Re: Already determined the outcome? 2 -- 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: 23:01:09 04/04/11 Mon
Author: George
Subject: Re: Already determined the outcome? 2
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Already determined the outcome? 2" on 21:09:30 04/04/11 Mon

George wrote:

>>This is untrue, Lois. Commitment ceremonies are
>>official. After all, administrative approval must be
>>obtained from the higher ups to have such ceremonies.
>>
>>If a ceremony can't be held without permission from
>>the Stake President and the First Presidency, it is
>>more "offical" than it is "un."
>>
>>But note how the above portrays the homosexualization
>>of the church as some kind of out-of-control riot that
>>the FP is having to deal with that is barely within
>>their control. The First Presidency had no trouble
>>controlling the popular movement knows as the
>>Restoration Movement. Why? Because the FP was not in
>>agreement with the Restorationists and was not bending
>>over backward to cooperate with them and give them an
>>entre into the circles of power.
>>
>>The FP could silence homosexual priests. It won't. In
>>fact, the bunch that became such a scandal at the 2002
>>World Conference was deliberately proclaimed by the
>>First Presidency to have the right to the priesthood.
>>It won't silence people who ordain avowed homosexuals.
>>It gives approval for secret same-sex shacking up
>>ceremonies to be held in CofC branches. It donates
>>money to GALA. It has NEVER sued GALA and told it to
>>cease and desist from using the Community of Christ or
>>RLDS name for publicity.
>>
>>The "Gay Games" exist because the owners of the title
>>"Olympics" refused to release it for a "Gay Olympics."
>> The CofC hierarchy has amply demonstrated that it has
>>the ability and will power to sue. It just won't sue
>>people who are part and parcel of their own agenda.
>>
>>The CofC's administrative and policing powers are
>>abused in the same way that police power used to be
>>abused in the Deep South. The joke goes that one
>>victim in Mississippi was shot thirteen times in the
>>back, run over five times with a car, stabbed 23
>>times. The sheriff was quoted as saying, "That's the
>>worst case of suicide I ever seen."
>>
>>The CofC leaders claiming that the homosexualization
>>of the church is a popular movement that they cannot
>>control (i.e, simply the church itself committing
>>suicide) is just more of the same nonsense. The CofC
>>hierarchy has the guns, the knives, and the automobile
>>used in the crime ALL registered in its own name, and
>>has proven so by not suing to show otherwise.
>>
>>George
>

Lois wrote:
>George,
>
>They actually gave them permission to use it.
>----
>
> >href="http://welcomingcommunitynetwork.org/wcnnews20081
>2.pdf">http://welcomingcommunitynetwork.org/wcnnews2008
>12.pdf
>
>WCNnewsletter December 2008 Volume 2 Issue 12 Page 3
>
>Step by Step
>
>GALA has received permission to use the name of the
>church, Community of Christ, on their letters and
>materials from this point forward; a significant step
>in their faith journey. As many of you know, when GALA
>was beginning in the late 1980�s, use of the church
>name was strictly prohibited.
>-----
>
>Lois

So, far from trying to strengthen itself, almost vainly, to stem the homosexual tide, the First Presidency is, as David Price put it during his father's silencing interview back in the 80's, is not "riding the wild horse over the cliff," but is "helping it to go over the cliff."

As God has said, all that will come to pass, He has foretold.

What I want to know is, when are the adulterers and thieves, liars, sorcerors, etc. going to get any special consideration? After all, if male prostitutes and homosexuals are being waltzed into the Celestial City, the leadership will either have to take all the rest, or be guilty of respect of persons. I know that some will say they are not prostitutes, but they are more than happy to prostitute their religion for pimp priests, in order to collect the privileges they seek.

George

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