Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No? -- 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: 20:12:24 10/23/11 Sun
Author: George
Subject: Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No?
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: Infant baptism? Yes? No?" on 14:49:59 10/23/11 Sun

>i don't call you a liar for making mistakes. i call
>you a liar when you tell lies.
>
>john
>

John, mistakes and lying go hand in hand, unfortunately, for those who refuse to admit that they have made mistakes.

The CofC hierarchy steadfastly refuses to admit any mistakes. Often it points the finger at other people to create enough confusion and uncertainty that might provide cover.

Lois supposedly mistakenly saying that a website was down when it is not (which is the only thing close to an untruth that I've spotted in her) just can't compare to Matt saying that nobody knows why Dr. Smith invited a known communist agitator and agent of a communist dictatorship with an FBI file to speak at the Kirtland Temple.

Or the whopper that the First Presidency had no intention of taking the church into the NCC. I guess they insist that changing the name makes it a different church, so that they don't consider themselves having lied when they said they didn't intend to take the RLDS Church into the NCC. That approach would work if they hadn't trademarked the RLDS name to keep anybody else from using it. There is, legally speaking, only one RLDS church, and it is the one that is in the NCC.

Your claims that Lois is a liar are like bin Laden trying to justify the WTC attacks by claiming that some Jew flew a model plane made of balsa wood into his camel barn. It's clever, but it really doesn't work.

John, las equivocaciones y yaciendo van mano en la mano, desafortunadamente, para esos quien rehusa admitir que ellos han hecho equivocaciones.

El CofC de jerarqu�a completamente rehusa admitir cualquier equivocaciones. Frecuentemente indica el dedo a otra gente para crear incertidumbre y turbaci�n suficiente que puede proveer distracci�n.

Lois supuestamente err�neamente diciendo que una website era abajo cuando no es (que es la cosa �nica cerca de una falsedad que Yo he identificado en ella) simplemente no puede comparar a Matt's porf�a que nadie sabe por qu� Dr. Smith invit� un perturbador comunista conocido por el FBI para ser un agente de una dictadura comunista como un visitador en la Kirtland Temple.

O la mentira gigantesca que la Presidencia Primera ning�n tuvo intenci�n de tomar la iglesia en el NCC. Yo supongo ellos piensan que cambiando el nombre hace lo una iglesia diferente; as� ellos no consideran s� mismos para ser mentirosos, aunque ellos dijeron que ellos no destinaron tomar el Iglesia RLDS en el NCC. Que el intento trabajar�a si ellos no hab�an tomado posesi�n legal privativa el RLDS de nombre para parar ninguno otro grupo desde usar lo. Desde un punto de vista legal, hay un �nico iglesia RLDS que es el uno en el NCC.

Sus reclamos ese Lois es un mentiroso mucho parece dicho Cargado de arca que el WTC de ataques se justificaron porque alg�n Jud�o vol� un avi�n de modelo hizo de madera en su h�rreo de camello. Es inteligente, pero lo realmente no trabaja.

George

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