Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31992 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

#25268 May 6, 2013
Mormons got that from the Baptists, who got that from the Muslims...

How the Muslims passed it down to the Christians is something I'm not entirely sure of, but I believe it was partly due to Jewish literary influence (not trying to degrade Jews, just facts, they were indoctrinated by Muslim ways in Spain for 700 years), esp. in Spain, and partly due to the Crusades...

but we know prior to the 13th century Christian Europeans in the west had little to no religious anti-black sentiment. There may have been some isolated ignorance but nothing that sustained itself until after 1492

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25269 May 6, 2013
Dry land... like Ethiopia

Not snowy land like Turkish mountains...

THANKS!

And no not the eastwaard part of "ASIA"...

that's YOUR little attempt to slip that in there. Oooo and after saying "the writer said" four times too.

What are you? Some kind of amateur social engineering hack?

LOL

YES... I see ALL of your psychological ploys with the keyboard.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Man are you thick. How the heck do you go anywhere without getting lost?
Let's go over this as simply as we can for you as you have some real comprehension problems.
Verse 8 declares a part of the earth's dry land or all of the earth's dry land is called Eden. That's the writer's declaration, not mine, not yours.
Verse 8 also declares in this land called Eden, in the eastward part of this land called Eden, the Lord God planted a garden. The writer declares that. Understand? In the eastward part of Eden the Lord God planted a garden.
Having problems understanding that? Well try this. What the writer said could be compared to saying for instance, in the eastward part of Asia the lord God planted a garden. Does that help you? Hmm?
Now the writer states specifically next in verse 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
That statement can be taken two ways. Out of Eden would be the same as saying out of Africa or out of America or out of Canada, it means you're out of that specific named area. You're no longer there. You're somewhere else. This meaning implies the garden isn't even IN Eden, but that it is OUTSIDE of the area called Eden when it states... "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;"
Or, or we can assume that the other meaning is what was meant. That the river flowed out of Eden and into that part of Eden that was occupied by the garden that the Lord made.
Any questions or pathetic remarks?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25270 May 6, 2013
Are you talking about when MARIAM.... criticized moses for marrying TZIPPORAH????

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to GO there and hand me victory?

I totally FORGOT about that!

Wait, so God curses Mariam with leprosy because she, being a little racist... maybe she was brownskinned and she starts talking bad about Moses darker skinned wife right?(back then brownskinned Egyptians/Hebrews differentiated themselves from the darkerskinned Nubians/Kushites, but still in the end they were all of the black race... no biggie)...

But here is the funny thing... YOU bring this up... to defend the non-scriptural, nonsensical notion that Cain was marked with a skin of blackness.

Listen you dummy... we all all agree that god COULD do it.

But you don't get to say that God "DID" it, when clearly God did "NOT" do that.

God made an OATH with Cain

Oath is not "turn your skin black and make you the ancestor of a new race of black skinned people"

After all, the curse was on the land and blacks could till the land for the longest time.

Also, blacks were among the Jewish high priests and lived and grew as Jews and Christians, and were not any more percentagewise kept away from the word of God than whites or asians.

Ethiopia officially converted to Christianity before Rome officially did.

The second largest orthodox church is the Ethiopian orthodox church.

You're duuuuuuuuuuuumb!
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Pathetic ignorance. God used a prophet to curse a man with leprosy and changed his skin to white as snow. Lepers aren't white skin wise. But in this verse God definitely through a prophet curses a man with leprosy and skin white as snow.
And you claim God won't curse someone with dark/black skin. Seems you think God is a partial God eh? lol...
27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.
This was Elisha, the prophet of God, cursing Gehazi and all his descendants as lepers and with parts or some or most or all of their skin being white as snow, a colour going beyond Caucasian.
So tell me again that God or through his prophets God won't change a persons skin colour if he wants to do it.
2 Kings 5:
25 But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither.
26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants?
27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

Since: Sep 12

Ava, MO

#25271 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
<quoted text>1. The southerners weren't defending their way of life from taxation. They were mobilizing against the rightly perceived threat of slavery ending.

no where do you see Southern politicians raising the banner against taxation, but for the end of slavery.

No it was slavery period. The taxation is a moot point since the work was done by the slaves, so there was no moral argument for the South in that regard.

