Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 31994 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.

poncho

Hendersonville, NC

#31305 Jan 11, 2014
Oh! ps. I do think "Joseph smith" is a joke! for real! just being honest. oh, I forgot to say goodnight to the other fairy, goodnight "Pearl" xoxoxo

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31306 Jan 11, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>It's an outrageous claim you've made based on hearsay, that's what the research dictates. Unless you have something other to offer. To make such a claim then be unwilling to back it up seems, well lame to say the least. But even more, it's everything that's wrong with Christianity and particularly Mormonism.
So, you can make insults --- but nobody else can.
And, you can make outrageous claims without evidence and throw it on someone else --- because you are too good to research.

Man the life of a pearl is so precious I guess it's a powerful one sided game right.

You say everything is wrong with Christianity... do you believe Jesus died for you?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31307 Jan 11, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>It's an outrageous claim you've made based on hearsay, that's what the research dictates. Unless you have something other to offer. To make such a claim then be unwilling to back it up seems, well lame to say the least. But even more, it's everything that's wrong with Christianity and particularly Mormonism.
You are all talk no action.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#31308 Jan 11, 2014
poncho wrote:
<quoted text>You can run that mouth all you want. Your comments are childish, and make you look like a fool. I know you are a coward! goodnight you little "fairy"
See??? Effeminate and condescending.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#31309 Jan 11, 2014
poncho wrote:
Oh! ps. I do think "Joseph smith" is a joke! for real! just being honest. oh, I forgot to say goodnight to the other fairy, goodnight "Pearl" xoxoxo
I guess you won't be leaving the light on after all?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31310 Jan 11, 2014
poncho wrote:
<quoted text> You guys are just kids, real men would come see me.
So, you have come on the Internet to invite someone to come to your house to fight?

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31311 Jan 11, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>
You are all talk no action.
Researching truths... for yourself so you will know that your Rain God isn't true... is too much for you.

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#31312 Jan 11, 2014
sportxmouse wrote:
<quoted text>So, you have come on the Internet to invite someone to come to your house to fight?
I don't think it was for a "fight." But I'm sure it involved chasing each other around the trailer, if ya know what I mean...
poncho

Hendersonville, NC

#31313 Jan 11, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Can. You. Read. Just. A. Little. Bit??? I said, "Courtesy of IMDb," inbred. Is "copping" similar to copying?
like copping a feel. nothing you write is original. you take from others. your a fake! you little fairy! you correcting others makes you look foolish! this is topix, go write a book nerd!
DaNaSiMaGiNaRyFR ieNDCaRoL

Gridley, CA

#31314 Jan 11, 2014
Thim North Carolina Banjos are playing a love song for him and his sister. I guess as long as it's monogamous - for the moment - who's countin right?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31315 Jan 11, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Human nature would be my answer. Gays were treated even worst, yet there have been gay people since the beginning of time.
Human nature would be an answer. But it doesn't reflect Pearl's position that adultery was as common place in the 1800s as in the 2000s. These are two societies based on completely different morals and laws. Most in the 1800s were raised to value and respect monogamous marriages and to abstain from adulterous actions. Most in the 2000s grow up having no value for marriages or monogamous marriages. Social monogamy relationships is the norm today which allows for adultery to be a commonplace act.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31316 Jan 11, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it was for a "fight." But I'm sure it involved chasing each other around the trailer, if ya know what I mean...
ahaha... I can see it now.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31317 Jan 11, 2014
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
He's either bipolar, drunk, or extremely high. First he's threatening the missionaries for "trespassing," to him being the one who is known for "joking" with them. I think he got kicked in the head by a mule.
lol.... this makes perfect sense. I second this post... haha.

sportxmouse

“Duty is a Privilege!”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#31318 Jan 11, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Human nature would be an answer. But it doesn't reflect Pearl's position that adultery was as common place in the 1800s as in the 2000s. These are two societies based on completely different morals and laws. Most in the 1800s were raised to value and respect monogamous marriages and to abstain from adulterous actions. Most in the 2000s grow up having no value for marriages or monogamous marriages. Social monogamy relationships is the norm today which allows for adultery to be a commonplace act.
Pearl doesn't have much of an education. She doesn't know much about history... and she thinks she is too good to research so...

