Rob Bell And The Progressive Emergent Church Embrace Sodomite Marriage

Leo McNeil ^ | February 20, 2015 | Leo McNeil

[LeoMcNeil]

Rob Bell is a progressive former mega-church pastor. He is also a heretic who, since giving up the mega-church pastoring gig, has been hanging out with the likes of Oprah Winfrey. Bell was part of the emergent church, which engaged in “conversations” and rejected historic Christianity. While the emergents like to pretend they’re new, hip and cool, the reality is they’re no different than the other progressive churches out there which have rejected historic Christianity. The difference between the emergent church and the pentecostal or baptist churches is only how they demonstrate their rejection of historic Christianity. Rather than rolling on the floor, the emergent church sips a Starbucks and has a “conversation” that looks remarkably like a sermon. Their conversation is distinctly post-modern, absolute truth is rejected.

Rob Bell was one of the leaders of the emergent church. Perhaps he still is. He gave up his church in supposedly conservative Grand Rapids, Michigan to hang out with Oprah and Hollywood Starlets out in Los Angeles. His most recent book argued there is no Hell and no one actually goes to Hell. These days he’s busy pushing homosexual marriage. He has argued that the church is moments away from embracing such a bastardization of marriage. Worse, he argues that the church shouldn’t rely on “2,000 year old letters” to form an opposition to homosexual conduct. If Christians cannot and should not rely on God’s word as contained in scripture, what exactly are we supposed to rely upon?

Bell of course argues we should rely upon personal experiences, in particular we should rely on the people placed before us. This is typical progressive nonsense, dripping in post-modernism. Bell’s argument really comes down to not believing in any truth whatsoever so we might as well be nice to the sexual perverts that may be in our lives. Of course being nice to such people is a truth, so that might get a little sticky at some point. Basically, if the wider culture embraces something Bell believes the church should follow. We shouldn’t look to scripture because that’s old. We must embrace the new and modern, even if it contains no truth. We want the church to be relevant after all.

The problem of course is that if we reject Paul’s 2,000 year old letters (to say nothing of the legal proclamations of Moses which are several thousand years older) why not reject the entire gospel of Jesus Christ? The gospels are just as old as Paul’s letters and they contain more foolishness to the world than Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts. The gospels after all claim a virgin birth, a resurrection from the dead and an ascension into Heaven. They make the preposterous argument that some man named Jesus died for the sins of an elect. Not only that, this Jesus claims he’s God. What a silly, small minded, old fashioned thing to believe. Yet Bell doesn’t outright reject the gospel, the niceties of hippy Jesus give modern man the warm fuzzies.

Bell’s and the progressive and emergent church’s apostasy is clear. They reject scripture unless it suits their purposes, whatever they may be. There are plenty of Christian denominations which have been completely overtaken by progressive “higher criticism” and rejected everything relating to Christ’s birth and resurrection. Bell is well on his way to this, rejecting anything supernatural while keeping the stories about Christ being nice to wicked people. In doing so, they miss the entire point of those stories. But that doesn’t matter to the post-modern emergent church or to Rob Bell. These people really don’t believe in anything. They reject the Bible and they lie to people by offering a little bit of the Bible in the form of Christ’s niceties while rejecting everything else. That’s how Bell can embrace homosexual marriage despite God’s specific creation of marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman and multiple examples of homosexual conduct declared sin in scripture. In the end, Bell and any church or person who adopts such a position will do nothing but lead himself and others to Hell.

[LeoMcNeil]

Yes, it was a sign of the covenant between God and his people prior to Christ. Baptism replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant between God and his people. His people are now not limited to believing Jews (it never was, anyone who came to faith in the Old Testament who was not an ethnic Jew could be circumcised into the covenant) but include as one of the Psalms states “a people yet unknown.” In other words, the Covenant extends to all believers and their households via baptism in the same manner that circumcision extended not just to Abraham but to his entire household.

[LeoMcNeil]

The problem though is that in the United States the baptist movement was fueled by the progressive temperance movement. Prior to the Civil War there were very few baptists in the United States. In fact, anabaptism had been largely stamped out all over the world. After the Civil War the progressive movement began and rejected anything historic. This extended into the church, in fact in many ways the progressive movement was a product of the church.

It should come as no surprise that the baptist movement began in the south and to this day is still centered in the south. During the Civil War both the north and the south were convinced God was on their side. Obviously the south lost, losses were horrific on both sides but worse in the south. The despondency associated with losing caused a shift in the south from historic churches, largely calvinistic, to something that completely rejected the historic churches that had led the south to lose the war. The baptist movement offered people an anti-historic church and it offered people a better life through law.

