Re: "Two Face" -- Batman villain, or clergyman? -- 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: 20:54:03 09/16/11 Fri
Author: George
Subject: Re: "Two Face" -- Batman villain, or clergyman?
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: "Two Face" -- Batman villain, or clergyman?" on 14:02:28 09/16/11 Fri

>>A nonnegotiable for me is that I will not compromise
>>>vision, message, and the Spirit�s clear guidance in
>>>the face of threats from individuals that they will
>>>withdraw their financial support if they do not
>>>agree with church direction or certain decisions.
>>>
>>>Steve Veazey says it again, "Another nonnegotiable
>for
>>>me is priesthood support of World Ministries Mission
>>>Tithes. Soon, we will put in place an administrative
>>>policy that will state clearly that we will not
>>>approve the ordinations of people whose understanding
>>>of the gospel and ordained ministry does not include
>>>awareness and support of the worldwide ministries of
>>>the church through tithing. We�ve had way too much
>>>drift in local congregations and mission centers on
>>>this matter."
>>(quote from Steve Veazey)
>>
>>Now, the Community of Christ claims it has no
>>catechism or system of beliefs, and that any and every
>>member is perfectly free to choose his own beliefs.
>>However, the above statement by Mr. Veazey gives the
>>lie to that claim. According to Mr. Veazey, anything
>>less than 100% all out financial support of the wayout
>>and wacky extreme leftwing postChristian political
>>platform of the church will meet with disapproval and
>>sanctions.
>>
>>Thomas Jefferson wrote: "To compel a man to furnish
>>contributions of money for the propagation of opinions
>>which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and
>>tyrannical." But the CofC claims that if a
>>person's own unique beliefs (and the beliefs that the
>>CofC finds objectionable are not by any stretch of the
>>imagination unique) that person must either grit his
>>teeth and funnel money into the CofC's abominable
>>programs, or get out. Does that sound like a tolerant
>>church that welcomes all beliefs systems from all over
>>the globe, and gives unconditional acceptance to those
>>holding those beliefs? The CofC is the most two-faced
>>organization that I have ever in my life had personal
>>experience and association with. It makes certain that
>>only those it chooses to persecute see its teeth and
>>claws. Figuratively speaking, though, the screams and
>>the blood are impossible to cover up.
>>
>>George
>
>Another example of being two-faced . . .
>
> >href="http://cofchristrm.org/FortCollins/2009FPltrOrigi
>nal.html">http://cofchristrm.org/FortCollins/2009FPltrO
>riginal.html
>
>The language of WCR 1182 does not provide
>authorization for ministers of the Community of Christ
>to perform marriages between two persons of the same
>sex, even in jurisdictions where such marriages are
>legally valid. The resolution does, however,
>provide for the recognition of legally valid
>marriages. Thus, a same-sex marriage may be entered
>into the church records as a legal fact, just as in
>other instances where the church recognizes legally
>valid marriages that it may not choose to
>solemnize.
>-------
>
>A person in the c-not-of-c can believe whatever they
>want? Priesthood members who believed and stood up for
>their principles were silenced. Yet homosexual
>marriages which are legal in certain secular
>jurisdictions can be entered into the church records.
>
>Wow, they should be silenced and excommunicated.
>
>I have seen some c-not-of-c members give the opinion
>that the women in the priesthood issue was not handled
>very well. Duh. Dictatorships can get around an issue
>when it is what they want.
>
>Submitted by Lois
>
>THE NEW CURRICULUM: PROJECTED
>PRECEDURES AND SCHEDULINGPrepared by the Church
>School Division,
>Department of Religious Education
>
>September, 1967, Pages 4-5
>
>As we involve ourselves in the task of working with
>our writers, the positions set forth in the papers
>will give needed guidance to them as they attempt to
>translate the intent of the curriculum into actual
>lesson materials. This does not mean, however, that
>the study papers themselves will be made available to
>the writers. Each writer, in his relationship to an
>editor and in the light of the nature of his special
>assignment, will constitute a particular situation,
>and how the intent of curriculum is interpreted to the
>writer will be determined in large measure by the
>particularity of that relationship. As a general
>rule, we state that basicly these study papers are not
>intended for general circulation.

Although John consistently denies it, serving in the CofC priesthood is very different from serving in the priesthood of the ancient Jewish religion, or of any Christian church, or even of any church in the book of Mormon.

Jewish and Christian priests get paid for priesting. Book of Mormon priests don't. CofC priests have to pay for the privilege of being priests. Just as Congress insists that the entire country buy health insurance and participate in social security, while exempting itself, those collecting the money in the CofC exempt themselves from the privilege of paying tithing, because the tithe money they pay comes directly from the church in the form of a salary. Imagine a kickback that is more than times the amount of the original pay-in! Sound like Congress, all right.

Making the peon priests tithe helps add to the private club atmosphere. Unlike the Mormon church, which holds members' dead relatives hostage in hell unless the member pays a 10% gross tithe to get into the Temple to do rites for the dead, the CofC can only stick it to the priesthood. To be eligible for the CofC priesthood, you have to pay money (but not to God, to Steve Veazey.) And you have to be liberal enough to accept homosexuality if you ever intend to open your mouth.

When Steve Veazey serves without pay, and tithes ten percent of his income from a real job, then there will be equality in the CofC priesthood. Until then, I will look at Steve Veazey the same way I do Anthony Weiner and Nancy Pelosi.

The issue of women in the priesthood is an example of why the CofC is not qualified to comment on nuclear weapons. When it imagines that it needs to go to war, it pulls out all the stops. If the CofC had nukes, and considered it necessary to use them to enforce Section 156, or enforce the church's trademarking of the Reorganization's name, it would have used nukes. That's why it thinks that such weapons are dangerous in the hands of others. It thinks that every other organization is as bullheaded and tyrannical as itself. And that's why politicians think guns are dangerous in the hands of citizens. Politicians think that everybody else behaves just as they do. And don't forget that the paid priesthood of any denomination, but especially the CofC, are ecclesiastical politicians.

George

A politician steals everything that isn't nailed down.
Then he introduces a "public safety bill" that bans nails.

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