VoyForums
[ 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: 13:16:45 08/27/11 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information" on 10:16:30 08/27/11 Sat

>>>>Lois wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip Windland's turgid rant against Christianity)
>>>>>
>>>>>HISTORY
>>>>>
>>>>>The church was legally organized on April 6, 1830,
>>in
>>>>>Fayette, New York. Following the assassination of
>>>>>founder Joseph Smith Jr. in 1844, the church split
>>>>>into multiple groups. Joseph Smith III succeeded
>his
>>>>>father and was ordained prophet-president of this
>>>>>denomination on April 6, 1860.
>>>>>
>>>>>And then this is what they turn around and say
>in
>>>>>order to gain admittance into the National Council
>>of
>>>>>Churches:
>>>>>
>>>>><>
>>>>>page 2
>>>>>
>>>>>The Membership and Ecclesial Relations Committee
>>>>>(MERC) of the General Assembly of the National
>>>Council
>>>>>of the Churches of Christ in the USA and Church
>>World
>>>>>Service recommends to the 2010 General Assembly
>that
>>>>>the membership application of the Community of
>>Christ
>>>>>(COC) be approved. This recommendation is based on
>a
>>>>>careful review of written materials provided by the
>>>>>COC,
>>>>>
>>>>>page 3
>>>>>
>>>>>It is always important at the onset of any
>>discussion
>>>>>of the spiritual roots of Community of Christ to
>>note
>>>>>that its founder is not [Joseph Smith] of the
>Church
>>>>>of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
>>>>>Saints (LDS), but his son, Joseph Smith III,
>>>>>---------------
>>>>>
>>>>>How can they have two distinctly different
>>histories?
>>>>>By their own logic Grant McMurray, who resigned
>>>>>suddenly as president, was the founder of the
>>>>>Community of Christ. That is when they changed
>their
>>>>>name from Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
>>>Latter
>>>>>Day Saints to Community of Christ. Maybe they
>should
>>>>>get their history straight for their website.
>>>>>
>>>>>Submitted by Lois
>>>>
>>>>I tend to agree, Lois.
>>>>
>>>>This is all about same-sex marriage. Section 111 of
>>>>the Doctrine and Covenants states that marriage is
>>>>between a man and a woman. Since past RLDS
>>conferences
>>>>have voted that this revelation is still binding on
>>>>the post 1860 church, the only way to get rid of it
>>is
>>>>to claim that the RLDS church never existed before
>>>>1860. That allows them to discard Joseph Smith,
>Jr.'s
>>>>doctrines and practices entirely, from rebaptism to
>>>>heterosexual marriage. That renders all revelations
>>>>from Joseph, Jr. as quaint and obsolete as Wycliff's
>>>>Bible translation.
>>>>
>>>>If the Communitarian church is a reality and not a
>>>>fiction, I would expect that its real inception
>>>>occurred during the administration of Mr. McMurray.
>>>>And, of course, if later the Communitarians want to
>>>>jettison something from Joseph Smith, III, they will
>>>>move the beginning of the church 140 years after
>>1860.
>>>>Just think. Someday they may find Dr. Smith's
>>>>revelations just aren't kinky enough and decide to
>>get
>>>>rid of them. After all, Dr. Smith is in lineal
>>>>descent from Joseph Smith, Jr. Getting rid of him
>>>>would completely get rid of the Smith family's
>>"taint"
>>>>(as the liberals see it.) But that will be past his
>>>>human lifespan, so he won't have to deal with such
>an
>>>>insult.
>>>>
>>>>What a bill of goods the leadership sold the NCC.
>>>>After all, the Unitarians and the Mormons couldn't
>>get
>>>>into the NCC. The LDS don't want to, but the
>>>>Unitarians get to participate as back-of-the-bus
>>>>passengers. So the Communitarians have pulled off a
>>>>great feat. Not wonderful, but great. Don't think
>>that
>>>>the exMormon forum participants haven't noticed this
>>>>sudden change, and haven't compared it to the kind
>of
>>>>mind control practiced by the LDS church and the
>>>>Communist Party.
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>>
>>>>Links removed because they drive the Voy computer
>>>>nuts.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are absolutely right, George. I hadn't realized
>>>that of course Section 111, having been adopted in
>>>1835 would somehow have to be repudiated.
>>>
>>>Doctrine and Covenants
>>>
>>>. . . at the general assembly of August 17, 1835.
>>>It was adopted unanimously by that assembly as part
>of
>>>the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.
>>>
>>>[Sec 111:2a] Marriage should be celebrated with
>prayer
>>>and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the
>>>persons to be married, standing together, the man
>>>on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be
>>>addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be
>>>directed by the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal
>>>objections, he shall say, calling each by their
>names:
>>>
>>>[Sec 111:2b] "You both mutually agree to be each
>>>other's companion, husband and wife, observing the
>>>legal rights belonging to this condition; that is,
>>>keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from
>>>all others, during your lives?"
>>>
>>>[Sec 111:4b] Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has
>>>been reproached with the crime of fornication, and
>>>polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man
>>>should have one wife; and one woman but one husband,
>>>except in case of death, when either is at liberty to
>>>marry again.
>>>-------
>>>
>>>Lois
>>
>>
>>Of course, Lois, there is an alternative. Since the
>>"man" stands on the right and the "woman" on the left,
>>the Communitarians might "reinterpret" this scripture
>>in "the light of changing circumstances," and define a
>>rightwinger as a "man" spiritually, and a leftwinger
>>as a "woman" spiritually, and then marry a male NRA
>>member to a male communist. That, of course, would be
>>unsatisfactory to them, since most rightwingers don't
>>want a same-sex marriage, (and nobody in the hierarchy
>>is anything but extreme leftwing) but don't think it
>>wasn't one of the many possibilities that the
>>leadership gave "prayerful consideration." When it
>>comes to angels dancing on the head of a pin, the
>>hierarchy is the one holding the pistol,
>>Saturday-afternoon-matinee-western style. "Daince,
>>y'all angels!"
>>
>>Remember, during the prodromal phase of the liberal
>>plague, there was a revelation received (from the
>>"One," presumably) stating that previously given
>>revelations were going to have to be interpreted.
>>
>>George
>
>Doctrine and Covenants
>
>This could be the c-not-of-c's version
>reinterpreted.
>
>Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and
>thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to
>be married, standing together, the mannish one
>on the right, and the effeminate one on the
>left, shall be addressed, by the ordained person who
>has paid his/her tithing, as he shall be directed by
>the "the one"; and if there be no objections, he
>shall say, calling each by their names:
>
>[Sec 111:2b] "You both mutually agree to be each
>other's companion, mannish one and effeminate one,
>observing the legal rights belonging to this
>condition; that is, benefiting from insurance plans
>and tax laws for married couples."
>
>Inasmuch as this Church has been reproached with the
>crime of fornication, and polygamy: we also freely
>declare that we believe that anyone or anything may
>marry, practicing monogamy for a few months or years,
>except of course in case of bi-sexuality,
>remain together until one of both adjust their sexual
>identity, when either is at liberty to marry again.
>-------
>
>Submitted by Lois