I don’t think people appreciate just how much the civil war negatively affected the church in this country. It is from that war that the progressive movement in both the north and the south flow. The south outright rejected the historic church, which was easy to do because the historic church said God was on the side of the south and the south lost. In the north, the carnage of the war didn’t cause people to leave the church but it did cause them to seek its fundamental change. Within two generations the mainline southern churches didn’t exist or otherwise became baptist. In the north the mainline churches remained in name but they utterly rejected historic Christian theology. The nation has never recovered.

[Elsie]

Baptism replaces circumcision as a sign of the covenant between God and his people.

News to me.

Where do I find this information?

[Elsie]

So?

In EVERY war; each side is convinced of this!

[daniel1212]

After the Civil War the progressive movement began and rejected anything historic. This extended into the church, in fact in many ways the progressive movement was a product of the church.

What you are doing in your lengthy theory is using the rejection of some true historical Biblical truths to justify a perpetuated tradition (you likely also support NT ministers distinctively titled priests) that was reject by churches which held to historical Biblical truths.

The SBC affirms the latter but rejects infant baptism, as paedobaptism is not what Scripture most plainly teaches but was a tradition which developed at time went on. Again, unlike circumcision, the Biblical requirements for baptism require repentance and faith, and which infant are incapable of.

Nor does the act of baptism make one a believer unless one can believe. God has no grandchildren as no one is saved by proxy. Period.

[LeoMcNeil]

I’m not a Roman Catholic, I’m reformed. Believer baptism is not the plain teaching of scripture. It’s hardly a surprise that we see adults who were already part of the old covenant via circumcision getting baptized into the new covenant as believers. Abraham was a believer when he was circumcised. Both circumcision and baptism are signs and seals of God’s covenant, it would be absurd to include children in the old covenant but reject them in the new.

[LeoMcNeil]

The Civil War wasn’t like every other war. The United States in 1861 was still very much a Christian nation. Unlike most of the European wars, it didn’t just involve a professional military it also involved ordinary citizens via the draft. It was also the first modern war, with modern death tolls.

Within the church both the north and south were absolutely convinced of the moral superiority of their side. While politically slavery was a side issue for the north, within the church the abolitionist movement was strong and forceful. Within the southern churches support for slavery was strong, in addition to a number of other grievances the south had against the north.

This isn’t a matter of both sides believing God is on their side and well, every war has this. This matter cut much deeper, especially after 600,000 people died and the south and its culture lay in ruins. To say nothing of slavery ending. The civil war directly led to the progressive movement both within politics and the church. The south, which before the war was largely reformed, presbyterian and anglican, became largely baptist after the war. The south rejected the church and shifted to the social gospel via the baptist movement. The north went in a different direction, keeping the old church institutions but gutting them of all their Christian content.

[daniel1212]

I’m not a Roman Catholic, I’m reformed

You are not reformed in doctrine enough, as like her you perpetuate a tradition of men for which you try to extrapolate support from Scripture for. Which attempts are more incongruous for a reformed, as you hold to SS, yet while the Holy Spirit very clearly presents repentance and faith as preceding baptism, and provides many examples of baptism, yet He never describes infants being baptized (and thus must presume whole household baptisms must include children under about 4).

Doctrine may be established upon principals flowing from what is implicit in precepts and precedents, but the conspicuously absence of any infant baptism when so much is said about baptism is consistent for doctrine of a basic practice.

In addition the correspondence of circumcision to baptism is very limited, as while the former answers to the latter as regards being a sign of being in covenant, the former - besides only being for males - was distinctly required for infants, even to the very day it was to be done, and thus did not require faith (though one could be a believer), while repentance and faith is distinctly required for baptism.

Believer baptism is not the plain teaching of scripture.

What?! Now you really sound Catholic, denying what is plainly exampled in Scripture in order to keep your tradition which is plainly unseen in the NT.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent [which is a decision of faith], and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received [by faith] the Holy Ghost as well as we? (Acts 10:47; cf. 15:7-9)

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed , and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:4,5)

It’s hardly a surprise that we see adults who were already part of the old covenant via circumcision getting baptized into the new covenant as believers.

And it is hardly a surprise that we see adults who were Gentiles and outside the old covenant getting baptized after they believed and were born again and were part of the body of Christ, God "purifying their heart by faith." (Acts 10:34-47; 15:9)

Abraham was a believer when he was circumcised.

