Modern White Evangelicalism Was Shaped By Slavery

If someone who knew absolutely nothing about white evangelicalism picked up the New Testament and read it, he/she would conclude that those who follow the Bible are liberals. Actual followers of the Bible would believe in giving their money away to the poor, helping the dispossessed and turning the other cheek. How peculiar it is that actual evangelical “followers of the Bible” are in a political camp with exactly the opposite views.

The reason for this ironic state of affairs goes back to the Civil War period. Back then a religious justification was needed for slavery and later segregation. An innovative way of reading the Bible was preached allowing the passages leading to liberal political conclusions to be set aside and ignored.

The largest Protestant denomination, Southern Baptists, were formed in 1845 during a split over slavery. According to today’s link, From that point forward, social and economic pressure dictated white Christian churches reading of the Bible, leaving them with a selective memory..a..world where up is down and wrong is right.

A good example was the late Billy Graham. While he made one famous gesture of taking down racial seating barriers at one of his events, he made no important statements during the civil rights years. He never appeared on stage with Martin Luther King. When King’s famous writing about his children’s segregated schools demanded a response, Graham merely said all children will walk hand in hand in the afterlife.

That dealing with wrongs can be delayed until the afterlife is Southern Baptist gold.

68 Responses

  1. Catcher

    Re. attachment; John Darby, Scofield, Moody, bible colleges, Dispensationialism,, Thousand years, Hal Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth, left behind,
    “But wait, there’s more.” It goes international.

    Whooda thunk it.

  2. Greg Crowley

    Tragically, this analysis is probably pretty spot on. Although, it is a story as old as the Bible itself. It seems God is always restoring the Kingdom to a faithful remnant that he has preserved. Israel had long been xenophobic in Jesus’ day.

    This is all further proof of Jesus’ beauty and the need for everyone to place their faith in his substitutionary atonement. ?

    1. Greg 8:00 This is all further proof of Jesus’ beauty and the need for everyone to place their faith in his substitutionary atonement.

      We skeptics refer to this (being snarky as we are) as create a problem, then create a solution (only through me). An expert in this kind of thing wrote a book about it some years ago, The Art of the Deal.

      1. Greg Crowley

        Sorry, Jon, but apparently skeptics are no different than the rest of us when it comes to only through me solutions.
        You prove that point post after post.

        1. Grey 10:07 Sorry, Jon, but apparently skeptics are no different than the rest of us when it comes to only through me solutions.

          I’m sure you are making a good point there. I just don’t understand it. Please elaborate.

  3. Juan Ruiz

    Not just southern Evangelicals. Where do you think the so-called Mormon Negro Doctrine was born and why? There was a significant population of them in Missouri, a slave state. (btw, Mormonism believes Independence is the site of the Garden of Eden). The Doctrine was “revealed” to Joseph Smith to ease potential friction between the “Saints” and their neighbors.

  4. Brad Leeser

    Actually, the practice (not doctrine) of denying priesthood to LDS member of African descent was not a product of Joseph Smith, but rather Joseph Smith. While some members may have considered it to be a doctrinal issue, the majority of us understood at the time that is was a practice and we looked forward to the time that the practice was to end. I don’t know why it was instituted nor do I know why it ended, but as a church which believes as a basis article of faith, “….we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things….” we all took it in stride.

    While the outside world may scoff, the many, many black members of our faith testify that the doctrine of the Church transcends race or place of origin. Come and see for yourself, talk to some of our African-American members.

    And please get your history right, the LDS Church was expelled from Missouri under threat of extermination by the governor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44

    1. Juan Ruiz

      ” I don’t know why it was instituted nor do I know why it ended, but as a church which believes as a basis article of faith,”

      Most Mormons didn’t. There were two theories:

      During the War in heaven there was a group who sat on the fence and did not participate. They were subsequently “cursed” with black skin.

      Black skin was the mark of Cain.

      One of them is mentioned in “The Pearl of Great Price.” Can’t remember which.

      It ended for the same reason polygamy ended: societal pressure.

  5. Brad Leeser

    Actually, there is no doctrine nor reference to a curse of cain being a black skin that prevents Priesthood conferral. Some, not all, LDS members before 1978 read some of the things you posted and, like you, added two plus two and got five.

    Plural marriage, not technically polygamy, is still a doctrine of the LDS Church. It is still in our Scriptures, both Biblical and extra-Biblical We see at times throughout history that God allowed plural marriage to be practiced, at times not.

