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.

[Elsie]

Your cut and paste nonsense doesn’t interest me.

It interests somebody.

Some one will SURELY see the illogic of Mormonism thru what I post.

Send out your 80,000 little minions across the world, proclaiming that SLC has the TRUE religion.

OFfer the 'seekers' a BOM and withhold the REAL power behind the throne; the D&C's.

I'm just one old man on the Internet.

Spreading joy to whomever will accept it.

[Elsie]

“Then I accept you as a learned man.”

Again, do you have a point to make? A point to discuss?

At this point, my chair is more interesting...

That's good!

Is your TR up to date?

If you die today will you spend enternity with the Father; or on Level Two with the likes of me?

---

HEAVEN-The Mormon church teaches there are three levels of heaven (three "degrees of glory"):

• Celestial - for Mormons who have kept ALL of the laws and ordinances of their church.
• Terrestrial - for religious people who aren't Mormons and for Mormons who have not met the requirements of the Church.
• Telestial - where unbelievers go

 

What will the celestial heaven (kingdom) supposedly be like for a good Celestial worthy Mormon?

He will be a god, he will rule over a planet with his wives and spirit children.

[StormPrepper]

[Elsie]Is your TR up to date?

If you die today will you spend enternity with the Father; or on Level Two with the likes of me?

HEAVEN-The Mormon church teaches there are three levels of heaven (three "degrees of glory"):

Celestial - for Mormons who have kept ALL of the laws and ordinances of their church.
Terrestrial - for religious people who aren't Mormons and for Mormons who have not met the requirements of the Church.
Telestial - where unbelievers go

What will the celestial heaven (kingdom) supposedly be like for a good Celestial worthy Mormon?
He will be a god, he will rule over a planet with his wives and spirit children."

Here. Let me post the true eternal law.
Celestial - D&C 76
50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

You can't find anything anywhere in the Catholic church or any protestant denomination that is that definitive or powerful.

If you do not accept the testimony of the Latter-day prophets which are on the earth now and are spoken of in Rev 11, then you will answer for it at the judgement.

[william clark]

You can't find anything anywhere in the Catholic church or any protestant denomination that is that definitive or powerful.

Yep. All it lacks is truth.

If you do not accept the testimony of the Latter-day prophets which are on the earth now and are spoken of in Rev 11, then you will answer for it at the judgement.

Revelation 11?
Based on their track records, I'd say more like Jeremiah 14:14
and Jeremiah 26:16
and Matthew 7:15
and 2 Peter 2:1
and 2 Corinthians 11:4
and...

[StormPrepper]

[Elise]Some one will SURELY see the illogic of Mormonism thru what I post.

When have you have ever used logic? You cut and paste and make sarcastic snide remarks. But logic??? Logic requires you to examine something thoughtfully. And through linked cause and effect create a hypothesis, which leads to a conclusion.

Snide remarks do not equal (!=) logic.

"Send out your 80,000 little minions across the world, proclaiming that SLC has the TRUE religion.

Spreading joy to whomever will accept it.

You've always sounded bitter and/or jealous, IMO.

[StormPrepper]

“Yep. All it lacks is truth.”

Your words are hollow.

[Elsie]

If you do not accept the testimony of the Latter-day prophets which are on the earth now and are spoken of in Rev 11, then you will answer for it at the judgement.

---

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

[Elsie]

You have HOW many wives???

[Elsie]

You can't find anything anywhere in the Catholic church or any protestant denomination that is that definitive or powerful.

So; is your TR up-to-date or WHAT??

[Elsie]

Logic requires you to examine something thoughtfully.

HMMMmmm...

---

---

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

---

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

---

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

---

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

---

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

---

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

 

 "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879,  pp. 190-91.)

---

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

 

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

---

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

---

---

[Elsie]

Logic requires you to examine something thoughtfully.

HMMMmmm...

---

The following are the LYING images that MORMONism has produced, KNOWING that they represent something FALSE!!

 

 

   

                                 

[Elsie]

Your words are hollow.

Think logically now...

Why doesn't SLC accept the JST as SCRIPTURE?

[Elsie]

And through linked cause and effect create a hypothesis, which leads to a conclusion.

Good point!!

---

Polygamy: How it all got Started

 

---

---

 

 

 

Joe: Hey Emma!   Guess what!?

 

Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?

 

Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.

 

Emma: WHAT!?   You ding bat!  Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says?   After all; YOU are the one that translated it!

 

Joe: Books; schmooks.   All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!

 

 

Emma:      "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"

 

 

Joe: Silly Woman!  You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

...and the rest is HISTORY...

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

 

  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

---

Or even HERE:

---

 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

 

 

1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

 

 

 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

---

---

 

 

Emma: That's IT!   I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!! 

  

            Can't you EVER get straight what GOD tells you???

 

          Doctrines and Covenants 49:16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one ^awife, and they twain shall be ^bone flesh, and all this that the ^cearth might answer the end of its creation;

 

 

 

 

Joe:  DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!!   Wait!!!   I hear a voice again!!!

 

 

---

---

 

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 132

 

  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

 

 

  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been ^afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ^ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of ^beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid ^aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to ^brejoice.

[william clark]

Your words are hollow.

So, in using that logic you've touted so highly (I remember an LDS missionary once chiding me for using logic in my response to his proselytizing attempts), the implication of your post to which I responded is that if someone makes some very powerful and authoritative statement, that proves it to be true?

Thank you for that example of circular logic.

"Hi, I'm God."

"Why should I believe you?"

"Because God would never lie."

"Wow, I'm convinced!"

[StormPrepper]

Thank you for that example of circular logic.

There's nothing circular about it. What you're looking for is "appeal to authority".

the implication of your post to which I responded is that if someone makes some very powerful and authoritative statement, that proves it to be true?

I didn't say anything about proving truth, that's something you made up and added to it. I said authoritative and definitive. The last time that kind of language was used is in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon and is evident in the every section of the Doctrine and Covenants.

However, now that you've mentioned it, it is true. 100%.

[StormPrepper]

Please stop sending me your spam posts. I believe I’ve asked you nicely to not do this anymore.

Please do not send me anymore cut and paste spam. I will read and respond to actual discussion points or questions from you, but not cut and paste posts directed at me that have no meaning.

[StormPrepper]

So; is your TR up-to-date or WHAT??

That's of a very personal nature and inappropriate.

[StormPrepper]

[Elise]"Think logically now...

Why doesn't SLC accept the JST as SCRIPTURE?"

It IS considered scripture. Oh, you didn't know that?

How's your logic now?

[Elsie]

There's nothing circular about it. What you're looking for is "appeal to authority".

Like THESE guys??

Salt Lake City claims that one of these is GOD the Father, and that the other is Christ.

 

 

Read it for yourself:

 

 

 

 

---

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17#17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. 

---

 

 Question: Why didn't this 'christ' speak??

 

 

[Elsie]

...but not cut and paste posts directed at me that have no meaning.

Sorry you feel this way about Mormon SCRIPTURE.

But please; don't blame me if you cannot defend the actions of your chosen religion.