But children were not, yet were commanded, not to repent, believe and be circumcised as is the case under the New Cov, but to be circumcised the 8th day.

it would be absurd to include children in the old covenant but reject them in the new.

Indeed, yet while circumcision placed souls into a physical theocractic community whether they believed or not, and which consisted of lost and saved souls, in contrast, baptism requires and signifies faith which places one in a spiritual body which only consists of true believers. The act of baptism apart from personal faith gets the individual wet, not washed from sin, which is by faith.

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:43-44)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

Meanwhile, infants do not need to believe on Christ as they are not accountable for sin, and what one did himself is the basis for damnation, (Rv. 20:11-14) not what one's father did. (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)

[LeoMcNeil]

Do you even know what reformed means?

[daniel1212]

The south rejected the church and shifted to the social gospel via the baptist movement.

What biased broadbrush. It is those churches which are more like Rome with her infant baptism that are most liberal, and while the South is the strongest manifest area of conservative committed Christianity. If only the whole country was more like the area that you say shifted to the social gospel via the baptist movement.

• 10% of Evangelical Protestants reside in the NE, 23% in the Midwest, 50% in the South, and 17% in the West. Catholics: 29% NE, 24% Midwest, 24% in the South, 23% in the West. “Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream,” Pew Research Center, 2007. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

• he states with the most frequent churchgoers were Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina, Louisiana, Utah Tennessee, Arkansas, N. Carolina, Georgia, then Texas. The states with the most infrequent churchgoers were Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska, then Washington. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/mississippians-go-church-most-vermonters-least.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/22579/church-attendance-lowest-new-england-highest-south.aspx

• The highest percentages of residents who describe themselves as Christian are typically in the South, including: Shreveport, LA (98%), Birmingham (96%), Charlotte (96%), Nashville (95%), Greenville, SC / Asheville, NC (94%), New Orleans (94%), Indianapolis (93%), Lexington (93%), Roanoke-Lynchburg (93%), Little Rock (92%), and Memphis (92%). http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/435-diversity-of-faith-in-various-us-cities

• 73% of the populations of Charlotte and Shreveport held scripture in high regard, versus only 27% of the residents of Providence, Rhode Island [the most Catholic state] and San Francisco [the most homosexual large city]. ^

• The lowest percentages of self-identified Christians inhabited the following markets: San Francisco (68%), Portland, Oregon (71%), Portland, Maine (72%), Seattle (73%), Sacramento (73%), New York (73%), San Diego (75%), Los Angeles (75%), Boston (76%), Phoenix (78%), Miami (78%), Las Vegas (78%), and Denver (78%). Even in these cities, however, roughly three out of every four residents align with Christianity. ^

• The highest percentage of souls who tended toward being atheist or agnostic were in Portland, Maine (19%), Seattle (19%), Portland, Oregon (16%), Sacramento (16%), and Spokane (16%)

• Commitment to evangelism (agree strongly that a person has a responsibility to share their beliefs with others) saw the greatest percentage of endorsement by residents of Birmingham (64%) and Charlotte (54%), in contrast to residents of Providence (14%) and Boston (17%).

• (See HERE for a table on Religious-Political relations. And HERE for correlations between faith, ideology, politics, environment, money.) And HERE for supplementary compilation of stats on moral positions related to numerical impact, and Whites, Latinos and African Americans.

[LeoMcNeil]

Since when does church attendance equal faith? If we go back half a century the pews were full in liberal mainline protestant denominations throughout the northeast. Very few were actual believers, as evidenced by how few of their children and grandchildren remain in the church and as evidenced by their leftist theology. I wouldn’t get too excited about southern church attendance.

[daniel1212]

Do you even know what reformed means?

Do you even know the difference between claiming to be reformed due to being part of a Reformed churches, versus being reformed in putting off Roman traditions of men? Thus i said you are not reformed enough.

Many congregations in the Christian Reformed Church today observe Ash Wednesday and Lent - which in times past they repressed - and other days of Rome's liturgical "days, months, times and years," as are many Baptists, moving closer to Rome.

[daniel1212]

Since when does church attendance equal faith?

Since when does or will LeoMcNeil open his eyes to see more than one aspect? Do you really want to contend that the South does not have the most conservative Christians, and that the churches that hold to infant baptism do not overall tend to be the most liberal/"progressive." And the most dead overall?

[LeoMcNeil]

I’m not CRC nor have I ever been nor will I ever be due to significant doctrinal differences. At heart I’m reformed presbyterian, though I’m a member of the free reformed church.