Since: Sep 12

Ozark, MO

#31319 Jan 11, 2014
poncho wrote:
<quoted text>like copping a feel. nothing you write is original. you take from others. your a fake! you little fairy! you correcting others makes you look foolish! this is topix, go write a book nerd!
You keep trying to get me to come over. In fact, practically begging me to. Now you're talking about "copping a feel," and I'm the "fairy"? Geez, Cowboy! Either that toothless hillbilly is yur kin, or they modeled him after you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31320 Jan 11, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one adding "all the time" to the equation, not me. Never said it. Just said he wanted to screw them. Trying to change my statements to make your appear intelligent is a cheap trick. One you try to pull all the time.
Actually you have insinuated Smith was a sexual pedophile pervert with his wives. You have used derogatory language to thus describe him and his "supposed" sexual relationships with his "wives". You have never said he was this way with a few or several wives. You have ALWAYS used the word WIVES in your derogatory descriptions of him and his "supposed" sexual relations with those WIVES.
Also, wanting to do something doesn't denote the action has taken place. So since you want to define him a sexual pervert because you think he wanted to have sex with every single wife I'd like to see your evidence that goes beyond what you think he thought to prove what you think.
Last, I don't change your statements to make me appear intelligent. I am intelligent. So are you and others here. I change your statements "at times" to show you the error of how you have thought concerning something.
Need an example? In the above you just stated you call Smith a sexual perv because you THINK "Just said he wanted to screw them." You have no actual evidence for that claim except for what other people have said. It is something YOU THINK from what you have read that others have claimed. If you think that is all you need to judge a person have at it. Personally I'll reserve myself to actual evidence as I think that's the fair thing to do for anyone accused of anything.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31321 Jan 11, 2014
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And your bullshit pile just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Then you'll that no one wants to have an intelligent conversation with you.
Actually in most other threads I post in, I have no problem finding people that like to debate more than rumours and hearsay intelligently and without cussing and making childish derogatory remarks. This is the only thread where I have to deal with that as I do with you and nomo, but mostly you. Pearl and I don't agree on things but we have intelligent civil conversations where she doesn't feel the need to cuss and make childish derogatory remarks as you. So I enjoy her and mine conversations.
What you don't seem to like is the fact that I expect you to speak like an intelligent adult minus all the cussing and childish derogatory remarks. Maybe my expectations of you are to much?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31322 Jan 11, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Just last night you went up one side of me and down the other for addressing your claim of people be less likely to commit adultery 150 years ago, denying you ever made the claim. Now you feel the need to emphasize that claim? You gotta get your story straight or have someone else proof read your posts, But, to answer your question, my claim is based on our knowledge of human nature. Human nature doesn't change just because it's forbidden. If that were true all you fine Christians could have attained by now, that pursuit of perfection in your following of your Christ. Mans instinct to copulate is stronger than a law forbidding it. It been common place ever since the institution of marriage. And then well you always have that male ego thing to deal with also.
Let's go back from the beginning shall we? I said......

"I can appreciate you're using what we do now in modern times because many treat their sexuality as a play toy because of how our societies view sex as a play time exercise but, you have to maintain a remembrance we are dealing with said supposed events that took place in the 1840's where simple adultery could get you whipped and or tarred and feathered and or jailed and sometimes even shot.
And you forget we're speaking of a guy that was pro-pregnancy. And you forget his first wife and many of his illegally married wives were pro-pregnancy.
If you want to join the crowd that wants to believe the absurd without asking logical questions have at it."

You said........ "To think that people were somehow more pious or less likely to commit adultery a hundred and fifty years ago is naive to say the least."