    Even today, in the LDS Church when a man remarries after the death of a spouse, we believe in the eternities he may well have two wives. So, again the doctrine has not changed. The doctrines do not ever change. Practices can and do change. And they will continue to do so.

    I don’t think any of the LDS Critics will read any of the links I post, but here is a good one on plural marriage. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

    1. Juan Ruiz

      Read over your history again. What I said about the rationalizations and reasons are correct. Mormonism established polygamy because their were way more women than men converting. Some were sealed for the afterlife, others occupied the husbands bed. Why do you suppose there are still communities who rejected the “no-polygamy” prophesy? Jeeze, there are tv shows about them. Romney’s family and others fled to Mexico to continue it. Bonneville in Canada BC still practices it. And it’s great tragedy is that you have 14 year-old girls sealed to 70 year-old men. The young guys are out of luck.

  6. Brad Leeser

    Juan, you clearly have no clue about a lot of things you discuss. I’m not going to address point by point, but we don’t marry off 14 year olds. Anyone who does is not a “Mormon” and will be excommunicated. We don’t hide the doctrines of the Church and they are all out there for all to see.

    You mentioned in a previous post about “theories” as to why this or that was done. There are tons of theories including inside the Church, but doctrines of the LDS Church do not change.

    Have you been to an LDS Meeting? Have you met with a knowledgable LDS person (I be happy to visit with you)? Do you ever read LDS web-sites to get information or do you only read professional anti-Mormon sites?

    When I discuss the views of others (Catholics, Protestants, Islam, etc) I try to take pains to not mis-represent their point of view. May I encourage you and others to do the same, not only with the Latter-day Saints, but any other group whom you may disagree with.

    1. Juan Ruiz

      Actually, I do have a clue. What you express is current Mormon doctrine. You want to ignore the fact that the question of polygamy was not resolved by a prophecy so that Utah (Deseret) could become a state. There are still enclaves of Mormon polygamists who believe that “prophecy” was false and heresy. That it went against a declaration from God. Thus they continue to practice it, both in Utah and Canada. And they don’t care what Salt Lake says, because they believe they are the true Mormons. But this is line with other religionists who don’t want to accept the infelicities committed within their faith. be is pedophilia or jihad.

  7. Brad Leeser

    I have no control what someone else says, believes or practices. But I again refer you to your last post, so when you speak you might at least have credibility with people who have a better understanding of facts. Cheers

    1. Juan Ruiz

      I would say that those with a better understanding of the facts go beyond what their church officially teaches them. But again, I have found that believers do not know much more than that.

  8. Brad Leeser

    My dear friend, Juan, your ignorance and arrogance are astounding. I’m sorry to state the obvious and be rude, and I sincerely hope I’m not violating any rules on this forum. And I don’t expect anyone to accept my beliefs or even my understanding of history or theology.

    “I have found that believers do not know much more than that.”

    I’m a bit offended that the implication is that I parrot only official LDS Church doctrine. What I have said here is accurate 100%, and it is not accurate only because of what “(my) church teaches”. I am a member of three LDS oriented historical societies each of which have many non-LDS members, board members and even non-LDS presidents…one even was founded by a “non-Mormon”. I have original Church documents and publications dating back to the 1840s. I am fairly sure I have the largest collect of LDS books, anti-LDS books, documents and other material in the Fargo Moorhead area. I can assure you that I know LDS doctrine now, and I know what it was 150 years ago. And you sir, are speaking from the vantage point of a great LACK of credibility because you only want to believe what you have found on professional anti-mormon websites and in books as fits with what you want the Mormons to believe.

    “The Doctrine was “revealed” to Joseph Smith (on priesthood) to ease potential friction between the “Saints” and their neighbors” which I pointed out to be objectively false you never backpedaled on. That alone speaks volumes.

    It’s easy misrepresent the beliefs of others.

    I’m done with you here as to this topic.

    1. Catcher

      @ 2;08; One would think if one has such a strong “opinion”, one would provide book, chapter, and verse as the source, both before, and after with the resulting abrogation.
      “I testify” (a common term in the LDS) means nothing more than an opinion.

    2. Juan Ruiz

      Well Mr. Leeser, believe what you like. You have never attempted to refure anything I have said, just avoided it. Fact is, by 1843, Jpseph Smith had already married several women: the Patrtridge sisters, Sarah Whitney, helen Kimball, et al. That you curch wisheds to ignore that is fine.

