Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32007 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.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25486 May 10, 2013
Here is what is baffling about you.

Even though all sides of this conversation point to Adam and Eve being dark skinned...

you somehow think that I have to contend with dealing with the fact that the Bible narrative and historical proof don't match in the timeline.

You're basically saying I'm right, but for the wrong reasons.

On the other hand

What besides wishing upon a Kolob star do you have to offer as any other possibility?

I mean besides random spin the color wheel thinking?

What possible interpretation do you have to point out that would possibly state that Adam and Eve WERENT black?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No no no...lol. You said if Adam and Eve were real they would be black. So defend your theory or be a liar as before.
And osirica is having problems. He believes in the Bible unlike yourself. Unfortunately like most, he's never actually read it to understand what he's believing in.
The Bible has a six thousand year time period. So as a Bible believer, that's the time period he has to deal with, not evolutions time table.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25487 May 10, 2013
Clown, I'm not David, anymore than you are sportyxmouse Pangea...

It is fact that Adam and Eve were black, no matter how you look at it.

And if/when she did check out my sources, they would CONFIRM it. So how do you assume she didn't? When the sources I provide, SHOW, that they were black?

And you try to use two posts to contradict each other but you've actually proven a basic logical fact:

if A = B All humans come from Adam = Bible
and A = C First human was black = Science
then B = C Adam was black

What you are trying to do is to somehow argue that Adam is not proven to be the first human, since the first human is not known by science to BE adam.

But the fact is, the first humans were black.

So your argument really goes to whether or not YOU believe the Bible to be true, not "why" you feel it is true on this particular point.

You may as well argue if Adam had two eyes and a nose and mouth...
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You took a position with David/osirica about Adam and Eve being black. You took his opinion as fact. You took what he claimed as evidence and fact. What you did is what you usually do. You accepted what someone else claimed without checking out any sources to see if what they said was true or false.
In this case you proved how willing you were to side with someone to just be in disagreement with me, no matter if what they claimed is truth or a lie it doesn't matter to you so long as you can find a reason to disagree. Do you see the idiocy of your intent to just disagree and how far you'll go to disagree? You should consider that information of yourself.
Next, you made a claim. Will this be another claim you're not going to supply information for??
Post 24608 you said...
If science has proven the first humans were black, then Adam and Eve were black, because they were the first humans according to scripture. DUH
Post 24626 you said...
But if you want to take that position, since the first humans were black, that would mean Adam and Eve were black because they were the first humans.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25488 May 10, 2013
Correction I was making two points at the same time, because this is redundantly true...

But what you are trying to do is to cause this first statement of premises:

if A = B First human was Adam = Bible
and A = C First human was black = Science
then B = C Adam was black

To some how be refuted by this second statement of principles:
All humans come from Adam
All humans share a common ancestor
Adam is the common ancestor.

You can't cause two true statements to be in contradiction to each other. The relationship is not in dispute.

Your fallacious argument is

Science First ancestor was black
Bible first ancestor was adam
Adam is not black because science doesn't identify him as the first ancestor...

My response

All humans come from a common ancestor
Bible and Science agree First ancestor was from Africa
Retha Jamison

Natchitoches, LA

#25489 May 10, 2013
Mommy2Bof3 wrote:
We belive the BIBLE to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We all that God had revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Irael and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be build upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and that the earth will be renewes and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that we follow thw admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hop all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Been there, done that. That's exactly what they tell Mormons to say. I assure you they are a cult. I know because I married one. Neither of us are practicing the Mormon faith anymore. Get the facts. Mormons are not saved and they don't believe the Bible. They are NOT Christians.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25490 May 10, 2013
"Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather's nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God's holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?"
- Official LDS Publication, The Messenger and Advocate (Mar 1835), Pg.82

Right....your cult isn't racist

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25491 May 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
Not to debate if she exists or doesn't, my point as the article states is why does the LDS church hint at her existence but reveals nothing of her?
Having engrossed myself in mother goddess worship history including the oldest 'venus' figurines, I have a theory.
Pretending Mormon belief is correct for the moment, it would seem logical in the beginning of things she would have been there and known about by Adam and Eve and their posterity.
With that said for a starter, I think according to this theory mother god worship took off and took away the central theme of salvation through Jesus as the Mormons teach was taught from the beginning. According to this theory, I think people believed they could receive salvation through this mother god as well as through Jesus. I think in correlation with existing Bible stories, it would lend some explanation for why God wiped all living human life from off the face of the earth. Something really pissed off God so much that it caused him to destroy all life. I have always thought the reason for killing off so many had to do with something we don't understand at present.
So we had Noah and his sons and their wives saved. What are one of the habits human immediately establish after the flood? Alcoholic drink. And Noah seems to be a bit more of a wine drinker than what is called 'normal'.
I say that because Noah and his sons and their wives all brought memories of what use to be to a freshly washed earth. I would guess some of the sons and daughters went back to old habits repented from and or reverted to habits they once weren't involved in.
We know idol worship was a huge no-no on God's list of bad things not to do and the first to be spoken against in the ten commandments. I believe there are more laws for idol worship than anything else but don't quote me on that.
Than we have the mother god worship which was really big 2000 years ago. Even the early church in Rome set a high priority on the 'mother' of Jesus that usurped worship of God the Father through Jesus.
Even parts of Judaism has long ancient ties to a mother god acknowledgement.
That fact also remains that in nearly any society on earth that we dig up and learn of, there is evidence for male and female deity worship.
So just saying just an opinion so don't address what I said as actual fact Dana :)