I said.......... "I never said people were less likely to commit adultery 150 years ago." (I stated it that way because people did commit adultery in the 1800s obviously. But I didn't make a comparison to the 2000s.)

You are the one who made the comparison between our time and their time when you next said.... "If you are not implying here that, people were less likely to commit adultery in the 1840's then please, clarify your first paragraph."

I then stated speaking of both centuries and not just one as you had referenced both centuries..... "In the 1800s people WERE less likely to commit adultery than in the 2000s."

Is that any better in understanding? I originally referenced a single century, the 18th century concerning adultery. You are the one that alluded to referencing two centuries and comparing them because you said you believed adultery was committed as much than as it happens now.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#31323 Jan 11, 2014
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>Just last night you went up one side of me and down the other for addressing your claim of people be less likely to commit adultery 150 years ago, denying you ever made the claim. Now you feel the need to emphasize that claim? You gotta get your story straight or have someone else proof read your posts, But, to answer your question, my claim is based on our knowledge of human nature. Human nature doesn't change just because it's forbidden. If that were true all you fine Christians could have attained by now, that pursuit of perfection in your following of your Christ. Mans instinct to copulate is stronger than a law forbidding it. It been common place ever since the institution of marriage. And then well you always have that male ego thing to deal with also.
Human nature doesn't give statistical data. People recording the actions of people give actual data. And where did you get the notion that laws don't change human nature? That was a really ignorant statement in light of facts of how laws suppressed the human nature of homosexuality to closets and behind closed doors for a couple thousand years. Laws suppress the human nature in MOST humans the want to kill other humans. I could go on but I won't.
Sex be it same or opposite is human nature. But having sex with a person involved with another person use to come with consequences be it verbal and or physical consequences. I realize it isn't that way today as it use to be just a century ago.
pearl

Sandy, UT

#31324 Jan 11, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's go back from the beginning shall we? I said......
"I can appreciate you're using what we do now in modern times because many treat their sexuality as a play toy because of how our societies view sex as a play time exercise but, you have to maintain a remembrance we are dealing with said supposed events that took place in the 1840's where simple adultery could get you whipped and or tarred and feathered and or jailed and sometimes even shot.
And you forget we're speaking of a guy that was pro-pregnancy. And you forget his first wife and many of his illegally married wives were pro-pregnancy.
If you want to join the crowd that wants to believe the absurd without asking logical questions have at it."
You said........ "To think that people were somehow more pious or less likely to commit adultery a hundred and fifty years ago is naive to say the least."
I said.......... "I never said people were less likely to commit adultery 150 years ago." (I stated it that way because people did commit adultery in the 1800s obviously. But I didn't make a comparison to the 2000s.)
You are the one who made the comparison between our time and their time when you next said.... "If you are not implying here that, people were less likely to commit adultery in the 1840's then please, clarify your first paragraph."
I then stated speaking of both centuries and not just one as you had referenced both centuries..... "In the 1800s people WERE less likely to commit adultery than in the 2000s."
Is that any better in understanding? I originally referenced a single century, the 18th century concerning adultery. You are the one that alluded to referencing two centuries and comparing them because you said you believed adultery was committed as much than as it happens now.
Surprise in your first sentence you reference "modern times", then in the middle of the same paragraph you reference the 1840's. In between those references you go into detail regarding the difference in sexual attitudes during those times. If that's not making a comparison, then what is it? What we have here is a failure to communicate. And it's a little frustrating, let alone hindering the conversation.

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 Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 18 min Quirky 1,492
News Donald Trump nixes Bernie Sanders debate, blame... 18 min Magic Utah Uwear 5
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 31 min Rocha 874
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 37 min Dr Guru 214,483
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 37 min Jay 225,068
News Millionaire Entrepreneur Wants to 'Make Atheism... 43 min emperorjohn 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 54 min mdbuilder 1,383,526
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Agents of Corruption 384,179
News Protesters clash with police outside Trump rall... 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 308
News House takes action against Confederate flag, a ... 5 hr Ronald 295
More from around the web