      Fact is, churches create their own history. Eusebius did it for the RCC. The LDS refused to acknowledge the Mountain Meadow Massacre for 150 years. Doesn’t matter to me. It has no affect. Wear the underwear you want, engage in your Temple rites, and baptize the dead. But don’t ever believe you know more about religion than I do.

  9. Brad Leeser

    What do you want the “Book, chapter, and verse” of? It was Juan who made the allegations without references and me who have his reference to the issue of the Joseph Smith not being the originator of the ban in order to avert problems in Missouri. What else do you want? I made my position, he just “testified” without basis, not be. What do you want as far as plural marriage. I mentioned Scriptures, section 132 off the Doctrine and Covenants has reference to that as well as elsewhere.

    As to what is doctrine, I refer you to a reprint of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, printed some years ago by McMillan and Company…not a Church publication, although the Church did cooperate. This outlines the LDS position on doctrine.

    Enjoy the read. But really, I’m not going to take on anti-mormon nonsense any more here. But, as I said, if there is something specific you want an exact reference on that’s I’ve discussed
    , I’ll be happy to provide it.

    http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

    1. Juan Ruiz

      When have I said anything anti-Mormon? Quite the contrary, I have only stated history. Your beliefs affect me in no way. Be it, post-mortem baptism, sealing for time and eternity, or polygamy.

      I simply posted what your church doesn’t publicize. it took them 150 years to admit to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. That you don’t want to say that there are polygamous enclaves isn’t my problem.

      I’d be happy to discuss the Word of Wisdom with you, which began as a suggestion and became a law, and includes red meat, along with tobacco, coffee,and liquor. Or your renewed relationship with the Reformed group in Missouri.

  10. Jinx II

    My husbands extended family (mothers side) are Mormon, Juan’s posts support what they live by. Anything in there doctrine can change if “the prophet” says god told him to do it, citing a vision. The Prophet is also known as their President and the last one died recently. His family has both FLDS (polygamists) and LDS members. Pretty weird stuff comes from both types. Their control over women and girls is despicable.

  11. Brad Leeser

    Jinx…there has been no change in doctrine in the LDS Church. There has been changes in practice. And there will be in the future.
    If a member of the LDS Church thinks there has been or if they abuse some, they are not in good standing. I’ll bet you have a great backstory in your family if they are really of that mindset.

    1. Jinx II

      My husbands Grandparents would talk about their alien abductions through the years…..it was the beings from their planet who would take them up in their space ships and run tests on them to make sure they didn’t consume such products as coffee, alcohol, tobacco and who knows what else. Here was this American Gothic appearing couple seriously discussing their numerous alien abductions while wearing their mormon underwear…….that is weird enough for a skeptic like me.

      1. Jinx II 12:14 Milking the idea of life after death is the most sinister of all religious concepts, in my opinion. We all know it is a fundamental tenet of mainline Christianity but is perhaps milked even more deceptively by Mormons. This whole thing about which wife gets to spend eternity with a man is more than cruel.

        Do you remember the time of Haley’s Comet? Recall there was a mass suicide of young men who were persuaded they would follow the comet after death. I remember a chilling moment after they all died watching a former member of the cult. During an interview, he lamented that he had not been present for the suicide event and had missed the comet experience. While watching I realized he really believed his colleagues in the cult were enjoying their space ride. Sure enough, a few days later I read he had killed himself to join in the fun.

        That Mormons, traditional Christians or Haley’s cult members believe they can live on after death reflects the sad state of humans’ ability to think rationally.

  12. Brad Leeser

    Catcher….please don’t confuse matters of faith and matters of fact. The Gold Plates, while there is evidence that they existed, there is no proof. It is taken on faith, after all, we are a church. But that said, there were 12 men who testified they saw the gold plates. That is more firsthand evidence than the stone tablets of Moses or even of Jesus’ resurrection.

    I am a historian, not an Egyptologist. Certainly, the Book of Abraham is very curious. That said, there are LDS Egyptologists and some are quite well respected.

    Here is an article on the present view of the Book of Abraham. For those who can’t figure it out, this is not doctrine, but an explanation:

    https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

    And here is a PhD in Egyptology, who got his degree from UCLA giving his opinion in the matter:

    https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/egyptian-papyri-and-book-abraham-faithful-egyptological-point-view

    There are other interesting links on some of these sites and I am pleased to be able to share them and hope anyone still reading at this point will take advantage of it. But if this discussion has disintegrated and while I’m happy to give a historical reference.