The problem here is that you seem to believe the Old Testament and New Testament are entirely different when in fact the New only confirms what the Old told us would happen. The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel. It changes from circumcision to baptism because we no longer need the symbolic blood, our one and only saving blood is Christ’s.

Acts 2:38-39 confirms this position when Peter commands new believers to be baptized. He stated clearly that the promises made by God via baptism were not only for believers but for their children also. This is no different than the old covenant, wherein God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his entire household. Keep in mind when the Jews that Peter was speaking to heard him reference promises made to believers and their children they would have instantly recognized the connection between baptism and circumcision.

In Acts 16:15 Lydia and her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul tells us that the household of Stephanas was baptized. This mirrors Genesis 17 which taught that Abraham’s household was circumcised. In other words, the entire family was baptized in the New Covenant and circumcised in the Old Covenant. This includes, obviously, children.

In addition, Christ admonishes those that would keep children from him in Mark 10:15-16. Those who deny the children of believers a place in the covenant are specifically violating Christ’s command.

[LeoMcNeil]

If we went back 150 years the believers of this nation would be horrified by the southern churches. The bent towards legalism in the form of prohibition, the outrageous music that is declared fit for worship and the inane sermons coupled with showmanship would disgust believers of the past. Just because people come to church on Sunday for the show doesn’t mean they’re believers. The divorce rates of the south, which tend high, suggest that there’s limited practical application taking place.

Mind you, I will not defend the northern mainline protestant denominations. Believers from the past would be equally horrified by the rejection of basic Biblical doctrine such as the Trinity, virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. They would be disgusted by the women preachers and the acceptance of abortion, homosexual conduct to the point of marriage and the utter meaninglessness of weekly sermons. Ultimately I suspect believers of the past would be saddened to see the state of the church in a once strong Christian nation.

[daniel1212]

I’m not CRC nor have I ever been nor will I ever be due to significant doctrinal difference

You are a form of reformed.

The problem here is that you seem to believe the Old Testament and New Testament are entirely different when in fact the New only confirms what the Old told us would happen. The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel.

What an outlandish or careless statement! Then you need to read the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, among other books. Among other things under the Mosaic covenant,

law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:12-13)

And

verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (Hebrews 9:1) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:9-10)

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

For the New Cov. is distinctly said to be,

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:9)

In addition are 32 differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant listed here (http://www.christiantruthcenter.com/difference-between-the-old-covenant-and-the-new-covenant)

1. The old covenant came by Moses while the new covenant came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

2. The old covenant leads to death (kills) while the new covenant gives life (2 Cor 3:6)

3. The old covenant was ended by Jesus Christ (Roman 10:4) while the new covenant was established by Jesus Christ (Heb 8:6)

4. The old covenant enslaves (Gal 5:1)while the new covenant makes man free (gives freedom) (John 8:32. 36)

5. The old covenant leaves man imperfect while the new covenant leaves man perfect (Heb 7:19)

6. The old covenant exposes sin (Gal 3:19) while the new covenant covers sin (Rom. 4:1-8)

7. The old covenant cannot give life (2 cor 3.7) while the new covenant gives life (Gal. 3:11, 6:8)...

cts 2:38-39 confirms this position when Peter commands new believers to be baptized. He stated clearly that the promises made by God via baptism were not only for believers but for their children also. This is no different than the old covenant,

This is more wresting to Scripture, as the promise is to their children not by baptizing infants, , which Peter does not tell them to do, but by receiving it the same way they did, by repentant faith, which is confessed in baptism!

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:2)

And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. (Acts 5:32)

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:14)

Under SS you are supposed to compare Scripture with Scripture, and in so doing we only see the promise of the Spirit received by faith, and nover any infants being either baptized or born again under the New covenant.

Instead you have to force circumcision into having a correspondence to baptism beyond what it written, so that instead of both signifying being under the covenant of God, who ignore the distinction under what condition each requires to be under that covenant.

Again, under the OC circumcision is distinctly commanded for infants , and is recorded, while under the New repentance and faith is distinctly commanded for baptism, and no where is infant baptism recorded, despite many instances of baptism, and with believing preceding it wherever more than a just a statament of baptism is provided.

they would have instantly recognized the connection between baptism and circumcision.

As do i, and being told they the requirements they would have instantly recognized the distinction in application.

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

In Acts 16:15 Lydia and her household were baptized. In Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and all his family were baptized. In 1 Cor 1:16 Paul tells us that the household of Stephanas was baptized.

