Re: c-not-of-c version of "discernment" -- 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: 21:51:07 11/30/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: c-not-of-c version of "discernment"
In reply to: Lois 's message, "c-not-of-c version of "discernment"" on 19:30:06 11/30/11 Wed

> Interesting. The Community of Christ
>people have more than one Facebook account. I think
>that this one is their �official� one. Notice that it
>includes �RLDS�. In my opinion that is to fool people
>who don�t know what is going on.
>
>https://www.facebook.com/CommunityofChrist.RLDSChurch
>
>Another Facebook account is here. I think this one is
>a little more realistic of the Community of Christ.
>
> >href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/2205071906/">http:
>//www.facebook.com/groups/2205071906/
>
>Anyway, on the �official� account the information
>seems to all nicely cleaned up and controlled. Most
>posts are by the Community of Christ, and then people
>are allowed to gush about how much they liked the
>post. But there is a post that you don't get to see
>because they deleted or hid it. You are invited to
>"view all 5 comments". But there are only 4 comments.
>But the evidence is still there. Someone seems to have
>written something contrary to their beloved homosexual
>agenda. Then later you get to see the self-righteous
>posts of some who don�t believe the Bible and �feel
>sorry� for the person who does believe the Bible.
>----------
>
>https://www.facebook.com/CommunityofChrist.RLDSChurch
>
>https://www.facebook.com/CommunityofChri....19262958748
>4726
>
>November 10 at 10:20am
>
>Community of Christ
>MEADS (Ministerial Education and Discipleship Studies)
>classes coming up February 6-10, 2012:
>� Public Ministry � Robin Linkhart
>� Hebrew Scriptures � Wim van Klinken
>� Pursue Peace on Earth � Brad Martell
>MEADS is a concentrated study of foundational
>theology, church history, scripture, and practical
>ministry formation and is open to anyone interested in
>ministerial and discipleship development. Follow the
>link below to find out more and register for the
>February session.
>Community of Christ MEADS
>www.cofchrist.org
>
>comments
>
>�See if you can find a passage where he condemned or
>even spoke of homosexuality. I will close merely by
>saying that I feel sorry for you.�
>
>"I wish more would speak up like we have. It bothers
>me when people like *** speak out like he does (and
>insults a whole church because of his views).�
>--------
>
>Maybe john or someone in the c-not-of-c can tip off
>the people who set up this Facebook account and they
>can clean it up somehow to erase the evidence that
>there are those who do not believe that the homosexual
>agenda should be the main thrust of a Christian
>institution.
>
>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.

The CofC takes its cues from Mohammed, not Christ. If you tell uncomfortable things about the CofC, you are a hateful infidel, even if what you say is true. But the CofC can call you anything it likes. It's that paradigmatic double standard masquerading as "Christian discipleship."

Did you spot a post anywhere there from Joanne C. complaining about The CofC members who how hateful and bitter the CofC members are who react negatively to anyone believing in Biblical teachings? I guess you can commit a hate crime against Nero, but Nero, being emperor, can do no wrong, not even a hate crime.

George

P.S. I found another passage on repentance while typesetting, Lois:

Those in the CofC who denigrate the story of the woman taken in adultery, and claim that the "go and sin no more" clause is as bad a forgery as the president's birth certificate apparently are unaware that the Book of Mormon says exactly the same thing in the Book of Ether 1:41 (2:15 LDS).

"And it came to pass that the brother of Jared repented of the evil which he had done, and called upon the name of the Lord for his brethren, who were with him. And the Lord said unto him: "I will forgive you and your brethren of their sins; but you shall not sin any more, for you shall remember that my Spirit will not always strive with man; wherefore, if you will sin until you are fullly ripe you shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord."

Small wonder the Book of Mormon is inconvenient for the CofC theologians on so many levels.

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