Secondarily, allegedly greedy old Lincoln wouldn't cut his nose and spite his face by freeing the slaves, and causing the $$$ to go bye bye...

And with all that you state below, it pales in comparison to the Confederate Constitution itself, which tried to institute slavery permanently. That stands out as the evidence prima firma... the last call on this issue.

This self-governing nonsense makes no sense as they pushed for federal laws to be enforced in the North to protect slavery. They had NO problem with the federal institutions THEN.

So you have your quotes, and I certainly have the Confederate Constitution to trump them all.

But keep on posting, because you know we can have quotes going back and forth like the civil war... you find some analysis of trading fears of the north and i have many more showing the fears of slavery ending in the south.

Yes, those everyday white folks down there were panicking about the negroes being free. Yes that was the main reason they went to war. The economics was a secondary and RELATED issue.
I respectfully disagree. Slavery did not end in the North as you state it did. It was by a system of Gradual Emancipation that allowed the Northern slave owners to remove their property to the South. sell the slaves, and thereby divest themselves of the human responsibility while making a handsome profit. In fact no I was ever passed in the north that granted freedom layperson already in slavery. In other words the property rights of the northern slaveholders were always protected by the northern states. After a certain date and after a child reached a given age, here she would be free. All people who were slaves when the law was passed would remain slaves. For a slave to become free, in New Jersey, for example, he or she would have to be born after 1804 and have reached the age of 21 years. Hey slave woman who was 15 in 1804 would remain a slave for life. If, at the age of 30, the year then being 1829, she gave birth to a child, that child had to live in bondage until the age of 21 years (in 1850) before it would be free. Remember that the mother was still a slave in the land of Lincoln. As a matter of fact, just 10 years before the war for Southern Independence there were 236 slaves for life in New Jersey. By freeing only the people born into slavery after a certain time and age, the north protected and thereby recognized the master's right in his property. No Northerners were deprived of their slave property that they owned at the time the law was passed. Also the law did not prohibit the slaveowners from removing their property from the state to be sold in other parts of the country. Even if the children of a slave mother were 19 or 20 years old, just a few years before the lot granted them freedom, their master could remove them from the Northern State and sell them in a southern state where they would remain slaves. Under this system there could have been slaves in the North until 1873, well after the war. Not only did this allow the Northern slaveowners to cash in, selling their slave property, it was a method of gradual emancipation which allowed the North to rid themselves of a people they did not want to keep in Northern society. It also had the effect of preventing a large increase in the numbers of free blacks in the state.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25272 May 6, 2013
Like I said, you can make up a new thread...

But as you continue to write LONG replies, its more and more clear you're objective is to move us away from the topic.

Genesis 4 was not altered to remove some alleged anti-black bias.
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I respectfully disagree. Slavery did not end in the North as you state it did. It was by a system of Gradual Emancipation that allowed the Northern slave owners to remove their property to the South. sell the slaves, and thereby divest themselves of the human responsibility while making a handsome profit. In fact no I was ever passed in the north that granted freedom layperson already in slavery. In other words the property rights of the northern slaveholders were always protected by the northern states. After a certain date and after a child reached a given age, here she would be free. All people who were slaves when the law was passed would remain slaves. For a slave to become free, in New Jersey, for example, he or she would have to be born after 1804 and have reached the age of 21 years. Hey slave woman who was 15 in 1804 would remain a slave for life. If, at the age of 30, the year then being 1829, she gave birth to a child, that child had to live in bondage until the age of 21 years (in 1850) before it would be free. Remember that the mother was still a slave in the land of Lincoln. As a matter of fact, just 10 years before the war for Southern Independence there were 236 slaves for life in New Jersey. By freeing only the people born into slavery after a certain time and age, the north protected and thereby recognized the master's right in his property. No Northerners were deprived of their slave property that they owned at the time the law was passed. Also the law did not prohibit the slaveowners from removing their property from the state to be sold in other parts of the country. Even if the children of a slave mother were 19 or 20 years old, just a few years before the lot granted them freedom, their master could remove them from the Northern State and sell them in a southern state where they would remain slaves. Under this system there could have been slaves in the North until 1873, well after the war. Not only did this allow the Northern slaveowners to cash in, selling their slave property, it was a method of gradual emancipation which allowed the North to rid themselves of a people they did not want to keep in Northern society. It also had the effect of preventing a large increase in the numbers of free blacks in the state.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25273 May 6, 2013
Getting back ON topic.

