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: 10:28:14 03/12/11 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: Already determined the outcome?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Already determined the outcome?" on 00:24:01 03/12/11 Sat

Lois, along these same lines, I offer the following quote:

What about McBride's argument that the church has no right to "dictate" its beliefs to the government? That argument denies the church its rightful role as a contributor to and shaper of culture and as a moral compass to society. The church has every right to inform and influence laws and governmental policies -- as do business, education, media, and various other bodies that seek a place in the public square.

Also, we must ask: "Who is dictating what to whom?" The homosexual movement, with its stringent insistence that all opposition be silenced, has been "imposing" its agenda on society with a vengeance.

The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage\
Six Things You Need to Know About What's Really at Stake
Erwin W. Lutzer, Moody Publishers, Chicago, 2004
ISBN 0-8024-9176-6
p.80

All this rigamarole about giving due and considered thought to what the members of the church feel is right to do for homosexuals is merely window dressing.

It was in 1992 that the First Presidency authorized all priests in the church (with "administrative approval") to perform same sex shacking up ceremonies for same-sex couples, opposite sex couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason, and for opposite sex couples who are already married -- but to someone else! No resolution was presented to the World Conference. No announcement was made. Nothing about it was printed in the Herald. The leadership of the church just up and did it. They did care what the membership of the church would say. And they already knew what it was. That's why they didn't tell them.

Although the Standing High Council as early as 1982 recommended (and this was a public, not a closeted act) stated that practicing homosexuals would not be ordained to the priesthood (nor permitted to remain in it any more than adulerers would,) the First Presidency decided during the administration of W. Grant McMurray that homosexuals whose ministry the First Presidency appreciated would be allowed to be ordained, (assuming of course that the local branch pastor "called" them.) There was no resolution presented to the World Conference. The First Presidency simply said, "Go ahead."

So the CofC has been steeped in the ecclesiastical approval of same-sex relationships and avowed homosexual priesthood for twenty years now. Yet the public statements being made insinuate that the impression that the leadership is only now tiptoeing into dangerous hypersexual territory at the call of the Holy Spirit.

The reason for this is obvious. The secret concessions made to homosexuals over the last twenty years have been to facilitate the introduction of homosexuals into the leadership. After all, have you ever heard of anyone who has never been in the priesthood being appointed to the First Presidency? The church has already conducted a de facto legitimatization of homosexual practices. Now that the hierarchy and the priesthood are full of homosexuals, suddenly the "Holy Spirit" is calling the priesthood to urge the membership to recognize homosexuality as Godly.

I cannot imagine a more disgusting and sickening example of subversion. Is a person qualified to be in the ministry if he uses that ministry primarily as a means to further his own personal agenda to the harm of the body of the church?

That's the reason that the CofC HDQ never publishes up to date membership figures. They continue to assert that they have 250,000 members on the rolls, because they do not want to admit that the 136,000 of that former 250,000 who weren't fools left the church and had their names taken off the rolls. That's right. In the last 20 years, the CofC leadership, with its secret activities that only occasionally leaked into the open, managed to drive off more than one half the church with those activities. What is going to happen when they come out into the open with them? How many of the 114,000 are going to stay when they have a hot cup of deviance served to them on Sunday from the pulpit?

Of the 114,000 current members on the rolls, less than 40,000 are actually active. The leadership defines "active" as a member who has actually attended church services in the last 12 months, or who has made a financial contributiion to the church in the last 12 months.

So, of the 114,000 members still in the CofC, about 74,000 haven't darkened the door of any CofC building in over a year, and havent contributed a dime in over a year. That represents over 60% of members on the rolls. So, if the leaedership manages to drive away another 50,000 enrolled members, there may very well be only about 18 - 20,000 active members left in the entire church.

That will make the church much easier to control. Discounting the ones among the 20,000 who are children, senile, or (like John and Wally) experiencing reality disconnect, there will be a lot fewer angry letter writers for the church secretary to deal with. That will make eliminating the position more practical.

If the hierarchy keeps selling off real estate and other investments to maintain its cash flow, and doesn't mind losing members, it may have no problems for the next decade. After that, it may have no particular plans to continue the church, since it is quite obvious that current plans for growth are deliberately designed to creative massive negative growth.

And when converts in third world countries eventually wake up to the fact that the church they just joined has been a "Gay Church" for the last twenty years, I can't fathom what will happen to the membership rolls after that point.

sR154|p5| The Presiding Bishop and his counselors are
encouraged to continue to seek ways of effecting a greater
understanding of the meaning of the stewardship of
temporalities as a reponse to my grace and love so that the
understanding of the principle may stir the hearts of the
people as never before. (b) Redefinition of terms within the
basic law of temporalities, for clarification and to meet
the aneeds of a growing church, is in harmony with my will.
However, let this be done with due deliberation and with
full consent of the body after sufficient study and
discussion, all to the end that bthe people may come to
provide more fully and joyfully for the great work to which
all are called.

Apparently the god who gave this revelation to Wallace B. Smith had absolutely no idea what was going to happen to his church in four years. Otherwise that god would not have been giving advice on how to tend a "growing" church. And since what happened later was a direct result of the actions being taken by leadership at the very moment Section 154 was received, it appears that the god didn't even have any idea what was going on at that very moment.

The only thing growing in the CofC right now may be tumescence. Only the Creator knows what part of the anatomy that tumescence is in. Perhaps it is in the brain. Wherever it may be, something is way past being "wrong."

George

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

Replies:

Re: Already determined the outcome? -- Lois, 11:10:37 03/12/11 Sat
- Re: Already determined the outcome? -- George, 13:29:48 03/12/11 Sat