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#25492 May 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to debate if she exists or doesn't, my point as the article states is why does the LDS church hint at her existence but reveals nothing of her?
Having engrossed myself in mother goddess worship history including the oldest 'venus' figurines, I have a theory.
Pretending Mormon belief is correct for the moment, it would seem logical in the beginning of things she would have been there and known about by Adam and Eve and their posterity.
With that said for a starter, I think according to this theory mother god worship took off and took away the central theme of salvation through Jesus as the Mormons teach was taught from the beginning. According to this theory, I think people believed they could receive salvation through this mother god as well as through Jesus. I think in correlation with existing Bible stories, it would lend some explanation for why God wiped all living human life from off the face of the earth. Something really pissed off God so much that it caused him to destroy all life. I have always thought the reason for killing off so many had to do with something we don't understand at present.
So we had Noah and his sons and their wives saved. What are one of the habits human immediately establish after the flood? Alcoholic drink. And Noah seems to be a bit more of a wine drinker than what is called 'normal'.
I say that because Noah and his sons and their wives all brought memories of what use to be to a freshly washed earth. I would guess some of the sons and daughters went back to old habits repented from and or reverted to habits they once weren't involved in.
We know idol worship was a huge no-no on God's list of bad things not to do and the first to be spoken against in the ten commandments. I believe there are more laws for idol worship than anything else but don't quote me on that.
Than we have the mother god worship which was really big 2000 years ago. Even the early church in Rome set a high priority on the 'mother' of Jesus that usurped worship of God the Father through Jesus.
Even parts of Judaism has long ancient ties to a mother god acknowledgement.
That fact also remains that in nearly any society on earth that we dig up and learn of, there is evidence for male and female deity worship.
So just saying just an opinion so don't address what I said as actual fact Dana :)
So...what's her name??

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25493 May 10, 2013
LOL:
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
She's my mom. God can do anything he wants!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25494 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
God CAN do this and that.
But God DIDNT do it, and it was never DONE.
God does not make your wishes come true just so you can feel like there is a "reason" that blacks were marked from Cain, when they WERENT marked from Cain, or anyone else.
Yep you remind me of this other Mormon...
And you're basically saying that continental drift can happen... just to explain your theory that blacks were cursed... right?
HEre's a better theory
Since the whole black thing Cain isn't IN the Bible.
Let's just agree rightly, it never happened.
AND IF YOU INSIST TO KEEP GOING...
explain it to me, why aren't you doing all this to make it that the mark of Cain was WHITE skin?
There you go again, telling people what God does and what God doesn't do. Are you God that you know God that well? Are you his fourth unknown personality? That would explain why you think you know what God does and doesn't do because you're his fourth personality.
Besides now that we know God cursed a guy you believe is black with white skin and all his descendants forever, I see evidence as I said that God can change anyone's skin colour if he wants to.
lol...and what is this if it's not in the Bible we should agree with you it never happened? By that logic Adam and Eve had no colour because it's not in the Bible that they had a colour. So you're a liar to say they were black. And the Bible only records Adam and Eve having two sons, no daughters. So it can't be true Cain had a wife if no females are mentioned to have existed for Cain to find one to marry.
Want me to keep going with this if it isn't written it doesn't exist/happen theory?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25495 May 10, 2013
No.

The white people that said God marked cain with a skin of blackness...

THEY are the ones telling people what God does and what God doesn't do. THEY are the ones saying that they know God that way. They think they are the fourth unknown personality...

If it surprises you about me,

it should really surprise you the lengths these people did to say that Cain was marked with black skin.

