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: 21:05:15 03/09/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: Already determined the outcome?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Already determined the outcome?" on 12:52:54 03/09/11 Wed

>> >>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/usaconf/journey.asp">ht
>t
>>p://www.cofchrist.org/usaconf/journey.asp
>>Journeying Toward a USA National Conference
>>BY THE USA APOSTOLIC TEAM
>>
>>Q: Has church leadership already determined the
>>outcome on issues of same-gender marriage and
>>ordaining people in same-gender relationships?
>>
>>A: No, church leadership is committed to discernment
>>leading to the USA National Conference. This process
>>will include spiritual practices, dialogue, scripture
>>reflection, and study of credible resources that
>>provide multiple perspectives on human sexuality and
>>healthy, faithful, and committed relationships.
>>--------
>>
>>I don't believe that. Does anybody reading this
>>believe that?
>>
>>Lois
>>
>David Schaal is a member of the First Presidency. He
>seems to be pretty careful about what he says
>concerning the homosexual agenda. However, I think we
>can assume that since he is in the First Presidency he
>will definitely not speak against it.
>------
>
>Report from Fran Manning, Independence:
>World Conference � Day 4 April 13, 2010
>
>�A question was asked of the chair�Can division or
>harm come to the church should we approve of
>homosexuality in the USA. President David
>Schaal answered, �Yes, that is possible, that�s
>why the �Words of Counsel� says it is not proper to
>make this okay world wide, it will just be acceptable
>in countries where homosexuality is approved of as
>acceptable moral behavior.
>
>He did go on to say that if you are a homosexual
>who is ordained here in the USA your ordination would
>be approved of the church wherever you served.�
>-------
>
>We all know how that works. We saw the same thing
>with women in the priesthood. They figure out a way
>to shove it down the throats of the congregations.
>
>He was also present at the meeting of the Expanded
>World Church Leadership Council, which we have already
>learned had at least two GLBT (gay, lesbian,
>bi-sexual, transgendered) members invited by
>the First Presidency to be on the council.
>-------
>
> >href="http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2009/june/council.a
>sp">http://www.cofchrist.org/news/2009/june/council.asp
>
>Council Examines Standards of Conduct
>
>The builders, the Expanded World Church Leadership
>Council, sought to lay the foundations for bridges to
>span cultural chasms while building community through
>service to Jesus Christ. Their task was daunting: Move
>the church forward in discussions on appropriate
>standards of conduct.
>
>�We�re looking at a two-part experience,� President
>Dave Schaal said. �On this part we wanted to start
>the conversation and learn how this question of
>standards of conduct is understood around the world.
>When we come back together in September, we�ll be
>Building consensus with those many voices and
>perspectives is hard. But President Schaal,
>while acknowledging a �healthy tension,� emphasized
>the work�s importance by speaking of an increasingly
>mobile world.
>
>�On one hand we honor the uniqueness of cultures in
>church. On the other hand, just because something is
>acceptable in culture doesn�t make it good or right
>when pressed against the gospel of Jesus Christ.
>That�s what makes this so challenging.� [David Schaal]
>
>Submitted by Lois
>
>PAPER #5,The First Presidency (of
>Community of Christ), January 9, 1979, 4:15 p.m.
>
>COPING WITH CONFLICTING MESSAGES
>It seems that it is difficult for persons who feel
>compelled to express their divergent views to
>discriminate between the lawful powers given to the
>First Presidency for the sake of the church and
>the privilege they have as individual members of the
>church to express their point of view. There certainly
>must be opportunity to express dissent and
>dissatisfaction and this should be done directly with
>the officer or officers involved. The First Presidency
>are willing to give a hearing to responsible
>criticism. Members do not have a right, however to
>directly circularize the church with a point of view
>or style which conflicts with the program emphasis
>being presented to the church.

Lois, that's the way the homosexual agenda has been furthered -- by appealing to reasonableness.

What originally happened with same-sex marriage is that the homophiliacs insisted that an amendment to the US constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage was unnecessary -- the individual states could decide for themselves. The only problem with that is the US Constitution says that every state must give full faith and credit to all contracts made in other states, including marriage. So by appealing to "reasonableness" (that is, the idea that every state should decide for itself) action at the federal level was negated.

Then, when the State of California decided for itself that it did not want same-sex marriage, rather than accept it as a reasonable local state decision, the homophiliacs filed constitutional challenges to the law on the grounds that individual states couldn't decide for themselves.

It's the same old game -- "what I say is reasonable for you is not reasonable for me." That's the game.

Homosexual behavior is not acceptable in the U.S. That is why the homosexuals in the CofC have been crying and whining for 30 years that they are rejected. If it were acceptable behavior, it wouldn't be an issue.

First the leadership will say that homosexual free-for-alls will only be allowed in churches that are willing to accept them. Even after the Oregon same-sex-shacking-up-ceremony was forced on the Eugene congregation, which had a majority who were unwilling.

Converts in India, Africa, and MesoAmerica are going to get the same shock that English converts in the 1840's got when they arrived in Utah from England and found that the church practiced polygamy in territories where it was acceptable moral behavior -- that is, in territories where propolygamist minorities held political power over antipolygamist minorites, and could force their will on them. Whenever the revolution succeeds, the down and out rejects who have been pushed to the top set about to punish any decent person who dared to oppose them. And it will be the same in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as it was in Eugene.

That's why continuing to participate in the CofC is not possible for any Christian. Leave. And cut off their money.

George

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