Evangelical Pastor ignites firestorm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I find Evangelical theology false on the basis of the Bible.

Much...not all.

[zerinus]

Much...not all.

According to Evangelical theology, if you keep all the commandments, and break one commandment, you are guilty of breaking all the commandments (James 2:10). So judging them by their own rule, if they get one doctrine wrong, they have got all of them wrong! LOL! What is good for the goose is good for the Gander.

[Hughes]

All kinds of things; from salvation by faith alone without works, to a false theology of the Trinity.

Yet all are taught in the Bible.

Everything: Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, Priesthood, latter-day prophets and Apostles, modern day revelation, you name it, the Church has it.

All of which relies on the honesty of Joseph Smith. And since there's no objective way to test his trustworthiness, it's all blind faith in Joseph Smith. And trusting in one man alone isn't Biblical.

I find Evangelical theology false on the basis of the Bible.

Which is interesting isn't it? All of evangelical theology is based in the Bible, yet you think it's false based on the Bible. Hmm... something is fishy here.

According to Evangelical theology, if you keep all the commandments, and break one commandment, you are guilty of breaking all the commandments (James 2:10). So judging them by their own rule, if they get one doctrine wrong, they have got all of them wrong! LOL! What is good for the goose is good for the Gander.

Here I see a pattern. The quote of James 2:10 can't be applied to "doctrine" of evangelical theology, since the commandments spoken of are those from the Old Covenant.

The pattern I see is where one uses verses or concepts that are ripped out of their contexts and misapplied to other contexts, essentially putting words in the mouth of the original author that he never intended to have that meaning. In essence, making up your own teaching.

[zerinus]

Yet all are taught in the Bible.

I think that I know the Bible as well as you do, if not better, and I do not agree with that.

All of which relies on the honesty of Joseph Smith. And since there's no objective way to test his trustworthiness, it's all blind faith in Joseph Smith. And trusting in one man alone isn't Biblical.

If you want to look at it that way, the religion of Moses depends on the honesty of Moses, the truthfulness of Isaiah depends on the honesty of Isaiah, the religion of Christ depends on the honesty of Jesus (and His Apostles), and all the way up and down of the Bible. So I don

[Hughes]

I think that I know the Bible as well as you do, if not better, and I do not agree with that.

If you want to look at it that way, the religion of Moses depends on the honesty of Moses, the truthfulness of Isaiah depends on the honesty of Isaiah, the religion of Christ depends on the honesty of Jesus (and His Apostles), and all the way up and down of the Bible. So I don

[zerinus]

When did Moses hide the stone tablets? Or made up a story that the angel needed them back?

How do you know they ever existed? Where are they now? I would love to go and see them if you can tell me where they are! If you can't, how do you know they are not just fairy tales

[Anakin7]

Foursquare, AG, and non-demoninational.

What is "AG" Assemblies Of God ? So you are 3 in one. thank you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Hughes]

How do you know they ever existed? Where are they now? I would love to go and see them if you can tell me where they are! If you can't, how do you know they are not just fairy tales

[Hughes]

What is "AG" Assemblies Of God ? So you are 3 in one. thank you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I used to go to an AG (Assemblies of God church, and went to an AG college), and now I go to two churches, a 4 square church, and a non-demoninational church.

[zerinus]

So on that basis you must not believe Joseph Smith's made up stories either?

That is a ridiculous comment to make. I believe both stories, even though there is no direct evidence to support either (actually stronger evidence for the plates than the stone tables). I accept both on faith. You are the one who is inconsistent by claiming to accept one while rejecting the other, although the basis of belief in both are the same.

Name some that were sealed to wife's not their own?

Now you are nitpicking. First the argument was about polygamy; when you find that you have no credible answer to that, you change the subject and talk about something else. I take it that you are okay with Joseph Smith

[Anakin7]

I used to go to an AG (Assemblies of God church, and went to an AG college), and now I go to two churches, a 4 square church, and a non-demoninational church.

Thank you for that clarification. What is the name of the non Denominational Church ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[jonq1102]

I am not surprised that this guy is under fire. Many people believe that without hell it's hard to keep people acting right but i disagree. I think the idea of hell is just that. An idea. Just a scare tactic and no all loving God would condemn his children to such torture simply because they masturbated or lied or cursed. That's just stupid.

[cksalmon]

N.B. Labeling Rob Bell an "Evangelical" is more than a bit like labeling Warren Jeffs a "Restorationist."

That is, in terms of a historically-situated nomenclature, it's certainly not incorrect. But, in the interest of fairness, I'd imagine that both the disinterested and the biased may rightly hope for a bit more precision.

P.S. I doubt there are many here who would qualify as disinterested.

[WalkerW]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if someone beat me to it. Patheos has a number of articles on Bell's book.

[ELF1024]

Isn't Hughes just the cutest thing when he gets all fire and brimstone...

[Hughes]

Thank you for that clarification. What is the name of the non Denominational Church ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

K2

[Hughes]

That is a ridiculous comment to make. I believe both stories, even though there is no direct evidence to support either (actually stronger evidence for the plates than the stone tables). I accept both on faith. You are the one who is inconsistent by claiming to accept one while rejecting the other, although the basis of belief in both are the same.

Since there is no evidence at all for the gold plates, I don't believe they ever existed.

I follow Jesus and he taught from the OT and the ten commandments.

Now you are nitpicking. First the argument was about polygamy; when you find that you have no credible answer to that, you change the subject and talk about something else. I take it that you are okay with Joseph Smith

[Lamanite]

....