Genesis 4 was not altered. The "skin of blackness" was a later fabrication started by Muslims, and adopted by Joseph Smith, who attempted to push it retroactively into the Bible as a correction. He tried with his "JST" edition of the Bible and then with the Pearl of Great Price.

Since: Sep 12

Ava, MO

#25274 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
<quoted text>1. The southerners weren't defending their way of life from taxation. They were mobilizing against the rightly perceived threat of slavery ending.

no where do you see Southern politicians raising the banner against taxation, but for the end of slavery.

No it was slavery period. The taxation is a moot point since the work was done by the slaves, so there was no moral argument for the South in that regard.

Secondarily, allegedly greedy old Lincoln wouldn't cut his nose and spite his face by freeing the slaves, and causing the $$$ to go bye bye...

And with all that you state below, it pales in comparison to the Confederate Constitution itself, which tried to institute slavery permanently. That stands out as the evidence prima firma... the last call on this issue.

This self-governing nonsense makes no sense as they pushed for federal laws to be enforced in the North to protect slavery. They had NO problem with the federal institutions THEN.

So you have your quotes, and I certainly have the Confederate Constitution to trump them all.

But keep on posting, because you know we can have quotes going back and forth like the civil war... you find some analysis of trading fears of the north and i have many more showing the fears of slavery ending in the south.

Yes, those everyday white folks down there were panicking about the negroes being free. Yes that was the main reason they went to war. The economics was a secondary and RELATED issue.
In 1788, Massachusetts passed a law ordering every black, mulatto, or Indian who came into the state and remained two months to be whipped publicly. This punishment was to be repeated if the they did not leave. This law remained in effect until 1834, by which time it done it's work of purging Massachusetts of undesirables. While this law was in force, Massachusetts was hard at work in the slave trade, from which the state collected large tax revenues. No they weren't driven by humanitarian or egalitarian desires to free their slaves. No, they were driven by the desire to remove the blacks, who they did not want to associate with for profit.

Since: Sep 12

Ava, MO

#25275 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
<quoted text>Yes and if you want to demonize Lincoln, that's all fine.

I understand his whole thing working with Harriet Tubman was all an act to you, and that's all fine,

but you ARE flooding the thread with an off topic conversation. I indulged it to a point, but I can see you will take the Mormon curse of cain out of this thread in the process...
I already admitted it being off topic of whether Mormons are Christian. But you brought up the topic of slavery, so I felt it important to address.

Since: Sep 12

Ava, MO

#25276 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
<quoted text>Ninth century?

Where pray tell?

Caliphate Land Middl East

And what did they speak of as religious justification? Those Muslims?

Qayin was the ancestor of the Zanj (Negroes) and his curse was passed upon them, which is why the Arabs had the "right" to enslave them, may Muhammad and Allah be merciful.

or some crap like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

Ninth century... read all about it.

Oh and thanks for finally getting caught up to speed on the true background of this discussion
Don't get too excited. I wasn't quite finished.
stalker

United States

#25277 May 6, 2013
Oh my goodness why are you two talking about this?

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25278 May 6, 2013
Slavery is a factor in the evidence I present showing that Mormonism is not Christian.

It sanctified slavery against blacks by uplifting a blasphemous edit of the Bible, then calling it "a correction of earlier corruption" sought and still seeks to defend the philosophy and teaching to this very day.

ON topic...
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already admitted it being off topic of whether Mormons are Christian. But you brought up the topic of slavery, so I felt it important to address.

“The Pleasure is all MINE”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25279 May 6, 2013
Because the fact that this religion almost got a guy elected president... running against a black sitting president no doubt...

that has motivated me to teach every person I see that Mormonism is false because of the racist stuff about black people offends me that much!
stalker wrote:
Oh my goodness why are you two talking about this?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25280 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
Like I said, you can make up a new thread...
But as you continue to write LONG replies, its more and more clear you're objective is to move us away from the topic.
Genesis 4 was not altered to remove some alleged anti-black bias.
<quoted text>
STOP TWISTING WORDS!

He said nothing of Genesis 4 being altered to remove some alleged anti-black bias.

I said nothing of the sort either.

I told you about EGYPTIANS (BLACKS) enslaving the (HEBREW) first.