Sorry, Lois, but that wouldn't appease the man-hating lesbians in the Community of Christ. By feminist definition, any type of carnal relationship that a man desires with a woman is unwanted rape, whether the woman consents or not, and whether it is inside marriage or not. Thus, describing one partner as "mannish" would, to them, be like accusing them of being a rapist.

That is the problem with scripture interpretation the modern way. Everyone interprets it according to his own situation and world-view. Thus, when the feminist lesbian daughter of a theologian in the church reads the description of Christian marriage in Section 111, she reads "the rapist on the right, and the victim on the left." Why these folks people even want to pretend to be married is beyond me, unless it is chiefly for the purpose of destroying marriage.

Not all lesbians are man-hating feminists, but unfortunately, the only ones who ever speak up demanding change in the church are. The others don't say anything because they have such good self-images that the approval of the Christian church, whether genuine or mandated by force, is of no consequence to them.

John called me a malcontent. But what does he call a lesbian who whines and says she is not being treated right and that nobody will let her in the priesthood, and who states repeatedly and vociferously that 1500 years worth of Western Civilization needs to be overthrown to accomodate her? John, I think would call her a "victim."

But people who get thrown out of their buildings, disfellowshiped, and defrocked for holding Christian beliefs are not "victims" in John's eyes. He thinks that, by God, those people got just what they deserved.

That's what happens when people get into power who have declared that Good is Evil and Evil is Good.

George

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

Replies:

  • Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information -- George, 18:22:47 08/27/11 Sat
  • Correction: I miscounted -- George, 18:34:55 08/27/11 Sat
    Post a message:
    This forum requires an account to post.
    [ Create Account ]
    [ Login ]
    Forum timezone: GMT-5
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.