Which is all you have, and in which nowhere is there any mention of infants being baptized, despite this being such a cardinal practice, and despite the Holy Spirit providing many records of believing coming first, and which He gives as a prerequisite. The absence is conspicuous, and inconsistent with how the Spirit provides for other basic practices, while He stipulates repentant faith for baptism.

This mirrors Genesis 17 which taught that Abraham’s household was circumcised.

Only by reading that into the text, as in Genesis 17 it is distinctly stated "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Genesis 17:12) Nor faith is required, in contrast to Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..(Acts 2:38)

In addition, Christ admonishes those that would keep children from him in Mark 10:15-16. Those who deny the children of believers a place in the covenant are specifically violating Christ’s command.

Now you are really resorting to Cath. type methods. No one is keeping infant from the kingdom of God by not baptizing them, and as with Caths, baptizing them gives them a false confidence that they are already Christians, children of God

. An uncircumcised infant did not go to Hell or miss Heaven if he died any more than a circumcised one did, and both needed to believe if they would be spiritual saved, though circumcision made him a sanctified member of the physical theocratic covenanted community in which he was given more grace towards salvation.

Baptism signifies being in the spiritual community which is by faith, not via a ritual! Baptizing your guiltless infant does not make him born again any more than not baptizing him will send him to Hell if he dies, but as with Lot's family, the presence of one believing spouse sanctifies the whole family, including an unbaptized spouse.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)

But as at least in old times (before kids at 5 had ipads and TV for baby sitters) the wive and kids followed the decisions and faith of their father, so it could be said that if the father believed, so would the household. That is what needs to be the focus, not getting infants wet and giving them false confidence that they are already children of God.

[Elsie]

The United States in 1861 was still very much a Christian nation.

Not according to the MORMONs.

---

 

 

Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).

 

 

---

Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).

Joseph Smith: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from Pearl of Great Price 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).

 

 

 

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Journal of Discourses , vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

 

 

 

 

Orson Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses , vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses , 18:172).

 

 

President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses , vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (Journal of Discourses , 10:127).

 

 

 

James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.182).

 

 

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).

 

 

 

More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (Mormon Doctrine, p.316).

 

 

 

President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).

 

 

President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (Journal of Discourses , vol. 2, p.196).

[daniel1212]

If we went back 150 years the believers of this nation would be horrified by the southern churches. The bent towards legalism in the form of prohibition, the outrageous music that is declared fit for worship and the inane sermons coupled with showmanship would disgust believers of the past.

Yes, we understand that there is far more alarm over the pot that boils over than the one that is barely simmering, which overall best fits the paedobaptism churches.

And despite the deflection from them by invoking aberrations, the conservative evangelicalism that has predominated mostly in the "Bible belt," and the reason that is a Bible belt, is because God was at work in these evangelical areas which you relegate to being "progressives," while it remains that those who hold to paedobaptism are the more liberal.

Just because people come to church on Sunday for the show doesn’t mean they’re believers.

Cmon Leo, you tried that already and it applies to your tribes as well as others, while that is still only one aspect that testifiers to greater commitment than liberal churches, and it remains that the evangelical baptist and holiness churches do dis as forsaking historical truth are far more conservative and manifestly alive overall than the paedobaptist/lenten liturgical churches your side with.

The divorce rates of the south, which tend high, suggest that there’s limited practical application taking place.

That corresponds to income more than anything else by far, which is why even secular divorce rates are better among those well-educated and affluent.

Ultimately I suspect believers of the past would be saddened to see the state of the church in a once strong Christian nation.

Not THAT is something we can both agree on!

[LeoMcNeil]

Mormon’s aren’t Christians, their cultists. Taking the word of an anti-Christ Mormon when they yammer about what Christians ought to be like is like listening to Obama lecture us about Christianity today. It’s meaningless because it comes from an anti-Christ.

[Elsie]

Mormon’s aren’t Christians, their cultists.

 

If you have cable TV, there won’t be much on to watch.

 

 

 

 

If there isn’t much on to watch, you will answer your door whenever someone rings.

 

 

 

 

If you open your door, you will see mormons.

 

 

 

 

If you talk to mormons, they will trick you into “praying about whether something is true”.

 

 

 

 

If you rely on your feelings, you may become a mormon.

 

 

 

 

If you become a mormon, you will have to wear magic underwear!

 

 

 

 

If you wear magic underwear, people will immediately label you as a cultist.

DON’T be a cultist!
Get DirectTV.