I told you about the history of the CHURCH OF ROME. You took that history and twisted it so you could declare racial bigotry.

People have mixed so many times in this life there is no telling what is in the lineage of anybody just by looking at them.
THE ONLY RACIAL BIGOT HERE IS YOU.

You are a BIGOT. It's ok for Egyptians to enslave Hebrews, but its not ok to face the facts about history and learn truths about the history of the Church of Christ.

You are a Bigot.
You are a Bigot.
You are a Bigot.
You are a Bigot.
You are a Bigot.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done nothing wrong by you. You are a reverse version of Archy Bunker.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25281 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
Because the fact that this religion almost got a guy elected president... running against a black sitting president no doubt...
that has motivated me to teach every person I see that Mormonism is false because of the racist stuff about black people offends me that much!
<quoted text>
Do you know what you are saying?

A white guy
almost got elected
over a black guy....

"racist stuff about black people offends me that much!"

You are a racial bigot.
You are a racial bigot.
You are a racial bigot.
You are a racial bigot.
You are a racial bigot.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25282 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
Slavery is a factor in the evidence I present showing that Mormonism is not Christian.
It sanctified slavery against blacks by uplifting a blasphemous edit of the Bible, then calling it "a correction of earlier corruption" sought and still seeks to defend the philosophy and teaching to this very day.
ON topic...
<quoted text>
God can bring to light what he wants, when he wants.

You have no say when he decides.

You can't even prevent him from making:
black people black,
and
white people white.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25283 May 6, 2013
osirica wrote:
Getting back ON topic.
Genesis 4 was not altered. The "skin of blackness" was a later fabrication started by Muslims, and adopted by Joseph Smith, who attempted to push it retroactively into the Bible as a correction. He tried with his "JST" edition of the Bible and then with the Pearl of Great Price.
Where in the ORIGINAL Bible are you referring to?(THE ORIGINAL CAN'T BE FOUND, SO YOU ARE NOT)

Who said specifically Genesis 4 was altered?(YOU DID)

//
I HAVE TOLD YOU FROM A HISTORY BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BIBLE,

A PERSPECTIVE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS...

//
you twist it to say racial lies. Genesis 4 can not be determined at this time to be the original.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25284 May 6, 2013
The EGYPTIANS (BLACKS) were the first to ENSLAVE people (HEBREWS).

What goes around comes around.

You have not made one point. Other than you are tried to twist my words. Read the history. I provided it to you. Read the book of martyrs... read the secret society.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25285 May 6, 2013
Take your argument up with Heavenly Father...

____I did not make people BLACK.

And, I didn't make the BLACKS (Egyptians) the first people to enslave people (the HEBREWS).

//
You STILL need to PROVE Adam and EVE were black all the way down to Jesus.

You STILL need to PROVE ADAM and EVE were from Africa.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25286 May 6, 2013
GENESIS 4:10-15

10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brotherís blood crieth unto me from the ground.

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brotherís blood from thy hand;

12 WHEN THOU TILLEST THE GROUND, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

13 And CAIN SAID unto the Lord, MY PUNISHMENT IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR.

14 Behold, THOU HAST DRIVEN ME OUT THIS DAY from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, THAT EVERY ONE THAT FINDETH ME SHALL SLAY ME.

15 And the LORD SAID unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. AND THE LORD SET A MARK UPON CAIN, LEST ANY FINDING HIM SHOULD KILL HIM.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25287 May 6, 2013
15... The Lord set a mark upon Cain so that anyone who found him would know who he was.

The LORD set a mark upon Cain to distinguish him from all overs.

So people would know instantly who they were dealing with. We know there are black people and we know there are white people.

We know God can do anything he wants.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min ChristineM 195,705
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 2 min Time again 3,037
News The Latest: Trump fires back after Ryan withhol... 3 min TheOriginalDoby 31
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 3 min Vote For Trump 617
News Nearly half plan vote for Hillary or Trump to b... 4 min Denny CranesPlace 3
News Paul Ryan: 'I'm Just Not Ready' To Endorse Dona... 4 min USA today 8
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min My New Alias RULES 1,376,100
News Obama says failure to pass immigration reform o... 9 min Eleanor 27
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 28 min Yeah 381,856
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr HILLARY 2016 223,202
More from around the web