    Otherwise, I again invite those truly interested to talk to a knowledgable Latter-day Saint, someone who knows doctrine, or go to such sites as LDS.org, Mormon.org, FairMormon.org. The first two affirmatively set forth the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ. The latter one addresses criticisms that are thrown agains the Church.

    I invite anyone, who is truly interested, to spend some time poking around in all three sites.

    1. Catcher

      @ 5;47; Naw. After the golden plate saga, nothing, and I mean nothing rings true. Spin, which cannot be “respected.”
      Again, up pops the “testify”.
      A far cry from legitimate restorationism, and repristination.

    2. Catcher

      @;5;47; re. first hand evidence of the resurrection?, First toMary, then the twelve See1 Cor. 5 through 7. Peter, 500v6, James,v 7.
      re. the stone tablets See Exodus 35;29; Moses was coming down from Mt. Sinai (and the two tablets of testimony were In his hand V 31; Then Moses called to them and Aaron and all the rulers in the congregation returned to him.

      You were not there to deny the larger number above just “twelve”

      You may know book of Mormon, but you are very weak in the Bible. Strange. You have your own variation of the KJV

      Interesting the Book of Mormon is written in Shakespearian English. I suspect to mimic the KVV to give it an air of being authentic, and athorative.

      1. Brad Leeser

        I hate to respond you based on your previous posts. But I say this again so you don’t misunderstand. There is no first hand evidence of Moses or Jesus. There is no record in the first person. There is nothing written by anyone who even saw them. Do you understand what a “first hand account” is? A first hand account is when a total of twelve people saw the gold plates of the Book of Mormon and signed a statement to that effect. A first hand statement is when witnesses testified of the torture of Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. A first hand account is when Neil Armstrong talked about walking on the moon. There is NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA first hand account of Jesus. That is a fact, not my opinion, but a FACT. That does not negate my belief, but it is belief based on evidence and testimony. Just like you may claim to believe, all you can to is to testify of your belief since there is no first hand account.

        1. Catcher

          @ 1;17; Since you refuse to provide time stamp as to whom you are referring to, I must assume. In the future, I won’t accept anything from you not time stamped.

          So “first hand account” is provided by your own material. Suspect at best. A fact.
          You trust that more than the Bible. How much do you trust the book of Mormon? Are there signed documents in the recording of the people landing in America, and all the wars? Anyone see, and sign documents at the event of smith acquiring the gold plates? Documentations of the former husbands of wives of smith and their joy of their freedom?

  13. Brad Leeser

    Catcher…I don’t take your comment at all seriously until you stop spinning the resurrection of Jesus. No proof there. Now, I believe it in because I have faith and can testify that he did rise for the dead. But if you don’t believe in testimony, which I haven’t brought up here before, you have, then you must not believe in any Biblical miracles. There is no proof of any of them. So, if I were a smaller man, I would say that you’re beliefs are just “Spin” and can’t be “respected”.

    I’m done here with this thread as well. The most respectful person here of one’s beliefs, ironically, is Jon.

    1. Catcher

      @ 6;34; re. “testify”. Actually you first presented it in your 8;28. I’ve had your boys at my door, and about they could say is; “testify”.

      Since your latter day prophets have proven to be false, I would say they can’t be “respected.”
      If you were a larger man, you would admit it.

      Jon doesn’t believe nothing, and you have nothing that can be believed.

  14. Brad Leeser

    Just to clarify your last post, every prophesy that Joseph Smith made either has come to pass or it will. He was a prophet of God just as was Isaiah. Every prophecy of his has come to pass or it will. Even the prophecies of Jesus have come to pass or they will. See a pattern here???

    1. Catcher

      @6;58; About the gold plates ? Mummy remnants? Used to be wives? Fake Indians in the mountain prairie? A last minute prophesy for statehood? It just doesn’t quit.
      Yes, lets.

    2. Catcher

      @ 6;58; “I’m done with you. I want intelligent conversation”.
      “Intelligent conversation” means agreement with Mormon beliefs.
      Even Mormon posters don’t agree on everything. See planets / solar systems.

      “high power?” no. weak. Remember the number of people who saw Jesus after the resurrection (over 512) not just twelve who saw the gold plates. A fact you fail to admit.

      All the sources you present are in house spin.

      1. Catcher

        Ps. Along with Mary and the twelve, the 500 who saw him after the resurrection is in your own corrected KJV. 1Cor; 15-6. OOPS? But this is not an intelligent conversation I guess.

          1. Catcher

            @ 4;24 Jon; I anticipated that. However, If our resident LDS apologist uses the Bible for a few that saw him without written and signed affidavits, so can I.

