still be saved? Will my salvation be the same as someone who tried not to sin?
Repenting means changing yourself inside, while doing deeds means existing in a state where you’re not saved, but hope to be, based on God’s judgment of your work Earning your own salvation is the opposite of receiving salvation based on Jesus’ death.
Becoming a Christian is about changing within, so if you don’t want to do that, then your claim of Christianity is false. What if you joined a group, but made it clear you wouldn’t follow their rules, but would make up your own? You wouldn’t be a member, you’d be somebody who was more interested in rebelling against that group than being part of it.
Christians are forgiven for their sins, if they’re truly sorry, meaning they don’t just continue to commit them, but non-Christians are judged guilty of their sins.
Your whole point REALLY seems to be ‘ What can I get away with, and what’s the least I have to do while still getting benefits?’ You don’t sound like somebody who’s sorry at all, so why should you spend eternity with those who tried to do the opposite? It doesn’t make any sense, to have those who praise Jesus beside those who just tried to play the game and rejected Him.

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#23043 Apr 5, 2013
Seriously wrote:
Mormons are not Christians. They believe in an entirely different Jesus - one they (or their prophets) invented. They deny the Trinity, they believe in salvation through works, and they believe that they will one day be "gods" too. There religion is a fictional tale of a very confused and occultic type individual named Joseph Smith who "revealed" God's will for mankind, but those practices have since been discontinued. Hmmm. So God changed, huh? Anyway, they are not Christians. They are a different religion because they worship a different god - one of their own making.
You really know what you’re talking about. Mormonism exposes itself as a false religion because so much of it is so ridiculous that those who stay won’t have any excuse.
For those of you who want to know the truth about what kind of man Smith REALLY was, and want to escape Mormonism, check out:
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#23044 Apr 5, 2013
Godless ministers in the end times
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/christian...
Christian
Mormonism 409, 414-9, 427-8, 435-8, 441-2, 457-8, 489, 496, 606-9, 633-4, 645-7, 655-7, 664-670, 674-684, 772-3, 778, 792-3, 1032-3,

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23045 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, I keep getting it right. That's why I'll never stop debating scriptures with Mormons, they don't.
Ohhh, you keep getting it right like when you claimed a wife of Smith was telling the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law who actually lied under oath 4 times? Is that your idea of getting it right?
Like you claiming nothing in the BOM has ever been shown to exist? Except for the modern elephant head carvings on Mayan buildings you can't explain exist?
Like you claiming Smith had sex with every wife he had? Except you can't explain how you're right that he had sex hundreds of times with over 30 wives in a 3 year period and not one is recorded to have had a child proved to have existed by science?
Like you claiming Smith a member of the Methodist faith when God told him to join no churches and yet you can't explain how the very minister of the church you claim Smith joined didn't even remember baptising him?
Are those examples of how you think you got it right?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23046 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
What? That Mormonism taught Polygamy was essential to your salvation? That is an easy one:

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
She is correct. You are wrong. Ask a Mormon scholar. Go to the BYU site and find a professor and ask them in an email.
Not all priesthood holders were to enter into polygamous marriages.
The quote did state... "...for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."
Mormon priesthood holders of one wife that didn't have this law given to them to obey will not be held accountable to it. Therefore once again, you have taken something easy to understand and complicated it for your prejudicial biased reasons.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23047 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And what init makes you think it helps your views?
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.as ...

