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: 22:22:26 08/11/11 Thu
Author: George
Subject: Re: HOMEWORK FOR LEADERS -- Rationality and Integrity Test
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: HOMEWORK FOR LEADERS -- Rationality and Integrity Test" on 16:50:37 08/11/11 Thu

>ROFLOL!
>
>and you wonder why Wally B didn't answer? ROFLOL!!!
>
>i am certain, having read over your post, that it had
>nothing to do with whether or not you were
>contributing!
>
>ROFLOL!!!!!!!
>
>john
>
>
>
>>Here is a list of questions upon which the
>>Communitarians need to "set the record straight.
>>
>>One of them I directed to Dr. Wallace B. Smith, may
>>his name be praised! Dr. Smith checked my membership
>>records, discovered I didn't make a whole lot of
>>money, and consequently had not contributed much
>>before leaving, so he decided that he didn't want me
>>back in the church badly enough to want to discuss
>>anything with me.
>>
>>First series of questions:
>>
>>1. If homosexual is all holy and wonderful and all
>>the followers of the Divine Jesus would rush to
>>embrace it on His say so, why has there been no
>>revelation from Him saying so?
>>
>>2. Why did the First Presidency decide to start having
>>"same-sex shacking up ceremonies" without announcing
>>to the church it was doing this?
>>
>>3. By what right or authority did the First Presidency
>>order these ceremonies?
>>
>>4. What scripture does it use to justify them in the
>>face of all the scripture that condemns the practice
>>of homosexuality as sin in all circumstances under
>>which it is practiced?
>>
>>5. Why are none of these ceremonies ever mentioned in
>>the Herald? After nearly twenty years, you'd think at
>>least one might actually get some press time in the
>>church's own magazine.
>>
>>6. Why the intimidation used to force the congregation
>>in Eugene, Oregon to allow (or suffer) a same-sex
>>shacking up ceremony to be held there in May of 2003?
>>
>>7. By what right did the First Presidency authorize
>>the ordination of homosexuals?
>>
>>8. By what right did the First Presidency authorize
>>already-ordained homosexuals to keep their priesthood
>>cars after the FP acknowledged that the rules prohibit
>>ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood?
>>
>>9. Why, after the First Presidency has spent twenty
>>years secretly promoting homosexuality and
>>undercutting the governing process of the church to do
>>it, has it suddenly begun to act as if it needs
>>permission from the World Conference to do any of this
>>stuff? Isn't that just demanding a rubber stamp
>>approval of something that is already over with and
>>long-since done?
>>
>>10. What does the promotion of homosexuality in the
>>Communitarian Church have to do with the fact that
>>several high ranking members of the hierarchy have
>>complained that their homosexual offspring can't be
>>ordained into the priesthood?
>>
>>When the leading quorums of the church discuss
>>finances, they come up with hard and fast answers to
>>deal with pressing questions. With that in view, why
>>is the only response to questions about homosexuality
>>nothing more than "Jesus loves everybody, so it'll all
>>work out." If that approach were taken to questions
>>about finances, the church would be as financially
>>bankrupt as it is spiritually bankrupt.
>>
>>We're waiting for answers.
>>
>>But we aren't holding our breath.
>>
>>Since the First Presidency sneaked around doing all
>>this stuff behind everyone's back for years, I have
>>concluded that they either have no explanations, or
>>have a pathological aversion to giving them.
>>
>>I'll leave these up for a week. Then I'll post the
>>next batch of unanswered questions. Luther had
>>ninety-five thesis.
>>
>>I surely hope that the reluctance of the Communitarian
>>leadership to be open about anything, or actually give
>>a 12 years old and up explanation hasn't led to the
>>spontaneous eruption of that many unanswered
>>questions. And I hope that everyone realizes that,
>>since I'm not as smart as Martin Luther, the list of
>>unanswered questions regarding obvious malfeasance in
>>the so-called "Community of Christ" may be so great
>>that I can't even begin to conceive of them all. AFter
>>all, if things are being deliberately concealed and
>>lied about, it is difficult to question them, isn't
>it?
>>
>>George



Laugh all you want to John. You are the one who came back here after you said you were done here.

What is it that you find so fascinating?

But I didn't have to "wonder" why "Wally B." didn't answer. He wrote me back and told me that he had pulled my file, and that after checking it out, he didn't care to answer.

Once again, John, you assume too much. The only answer that I ever got about anything was from Matt who "guessed" that Dr. Smith invited a marxist oppressor to speak at Kirtland Temple because the good Dr. didn't know any better. And, of course, like your assumptions of what happened between me and Dr. Smith in communication, Matt's answer was merely a supposition.

Neither you nor your leaders have any answers for anything. After all, they are good, honest, decent men, and if they had an answer, they wouldn't withhold one on such weighty matters involving the very existence of the church. That would be dishonest. All you can do is snigger like grade-school children looking up dirty words in the dictionary.

George

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

Replies:

  • Re: HOMEWORK FOR LEADERS -- Rationality and Integrity Test -- George, 00:18:37 08/12/11 Fri
  • Re: HOMEWORK FOR LEADERS -- Rationality and Integrity Test -- john, 10:09:51 08/20/11 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.