Re: Who was the First? -- 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: 21:29:51 10/14/11 Fri
Author: john
Subject: Re: Who was the First?
In reply to: George 's message, "Re: Who was the First?" on 16:32:06 10/14/11 Fri

i think you need to go back and read over the posts again george...

john

>>George...
>>
>>there is nothing in your post for me to respond to...
>>it is all either speculation, rumour or innudendo...
>>i don't see anything that i can place my finger on as
>>a "fact"...
>>
>>john
>>
>
>John, you are the one who connected your proposition
>that the church had unknowingly ordained homosexuals
>in the past with the supposed fact that more than a
>few church officials over the last 180 years had been
>"confirmed bachelors." If there is any insinuation or
>innuendo in this, it's yours. But, then again, you
>know it is, so should I have to tell you?
>
>This is the same kind of circus that Matt used to
>enjoy setting up.
>
>All this stuff about who may or may not have been a
>closet homosexual in 1875 or whatever is just a red
>herring to distract from the real issue. The CofC
>claims that it doesn't ordain homosexuals, and then
>does. Then it lies about it later to cover it up. And
>these are the leaders who are supposed to be in charge
>of identifying "God's will for the church." They are
>such liars, could they be trusted to deliver the
>message, even if God stooped low enough to tell them
>what it was?
>
>Trying to switch the issue to whether or not the
>leadership unknowingly ordained closet
>homosexuals in the past simply throws serious doubt on
>their status as "inspired" prophets of God. Annanias
>and Sapphira could run rings around these guys.
>
>Have fun denying the fact that the CofC leadership of
>the past twenty years had knowingly ordained avowed
>homosexuals in defiance of its own church laws, and in
>secret, so that the membership won't find out.
>
>A bit of advice, though -- since W. Grant McMurray
>took the podium ten years ago and announced publicly
>that he had personally been a part of the process of
>actively ordaining avowed homosexuals to the CofC
>priesthood, you can't call this "rumor" or "innuendo"
>without making Mr. McMurray look like an idiot, or
>worse.
>
>George

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

Replies:

Re: Who was the First? -- George, 22:01:46 10/14/11 Fri