I didn't say it would help my view. I was trying to give you information to show you the complexities of this conversation that even Christian scholars debate as to what is plausible considering it's meaning.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23048 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
But he can't have more than one wife. DUH!!!
I didn't disagree lol. But I did state that bishops and deacons were the only offices according to the NT information that required a man to have one wife. That would mean there was no requirement of having one wife or twelve wives for all the other offices. That would mean polygamy was POSSIBLY alive and well with some males holding offices. And you don't like the fact that that possibility did exist.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23049 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one who refuses to read the clear teaching of what Jesus was saying, that would be you.
lol....no no no. Jesus didn't state the widow would be married to one of the husbands in the resurrection. Jesus didn't say she wouldn't be married to one of the husbands in the resurrection. But YOU'RE the one that is stating Jesus matter of factly did say the widow would not be married to any of the husbands and that they would all be as angels in heaven.
Unfortunately that is your opinion, not what Jesus actually said. And you seem to forget that in Genesis, there's a story that states angels came down and married mortal women. Meaning angels can marry according to that story. Meaning not all angels in heaven are single. And that means your interpretation that angels are single is incorrect according to Genesis.
What say ye now?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#23050 Apr 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
BS. If that were true, you would have given a verse. But show us again how you can't comprehend basic English by trying to distort something he wrote.
...and you're a liar. The verses do exist to be glad in one's sins/weaknesses/trials/tribula tions. If you had read the NT you would know of the existence of these verses and many more. Because you claimed they didn't exist, that makes a liar of yourself again.

2 Corinthians 12:9 But he said to me,“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

Romans 5:3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;

1 Peter 1:6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

1 Peter 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

Romans 5:3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,

Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Seriously

Hyattsville, MD

#23051 Apr 5, 2013
Protester wrote:
<quoted text>
You really know what you’re talking about. Mormonism exposes itself as a false religion because so much of it is so ridiculous that those who stay won’t have any excuse.
For those of you who want to know the truth about what kind of man Smith REALLY was, and want to escape Mormonism, check out:
(next post)
My uncle was a Mormon for years. Before he left the church, he wouldn't answer even one of the more pointed questions posed to him at the time. Now that he has left the church, he has told us all about it. Let me tell you something about my uncle - never a more honest man has walked the face of the earth unless it was Christ Himself - the real one and not the made-up Mormon Jesus either. The things that are done in the temple and in the name of Jesus are ATROCITIES and that IS putting it nicely.

They will have plenty to answer for on Judgement Day. Distorting the Word of God to suit themselves and their own personal ambitions? Not to mention leading others astray? Well, you know what the Bible (the real one - not the made-up Mormom bible either) says about those folks, right? It would be better for them if they tied a millstone around their necks and threw themselves into the sea.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23052 Apr 5, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
The thing is... you don't have anything to prove that it isn't essential.
Sure I do:

(Ephesians 2:8-9)- "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
(Rom. 3:20, 28)- "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
(Galatians 2:16)- "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Nowhere does it say anything about needing polygamy to be saved.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23053 Apr 5, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
History is evidence.
I believe in the Bible so long as it is translated correctly.
But, I also believe in HISTORY, and DOCUMENTATION, and DUTY, and AUTHORITY,... and TRUTH.
You believe in nothing more than your theoretical truths.
No, I actually trust what the Bible says, you don't.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23054 Apr 5, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.
1952 AD: The "Revised Standard Version" (RSV); said to be a Revision of the 1901 American Standard Version, though more highly criticized.
1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.
1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.
1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."
1990 AD: The "New Revised Standard Version" (NRSV); further revision of 1952 RSV,(itself a revision of 1901 ASV), criticized for "gender inclusiveness".
2002 AD: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the readability of the NIV.
// which writing is true?
// my point that you obviously missed is that the RC kept killing Christians for reading a Bible, for teaching their children the Lord's prayer, for saying a word other than you must pay to be instructed on how to believe... that is what happened in the Dark Ages.
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-h...
The Catholic church killing anybody for anything has nothing to do with the fact that we, today, have a very accurate translation of the Bible. All those editions you're shown only prove Jesus was right when he said:

