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: 13:29:48 03/12/11 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: Already determined the outcome?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Already determined the outcome?" on 11:10:37 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
>
>George,
>
>The people who keep all these things secret and call
>their opponents liars and rumour-mongers are not poor
>deluded people. They are keeping it secret because
>they know that what they are doing is wrong.
>Now some of them may be atheists, who believe that
>nothing is wrong, but even they know that what they
>are doing would not have been approved by being public
>about it.
>
>Some times when someone puzzles of why, why, why are
>these people acting this way the solution is really
>simple. Follow the money. An infrastructure, land,
>church buildings, salaries, retirement plans all there
>and simply subverted. It could be as simple as that.
>
>It does seem that former church members have wasted
>their sacrifice. Not so. In Revelation it says that
>their works follow them. God knows what is in the
>hearts of individuals.
>
>Lois
>

Well, Lois, the sacrifice of RLDS members from 1852 to 1970, in accumulating vast property and funds to further the Lord's work have seen those temporal contributions wasted. Atheists and liberals produce nothing, so like the Lamanites, they want to manipulate themselves into a position to glut themselves on the labor of others.

I seriously doubt that the Metropolitan Community Church denomination has accumulated during its short lifetime anywhere near the wherewithal the RLDS church did during its early days. Perhaps that is why the liberals set out to take over an existing conservative denomination, rather than start a new liberal, prohomosexual denomination of their own. if you conduct a hostile takeover of an entity that already has property and money donated by the faithful, then one does not have to depend upon the contributions of one's slackard infidel followers.

I'm sure that members of the Communist Party worldwide are still laughing about faithful church members putting money in the plate that ends up in the hands of the World Council of Churches, whose goal is to completely erase any difference between Christianity and any other mystical philosophy -- including the mystical philosophy of atheism.

That's why I call the hierarchy "ecclesiastical pirates." They know what they are doing is not socially acceptable, and in many places blatantly illegal, but they are doing it anyway. I seriously doubt, though, that any 17th-18th century pirate was able to persuade the Ladies Overseas Aid Society for Widows and Orphans to outfit his ship for them. The CofC leadership has managed to pull that off. They have managed to do what even Satan hadn't been able to do for the first six millenia of human civilization.

George

"The Force can have a powerful influence over weak minds."
Obi-wan Kenobi

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