          2. Catcher

            @ 5;53; In fact, I have on my desk as I speak the KJV paperback provided by the LDS, which contains the 500 others beside Mary and the twelve. that saw Jesus after the resurrection. He should not complain.

      2. Henry

        “High power” is a reference to the G. Gordon Liddy days when they put the “HP” initials on the orange jumpsuits of the troublemakers. Ref. “Will”. Hence the quotes.

  15. Catcher

    Sooo, If a Mormon (LDS) dies in good standing, he gets to become a god. (is that a big G or little G , Not sure), Upon arrival at his planet, or speculated his own solar system, would he plant an apple or some other fruit tree in the center of his garden to test his spiritual children.as has been done in the past. Would they bring seed along to start.
    If an LDS, would he bring along his only wife, or in the case of the FLDS, all his wives, including his spiritual wives. Would he place them in trailer houses like he did on his old planet, and put them on welfare. Who would pay the welfare. Seems as though the FLDS would have a jump start to populate the new digs.
    Would they start out as stone age people without the benefits of iron tools, as Adam and Eve did.
    So many things to ponder.
    “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become ” .Prophet Lorenzo Snow Gospel through the Ages pp105-106.

    1. Henry

      10:18 “If an LDS, would he bring along his only wife, or in the case of the FLDS, all his wives, including his spiritual wives. Would he place them in trailer houses like he did on his old planet, and put them on welfare.”
      Does that mean he would have to have trailer houses for his wives other husbands as well? And would they be his spiritual husbands? This doesn’t make much sense. It is a mess, and in opposition to Matthew 22

    2. Henry

      10:18″Sooo, If a Mormon (LDS) dies in good standing, he gets to become a god.” That is really weird. That is actually the promise of Satan (“you will be like God”) straight out of Genesis. This is very serious error.

      1. Bradley K. Leeser

        Sooo…let’s see what the Bible really says. And keep in mind that Satan has many tricks, including mixing truth and lies to lead people astray.

        We find God’s command about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 2:

        16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
        17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

        When the Serpent comes he tells Eve in Chapter 3:

        4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
        5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

        Did you get that? Yes, Satan told a lie, “thou shalt now surely die”, and he mixed in a truth, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”.

        How do I know the last statement is a truth? By reading later in the same chapter where God says:

        22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

        God affirmed that in that statement that Satan did not lie on that point. Sooo…are you saying that God is in “very serious error”? God forbid.

        1. Henry

          BL”God affirmed that in that statement that Satan did not lie on that point. Sooo…are you saying that God is in “very serious error”? God forbid.” You are a tricky one. That God acknowledged they had become like gods does not mean God said that it was good. The context that a child could clearly read and understand would indicate that it was not good. Even today, we can see many gods (humans) running to and fro. I would not characterize it as good nor something to strive for, and it is very serious error, greatly working against many passages of scripture.
          You are the first “higher power” Mormon I have encountered. Usually,we get the cute Mormon door knockers on mission from Utah accompanied by an elderly female that really do not know much. You have revealed much to me.

          1. Catcher

            @ 10.52. “like”. “He flies like a bird” does not mean he’s a bird. “Like us, as us” does not mean Us. And then there’s the Tree of Life. which they didn’t get to. And then, there’s physical death and spiritual death, AKA the second death. Lots of metaphor here to spin around when flying “like/ as” a bird.

          2. Henry

            Very sneaky Mormon doctrine. Doesn’t have a good feel to it. The door knockers do not usually possess all this information.

  16. Brad Leeser

    Well, I don’t know about the so called FLDS, but the LDS as a group don’t usually hole up in trailer courts and collect welfare, but I guess there are exceptions.

    But since it was brought up, let’s look at that passage in Matt 22 and you will be surprised to find out we use that very passage to support the concept of the ideal of eternal marriage. Meaning that a righteous husband/wife relationship can continue beyond the grave:

    23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

    24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

    25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

    26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

    27 And last of all the woman died also.

    28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

    29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

    30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

    32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

    33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

    Keep in mind that the topic here is not really marriage, but it is the reality of the resurrection. But in a foiled attempt to trap Jesus is his own teachings, the Sadducees posed this interesting question on marriage.

    So, you may say, verse 30 proves the marriage relationship does not exist in heaven. But if you read carefully, what is it that DOESN’T happen “in the resurrection”? It is “marrying or giving in marriage”.