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23055 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhh, you keep getting it right like when you claimed a wife of Smith was telling the truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law who actually lied under oath 4 times? Is that your idea of getting it right?
Like you claiming nothing in the BOM has ever been shown to exist? Except for the modern elephant head carvings on Mayan buildings you can't explain exist?
Like you claiming Smith had sex with every wife he had? Except you can't explain how you're right that he had sex hundreds of times with over 30 wives in a 3 year period and not one is recorded to have had a child proved to have existed by science?
Like you claiming Smith a member of the Methodist faith when God told him to join no churches and yet you can't explain how the very minister of the church you claim Smith joined didn't even remember baptising him?
Are those examples of how you think you got it right?
Apparently you are still unable to follow a conversation, I was referring to scripture. And again you intentionally misrepresent what I said.
Why are you always lying and deceiving?
When are you going to stop being so pathetic?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23056 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
She is correct. You are wrong. Ask a Mormon scholar. Go to the BYU site and find a professor and ask them in an email.
I don't need permission from BYU scholars to vindicate what is clearly stated by the LDS leaders. They don't even represent the LDS church. It says so on their web sites.
Not all priesthood holders were to enter into polygamous marriages.
The quote did state... "...for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same."
Every member of the LDS church has a copy of the D&C. All they have to do is read what it says and then they are held guilty for not following it. That is what the D&C is, a book of revelations.
Mormon priesthood holders of one wife that didn't have this law given to them to obey will not be held accountable to it. Therefore once again, you have taken something easy to understand and complicated it for your prejudicial biased reasons.
If they have a D&C, it has been given to them.
Pathetic, truly pathetic, and just down right ignorant to boot.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23057 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol....no no no. Jesus didn't state the widow would be married to one of the husbands in the resurrection.
I agree, what's your point? I've been saying this all along.
Jesus didn't say she wouldn't be married to one of the husbands in the resurrection.
Yes, he did when he talked about all marriages in the next life.

But YOU'RE the one that is stating Jesus matter of factly did say the widow would not be married to any of the husbands and that they would all be as angels in heaven.
That is exactly what Jesus said about everybody worthy of the resurrection to heaven.
Unfortunately that is your opinion, not what Jesus actually said.
No, he actually said: "they are like angels". That isn't an opinion, that is a quote.
And you seem to forget that in Genesis, there's a story that states angels came down and married mortal women.
And God destroyed them for their wickedness. LOL!!!
Meaning angels can marry according to that story. Meaning not all angels in heaven are single. And that means your interpretation that angels are single is incorrect according to Genesis.
What say ye now?
I say you should stop smoking crack, or being so simple minded.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23058 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.as ...
I didn't say it would help my view. I was trying to give you information to show you the complexities of this conversation that even Christian scholars debate as to what is plausible considering it's meaning.
So you are just trying to muddy the waters in hopes you can pretend you are right. No Surprise there.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23059 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't disagree lol. But I did state that bishops and deacons were the only offices according to the NT information that required a man to have one wife. That would mean there was no requirement of having one wife or twelve wives for all the other offices. That would mean polygamy was POSSIBLY alive and well with some males holding offices. And you don't like the fact that that possibility did exist.
So why bring up single members? Just to try to sidestep the issue? When are you going to stop chasing your tail?

The standard to be blameless is to be the husband of just one wife. That is the standard God wanted his people to live by from the beginning starting with Adam and Eve. Rome had nothing to do with it.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#23060 Apr 5, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
...and you're a liar. The verses do exist to be glad in one's sins/weaknesses/trials/tribula tions. If you had read the NT you would know of the existence of these verses and many more. Because you claimed they didn't exist, that makes a liar of yourself again.
2 Corinthians 12:9 But he said to me,“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,
Romans 5:3 Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;
1 Peter 1:6 In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.
1 Peter 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
Romans 5:3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Suffering and sin are two different things. Everybody suffers. I don't see any rejoicing for sin in those verse.
Matthew 5:45
44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Romans 6
6 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be!

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Dr Guru 219,643
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,405,152
News What Is Bernie Sanders' Net Worth? 2 min Hillary Sucks 9
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min Frankie Rizzo 14,892
News Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on s... 2 min WeTheSheeple 265
News Clinton Wins Democratic Nomination; Gets Boost ... 2 min Eleanor 59
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 min Born USA 5,573
News Trump bounces into the lead 21 min Thats Right 240
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 24 min slick willie expl... 311
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 35 min James 391,471
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 53 min Cornelius Scudmister 233,378
More from around the web