So please... keep going. You're trying to hold me accountable yet not them.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, telling people what God does and what God doesn't do. Are you God that you know God that well? Are you his fourth unknown personality? That would explain why you think you know what God does and doesn't do because you're his fourth personality.
Besides now that we know God cursed a guy you believe is black with white skin and all his descendants forever, I see evidence as I said that God can change anyone's skin colour if he wants to.
lol...and what is this if it's not in the Bible we should agree with you it never happened? By that logic Adam and Eve had no colour because it's not in the Bible that they had a colour. So you're a liar to say they were black. And the Bible only records Adam and Eve having two sons, no daughters. So it can't be true Cain had a wife if no females are mentioned to have existed for Cain to find one to marry.
Want me to keep going with this if it isn't written it doesn't exist/happen theory?
AStorm Warning

De Forest, WI

#25496 May 10, 2013
fedupwiththemess wrote:
I do. They do not go by the bible nor does the bible mention mormonism it it. They have created a so called "extension" or another book of the bible calling it the book of mormon. Mormonism was created by a horny man wanting to screw more than one woman so he made it up saying GOD told him to do so. Women fell for it.
one day i sat naked on a large mudroom and a strange feeling came over me , it must have been God, i was inspired to write that a fluorescent red salamander spoke to me in Hebrew, he said you gotta get laid more often and need as many wives and people dumb enough to swallow this hogwash will believe, and oh yeah by the way god forget most of the bible so here is some ganga leaf to write the rest of it out on.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25497 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
Pangea... that was all I needed to hear.
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

Let's do science 101 here and forget religious beliefs and pretend you're a non-religious scientist reading this verse.

9 And God said,“Let the water...(first thing to be noted is the SINGULAR, SINGULAR usage of the word WATER. It doesn't read WATERS as in plural. That's the first thing to note.)
...under the sky be gathered to one place,(the next thing to be noted is that this SINGULAR body of water was to be gathered to ONE PLACE, not MANY PLACES)...
...and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.(now we note that in SINGULAR USAGE the word GROUND, not GROUNDS as in more than one.
So as scientists and understanding the earth's formation in a non-theological sense, we visualize from this story a being with super powers creating the earth as a sphere. On it this being covers all the outer surface of the earth with water as being one body of water in ONE PLACE.
We then understand that the story claims this being now allows dry ground to appear up out of the body of water. As scientists we know the only time this type description can have any accuracy at all is when the earth's land mass is a single connected landmass.
What is more, in this Bible the first reference to 'lands' as in plural was after the 'so called flood' in Genesis 10:5 of the KJV where 'isles' is used to denote 'land masses'.
So disbelieve anything you want. The story in Genesis alludes to a single continent of land, not two or three or four etc.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25498 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
Backtracking won't save you.
Because when I show you, you'll just say "oh they meant 'relatively' white"...
so it really doesn't matter.
<quoted text>
Lousey dodge so you don't have to prove your own statement. Should I have expected anything less? No.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25499 May 10, 2013
And so you speak of this in order to make what kind of point about Cain and black people?
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
9 And God said,“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
Let's do science 101 here and forget religious beliefs and pretend you're a non-religious scientist reading this verse.
9 And God said,“Let the water...(first thing to be noted is the SINGULAR, SINGULAR usage of the word WATER. It doesn't read WATERS as in plural. That's the first thing to note.)
...under the sky be gathered to one place,(the next thing to be noted is that this SINGULAR body of water was to be gathered to ONE PLACE, not MANY PLACES)...
...and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.(now we note that in SINGULAR USAGE the word GROUND, not GROUNDS as in more than one.
So as scientists and understanding the earth's formation in a non-theological sense, we visualize from this story a being with super powers creating the earth as a sphere. On it this being covers all the outer surface of the earth with water as being one body of water in ONE PLACE.
We then understand that the story claims this being now allows dry ground to appear up out of the body of water. As scientists we know the only time this type description can have any accuracy at all is when the earth's land mass is a single connected landmass.
What is more, in this Bible the first reference to 'lands' as in plural was after the 'so called flood' in Genesis 10:5 of the KJV where 'isles' is used to denote 'land masses'.
So disbelieve anything you want. The story in Genesis alludes to a single continent of land, not two or three or four etc.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25500 May 10, 2013
Actually not

Do you notice you never actually get to any statement, you just make premises...

so for instance, even though Mormon prophets taught that Adam and Eve were white, you're going to try to say that they weren't because, well I don't see a passage in the Pearl of Great Price that says "Adam and Eve were white".