Thank you for the post and the subsequent Scriptural and supportive references!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

Since there is no evidence at all for the gold plates, I don't believe they ever existed.

There is more evidence for the gold plates than there is for the stone tables of Moses.

I follow Jesus and he taught from the OT and the ten commandments.

If you followed Jesus you would do as He did. He did not discriminate between contemporary prophets and earlier prophets. He acknowledged them all. To claim you believe in ancient prophets while rejecting contemporary ones suggests that your claim is is nothing more than a false pretense. If you were a true disciple of Jesus, you would acknowledge all of His prophets, including contemporary ones.

Actually I don't care about polygamy, but the sealing of wife's not his own. How many did he do that to again? Must have made their husbands sort of angry, no?

What do you know about that? You know nothing about that. You are just parroting what you have read or heard from anti-Mormon websites or literature. If you had investigated it properly you would know better. That proves that you are not sincere in your claims and assertions.

By their fruit you will know them.

Sure; and your "fruits" tells me that you are a dishonest and insincere investigator.

[USU78]

Since there is no evidence at all for the gold plates, I don't believe they ever existed.

Since there's no evidence for the Master's Resurrection, and scant (and not particularly compelling) contemporary evidence for Him, I guess you don't believe He ever existed.

[Hughes]

There is more evidence for the gold plates than there is for the stone tables of Moses.

If you followed Jesus you would do as He did. He did not discriminate between contemporary prophets and earlier prophets. He acknowledged them all. To claim you believe in ancient prophets while rejecting contemporary ones suggests that your claim is is nothing more than a false pretense. If you were a true disciple of Jesus, you would acknowledge all of His prophets, including contemporary ones.

What do you know about that? You know nothing about that. You are just parroting what you have read or heard from anti-Mormon websites or literature. If you had investigated it properly you would know better. That proves that you are not sincere in your claims and assertions.

Sure; and your "fruits" tells me that you are a dishonest and insincere investigator.

I believe that if a prophet is from God they won't take other mens wives, a clear violation of the ten commandments.

LDS historian Todd Compton shows in his excellent "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph

Smith," of Smith's 33 well-documented "plural wives," at least 11 of them

had legal husbands at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. And, contrary to

popular myth, none of those women were estranged from their legal husbands,

so Smith didn't take them into his household to provide for them.

[Libs]

N.B. Labeling Rob Bell an "Evangelical" is more than a bit like labeling Warren Jeffs a "Restorationist."

That is, in terms of a historically-situated nomenclature, it's certainly not incorrect. But, in the interest of fairness, I'd imagine that both the disinterested and the biased may rightly hope for a bit more precision.

P.S. I doubt there are many here who would qualify as disinterested.

Rob Bell appears to be a Progressive Christian. Pretty far from conservative (Orthodox) Christianity. They share some basic roots, but that's about it.

[zerinus]

I believe that if a prophet is from God they won't take other mens wives, a clear violation of the ten commandments.

LDS historian Todd Compton shows in his excellent "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph

Smith," of Smith's 33 well-documented "plural wives," at least 11 of them

had legal husbands at the time of their "sealing" to Smith. And, contrary to

popular myth, none of those women were estranged from their legal husbands,

so Smith didn't take them into his household to provide for them.

So if those women already had husbands, where were they? They didn't care?

[mercyngrace]

N.B. Labeling Rob Bell an "Evangelical" is more than a bit like labeling Warren Jeffs a "Restorationist."

That is, in terms of a historically-situated nomenclature, it's certainly not incorrect. But, in the interest of fairness, I'd imagine that both the disinterested and the biased may rightly hope for a bit more precision.

P.S. I doubt there are many here who would qualify as disinterested.

If you click the link to the article from the opening post, you will see that I took the description straight from the headline. That alone is the genesis of any confusion or mislabeling. There was no intentional bias, I was simply passing the article along with some LDS doctrine for context because I found it interesting.

[LeSellers]

I believe that if a prophet is from God they won't take other mens [sic] wives, a clear violation of the ten commandments.

The commandment in question is "thou shalt not commit adultery." It does not say, "thou shalt not be sealed to another man's wife." There is a major difference, one which you have not shown any indication of understanding. So, CFR that Joseph Smith ever "committed adultery" with any of the women to whom he was sealed who were married (not sealed) to other men. If he did not, and he didn't, then your accusation is false.

LDS historian Todd Compton shows in his excellent "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," of Smith's 33 well-documented "plural wives," at least 11 of them

had legal husbands at the time of their "sealing" to Smith.

So what? The "sealing" (and please note that my use of quotation marks is legitimate, while yours are merely "scare" quotes) did not constitute "marriage" in the sense that you'd like us to accept. There were documented cases of what some have termed "dynastic" sealings (e.g., Helen Marr Kimball) where the purpose of the sealing was to establish a Priesthood link between the women's families and Joseph Smith. Most of us Saints (by far the majority who have studied the issue at all) acknowledge that the depth of the sealing power was not well understood by prophets and apostles, much less us lay-folk for decades after the power and ordinances were revealed and restored. That's how they had "adoptions" of men by other men, which was exactly the same principle as the sealings of the women you note to Joseph.

And, contrary to popular myth, none of those women were estranged from their legal husbands, so Smith didn't take them into his household to provide for them.

Since at least one (whose name escapes me at the moment) was estranged, your statement is false.

But since there is no evidence that the "sealings" you pretend to lament were "marriages" in any classical sense, your argument is moot ab initio.

Lehi