Re: Already determined the outcome? -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:53:53 03/08/11 Tue
Author: George
Subject: Re: Already determined the outcome?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Already determined the outcome?" on 10:08:42 03/08/11 Tue

>>George wrote:
>>Lois, you see, the rules are written to suppress
>>dissent. That's why 140,000 members left the CofC. If
>>they remained as members, they wouldn't be allowed to
>>talk to anybody in the church about all this horrible
>>stuff. The legitimatization of sodomy is the program
>>emphasis being presented to the church, and woe to
>>anyone with his name on the rolls who dares question
>>it in any way, or refuse to support it financially.
>>
>>How long will it be before the CofC surpasses
>>Scientology as an oppressive cult?
>>
>George,
>
>The servants and followers and those who love Jesus
>Christ, they must be all of those things, have the
>freedom and responsibility to stand up and proclaim
>what is right, and proclaim that they see that
>something is wrong.
>
>I do not believe however, that members of the
>c-not-of-c, especially card carrying members of their
>priestcraft, have that right. I believe that when
>backed into a corner they will reveal themselves to be
>servants of the first presidency of the c-not-of-c,
>not servants of Jesus Christ. All the loud
>proclamations of a passion for Jesus Christ is just
>noise.
>
>I believe that the issue of whether to ordain and
>marry homosexuals into the life of the c-not-of-c has
>definately been decided and that they are simply doing
>their acrobatic act to try to make it look legitimate.
>
>Lois
>
> >href="http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2010/june/IntoTheFu
>ture-Veazey.pdf">http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2010/jun
>e/IntoTheFuture-Veazey.pdf
>
>Steve Veazey says it again, "Another nonnegotiable for
>me is priesthood support of World Ministries Mission
>Tithes.
>Soon, we will put in place an administrative policy
>that will state clearly that we will not approve
>the ordinations of people whose understanding of the
>gospel and ordained ministry does not
>include awareness and support of the worldwide
>ministries of the church through tithing. We�ve
>had way too much drift in local congregations and
>mission centers on this matter."
> >href="http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2010/june/IntoTheFu
>ture-Veazey.pdf">http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2010/jun
>e/IntoTheFuture-Veazey.pdf
>Steve Veazey of the Community of Christ
>
>�I am receiving some correspondence and messages that
>state the recent action of the World
>Conference�..
>
>[Section 164 6b. I f the church more fully will
>understand and consistently apply these principles,
>questions arising about responsible human sexuality;
>gender identities, roles, and relationships; marriage;
>and other issues may be resolved according to God�s
>divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these
>principles condones selfish, irresponsible,
>promiscuous,
>degrading, or abusive relationships]
>
> �..to approve the counsel I brought to the church is
>mainly what is depressing tithing. That may be so.
>However, I want to be clear that as long as I am in
>the role, I will bring to the church my clearest
>perceptions of the mind and will of God.
>A nonnegotiable for me is that I will not compromise
>vision, message, and the Spirit�s clear guidance in
>the face of threats from individuals that they will
>withdraw their financial support if they do not agree
>with church direction or certain decisions.�

Lois, the CofC is pretty much over with as a Christian denomination. The authoritarian nature of the hierarchy made it possible for homophiliacs to become ordained, work their way up into positions to appoint others like themselves, and begin to twist the operation of the church to their agenda, rather than Christ's.

The reason you and I are not welcome in the CofC, Lois, is that the only sin that the CofC now recognizes (that is not already prohibited by secular law, anyway,) is political incorrectness. That's why an ordained CofC priest has come to the forum and asked us to repent, rather than go to a GALA meeting where the First Presidency is in attendance, and call on them to repent. Whose sin is causing the most damage? I agree that all should repent of any of their sins, but I would think that it would be more pressing for a modern Jeremiah to call upon a wicked and tyrannical hierophant to repent, rather than deliver the message to some hewer of wood and carrier of water. The calls to repentence I've seen hear are like the nuclear antiproliferation council ignoring Iran and going to Des Moines on "firecracker patrol" -- in August.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]