All of your LDS paintings show them as white...

so... again... your saying what now? Oh everyone represents their own race in paintings.(except when blacks do it, it's racist).
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Lousey dodge so you don't have to prove your own statement. Should I have expected anything less? No.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#25501 May 10, 2013
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You laugh and mock Jesus Christ for remaining quiet?
No, I mock and and laugh at your knowledge, or lack of. Your reading comprehension is lacking also.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#25502 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
Actually not
Do you notice you never actually get to any statement, you just make premises...
so for instance, even though Mormon prophets taught that Adam and Eve were white, you're going to try to say that they weren't because, well I don't see a passage in the Pearl of Great Price that says "Adam and Eve were white".
All of your LDS paintings show them as white...
so... again... your saying what now? Oh everyone represents their own race in paintings.(except when blacks do it, it's racist).
<quoted text>
They are white in the temple endowment ceremony also.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25503 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
Here is what is baffling about you.
Even though all sides of this conversation point to Adam and Eve being dark skinned...
you somehow think that I have to contend with dealing with the fact that the Bible narrative and historical proof don't match in the timeline.
You're basically saying I'm right, but for the wrong reasons.
On the other hand
What besides wishing upon a Kolob star do you have to offer as any other possibility?
I mean besides random spin the color wheel thinking?
What possible interpretation do you have to point out that would possibly state that Adam and Eve WERENT black?
<quoted text>
Your points of this conversation pointing to Adam and Eve being black, that's correct. That's your point of reasoning.
I like to think a lot of things that are outside of the Bible and aren't in it to explain things in the Bible as you do and as we all do.
But the fact remains the Bible states it took God 7000 mankind years to make everything. Since then another 6000 years have transpired. That's from the Bible whether we like it or not.
Adam was made from the dust(not dirt)of the ground. Note the choice of words the writer could have used and didn't. Dust and dirt have two obvious different compositions. One is light and one is heavy. One is pale and one is brown/dark. So unless you can show the oldest rendition of Genesis as having used 'dirt' or some other relative word, one has to contemplate why they used the word dust especially if the writer had tan or brown or even dark skin. If I was that writer and I had tan, brown or dark skin, personally I would have used 'dirt' not 'dust' to make a reference to my colour. You would have done the same as most would have in writing that. But it wasn't written that way so the question is why.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25504 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
Clown, I'm not David, anymore than you are sportyxmouse Pangea...
It is fact that Adam and Eve were black, no matter how you look at it.
And if/when she did check out my sources, they would CONFIRM it. So how do you assume she didn't? When the sources I provide, SHOW, that they were black?
And you try to use two posts to contradict each other but you've actually proven a basic logical fact:
if A = B All humans come from Adam = Bible
and A = C First human was black = Science
then B = C Adam was black
I see no evidence to prove you're not David. You both have said the same things by the same theories/opinions and you both have used the same slang when disrespecting someone.
The fallacy of your thinking is you can't use science to prove Adam's skin colour.
Why you ask?
Because according to the Bible Adam was made from the dust.
Because according to science, humans came from microbes that evolved into primates that evolved into humans.
So it is a fallacy of thought/opinion/theory that you think you can prove Adam's colour by mixing science of mankind with the creation of a being with super powers.
Can't be done and will never be done.
And if you want to get technical of what the Bible states and what it doesn't as you have done, there is a difference between the words 'dust' and 'dirt'. Adam was made from the dust of the earth. Adam wasn't made from the dirt of the earth.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#25505 May 10, 2013
osirica wrote:
My response
All humans come from a common ancestor
Bible and Science agree First ancestor was from Africa
All humans come from a common ancestor I agree of course.
Bible and Science agree First ancestor was from Africa by interpretation only.
The garden of Eden is 'thought' to exist in the middle east of what we call today Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not Africa. Not Egypt. If you want to include Egypt and other parts of Africa, you'll also have to logically include land buried under the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Caspian Sea.
And Adam and Eve were set out of Eden on it's east side so that puts them farther away from Africa. And Cain settled farther east of them which is that much more farther east of Africa.
Understand? The first two Biblical mentioned described human settlements were both east of Eden.
So if Eden is in Africa, how do you explain the rivers it mentions as existing in the middle east, not in Africa?
Eden is a matter of interpretation. I gave this link before because it's informative and very recent, not filled with older out of date inaccurate information.
http://ldolphin.org/eden/

" It is the Gihon, which "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia," that has been the problem. In Hebrew the geographical reference was to "Gush" or "Kush." The translators of the King James Bible in the 17th century rendered Gush or Kush as "Ethiopia"---which is further to the south and in Africa--thus upsetting the geographical applecart and flummoxing researchers for centuries. Zarins now believes the Gihon is the Karun River, which rises in Iran and flows southwesterly toward the present Gulf. The Karun also shows in LANDSAT images and was a perennial river which, until it was dammed, contributed most of the sediment forming the delta at the head of the Persian Gulf."

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 The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Agents of Corruption 336,791
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min DBWriter 1,263,925
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Paul Porter1 171,969
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 7 min woodtick57 10,977
News Poll: If Trump Runs As Independent, Hillary Cli... 10 min Cordwainer Trout 15
News Nation's capital is sinking into the ocean 10 min woodtick57 46
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min Calvin_Coolish 190,337
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Enter 194,636
News Clinton Slams 'New York Times' Over False ... 1 hr Chicagoan by Birth 52
More from around the web