Re: Question for you, Joanne C. -- 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: 20:39:33 08/10/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: Question for you, Joanne C.
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Question for you, Joanne C." on 10:08:12 08/10/11 Wed

>>It puzzles me, Joanne, that the First Presidency was
>>able by administrative approval to allow same-sex
>>covenant ceremonies to be held in the church without
>>discussing it in open conference, or even bothering to
>>tell the membership about it.
>>
>>This approval and instigation of same-sex covenant
>>ceremonies came in 1992. So under what rule or
>>resolution of the church did the First Presidency have
>>authority to do this?
>>
>>I'm trying to keep the questions from becoming
>>complex, even though the very nature of the subject
>>matter makes multiple questions emanate
>>instantaneously from any supposed single, simple
>>question.
>>
>>George
>
>George,
>
>I doubt that Joanne Chapman will even attempt to
>answer any questions. They are in the wrong and they
>know it. Or she will have to consult with one of the
>spin doctors.
>
>Lois

My personal opinion is that she came here to "correct" the very real impression (shared by the former Melkizedek priesthood holder who baptized me) that the RLDS church is, as he stated, "imploding."

There are so many things that I assert that the leadership would like everyone to believe is wrong that I am surprised that someone hasn't shown up to declare that "same-sex shacking up ceremonies never began, and, er...ah....wah, if they did, they didn't begin as early as 1992."

>
>P.S. George, may I have permission to begin using the
>following statement as one of my signatures?

Sure, Lois.
I won't sue you. And I won't insist that you bow the knee to me in submission to my leadership in order to obtain permission to do so.

>
>What this all means is that the church
>started in 1860 by Joseph Smith, III (As the
>Communitarian leadership now claims it began) no
>longer believes that a man can be born designated by
>God as a prophet, and has switched to believing that a
>man can be born designated by God to be a homosexual.
>(George)

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