    Any student of both English understands the difference between a verb and a noun. It doesn’t say the institution of marriage doesn’t exist in the eternities. Rather, it says that there will be no marriages taking place in heaven. That is LDS doctrine.

    1. Henry

      So I will have to get some trailer houses set up for my wive’s husbands? (My first wife is deceased). That is really weird, and this corruption is not what I read in Matthew 22. Even if we were to sanitize it a little and provide them mansions, this makes no sense. You are reading into it what is not there and neither supported elsewhere. I really do not think you have a grasp on what the kingdom of God is.

  17. Bradley K. Leeser

    You don’t address the basic issue is this very passage. I quoted the entire passage. And I clearly and correctly pointed out that this passage refers to the act of being married. It says little about the institution of marriage (noun), other than implying the idea that the Sadducees assumed that Jesus believed that marriage could last beyond the grave. And the best you can do is label my plain reading of the passage a “corruption”? I might say, much like Jesus did, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

    And by the way, “In My Father’s House Are Many Mansions”

    1. Henry

      I recently travelled through Utah. Saw the north rim, Bryce Canyon, natural arches. (Skipped Zion, next time.) Also saw many mansions with removed wheels complete with the stereotypical vehicle up on blocks every so often. The area had this distinct oppressive feel to it. Not sure why. When it comes to the kingdom of God, the Sadducees were stuck in focusing on earthly things. So are you. Myself, I am not really content in bringing with the earthly corruptions. I travelled through Idaho several years ago as well. They had some cool geology-Crater of the Moons and mysterious cool military sites, but their civilization had this same oppressive feel and look. Not sure why.

  18. Henry

    Where’s Brad’s answers to all the questions? We got teams of people waiting to see what the trailer situation is in heaven and whose husband is whose. We got these gold plates that need a little more explanation. We got the Mormons dressing up as Indians and killing the settlers. More info on that please. We got the Mormons prophetically seceding from the union. What about that? We have his use of hyperliteralism in passages that are obviously metaphor. More explanation on that, please? We have him reading information in Matthew 22 that isn’t there. More, please! All this “high power” and we are starving.

    1. Brad Leeser

      Brad’s answer is that I’m not going to waste time on people who lie and belittle others. You can have your fun about trailer courts (which I really don’t get), lies about what I said about Matthew (I simply quoted the passage), and something about “seceding” from some union (the USA?….if so that never happened).

      Pardon for me for asking this, but are you and your fellow travelers just mean, vindictive, or just plain ignorant?

      I would love to have a dialogue, but not what is going on here. I have much better things to do.

      1. Henry

        No meanness. Let’s start with the first item. I just want to find out about these gold plates. The mission folk that come around never have a good explanation of what that is all about.

      2. Brad, the charge of posters here being mean to others is often made. I’m afraid it’s the nature of exchanging ideas in this context where posts need to brief and posters often remain anonymous. I wonder if I’m mean when I blog that events in the Bible are fiction or others are mean to me when they say I am going to hell for saying this.

        1. Today I woke up on Amtrak and am looking at the poverty of Appalachia. I wonder if people in the junk filled front yards are this country’s believers or if they are part of poor white America that is giving organized religion the bird.

          1. Catcher– In our youth we probably would have met some people while driving. Seems like we don’t anymore. Card at the gas pump, in and out of identical motels. Wife doesn’t fly anymore so bus/train is our option. Mostly it’s ok. Smart phone helps.
            We’re headed to Providence RI, the most secular city in the US. It barely notices Easter, an atheists Mecca. 🙂

          2. Catcher

            @ 7;11; Jon; I have one branch of the family in Missouri that live like that. I can assure you they don’t have any thoughts, pro or con about religion, organized or not, as you presume. Fact;; there are yards in every state that resemble those you see in Appalachia. Probably not as many, or so concentrated, but there. From your “ivory tower”, you may not see them. Some of them may think to themselves; “Boy, they sure don’t know how to decorate their lawn.” Some of those items are available for sale or trade. For others, it is a way of life.and not a priority to have a beautiful lawn. I know one who is clinically depressed, yet he does not blame anyone for bad decisions he made in the past. Others are just as happy and contented and not envious of an Iowa farmer or professor. Drugs and alcohol can be another factor.
            I’m detecting a whif of pietism here.

          3. Catcher 12:52 I’m detecing a whif of pietism here

            Could be. I looking at homes in an area where I know poor white people are the majority. And, I really should not make too many judgments. My offices have usually looked like their front porches.

Comments are closed.