Re: Lies! -- 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: 16:08:47 04/01/11 Fri
Author: john
Subject: Re: Lies!
In reply to: George 's message, "Re: Lies!" on 22:05:23 03/31/11 Thu

your statements are ludicrous george... as has been pointed out. i will go back to posting the daily lenten scripture readings and let you continue on in whatever vein it seems you want to follow today...

john

>>george;
>>
>>your recent statements are ludicrous... when have i
>>said anything ugly or judgemental about
>>heterosexuality?
>>
>>give your head a shake.
>>
>>john
>>
>>and it came about in response to the "dirty, filthy,
>>nasty" little affair that jsii had with fanny alger...
>>
>>john
>
>John, Above is the sum total of the post (From Sunday,
>March 27, @ 15:37) that clearly shows the huge chasm
>between your attitude toward homosexual sinners, and
>adulterous sinners. Can you show a post that you have
>ever made referring to homosexual behavior in such
>terms? If you can't, then your bias against remotely
>normal people in favor of the terribly abnormal
>screams for attention. I've been shaking my head
>pretty much ever since I first started reading your
>posts years ago.
>
>George
>
>(Below is the context that goes with John's "dirty,
>filthy, nasty" remark)
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>The Reorganized Church has twice in the civil
>>>>>courts "been sustained as the seccessor to the
>>>>>original church presided over by the Martyr Joseph
>>>>>Smith," The courts at the time ruled
>>>>>
>>>>>And the Court do further find that the
>Plaintiff,
>>>>>the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
>Latter-Day
>>>>>Saints, is the True and Lawful continuatin of, and
>>>>>successor to the said original Church of Jesus
>>Christ
>>>>>of Latter-Day Saints, organized in 1830, and is
>>>>>entitled in law to all its rights and property.
>>>>>Court of Common Pleas,
>>>>>Lake County, Ohio
>>>>>see journal entry
>>>>>February term, 1880
>>>>>
>>>>>Still another decision, by a Judge Phuilips, in
>>>the
>>>>>Circuit Court of the United States for the Western
>>>>>District of Missouri in the so-called Temple Lot
>>Suit
>>>>>in 1894, generally sustained the decision
>previously
>>>>>quoted.
>>>>>
>>>>>In that suit James Whitehead, former secretary of
>>>>>Joseph Smith, Jr. swore under oath:
>>>>>
>>>>>I recollect a meeting that was held in the
>winter
>>>>>of 1843, at Nauvoo, Illinois, prior to Joseph
>>Smith's
>>>>>death, at which the appointment was made by him,
>>>>>Joseph Smith, of his successor. HIs son, Joseph,
>was
>>>>>selected as his sucessor. Joseph Smith did the
>>>>>talking. At that meeting Joseph Smith, the present
>>>>>presideing officer of the complainant church, was
>>>>>selected by his father as his successor. He was
>>>>>ordained and aoninted at that meeting. Hyrum Smith,
>>>>>the Patriarch, anointed him, and Joseph his father
>>>>>blessed him and ordained him, and Newell K. Whitney
>>>>>poured the oil on his head, and he was set apart to
>>>be
>>>>>his father's successor in office, holding all the
>>>>>powers that his father held.
>>>>>Plaintiff's Abstract
>>>>>Temple Lot Suit, p. 28
>>>>>
>>>>>From
>>>>>THE MAZE OF MORMONISM
>>>>>Dr. Walter Martin
>>>>>Second Printing, 1983
>>>>>Copyright 1962, 1978 by Walter Martin
>>>>>(Revised and enlarged 1978)
>>>>>Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-66067
>>>>>ISBN 0-88449-017-3
>>>>>
>>>>>It appears that in the late 1880's, when the RLDS
>>>>>church wanted to gain control of all the property
>>>left
>>>>>behind by the original church founded in 1830, it
>>was
>>>>>more than happy to claim to be the original church,
>>>>>and did such a good job of doing it that the courts
>>>>>believed it. The RLDS church also stated "Even the
>>>>>covenant of marriage is set forth in its exact
>terms
>>>>>in the section on marriage published in the "Book
>of
>>>>>Covenants" during the life of Joseph Smith (1835
>>>>>edition). This covenant was approved by the church
>>an
>>>>>dpublished to the world, by approval of the
>prophet,
>>>>>with the specific commandment that marriage should
>>be
>>>>>solemnized in a "public meeting." (quote from
>>>>>"Differences that Persist)
>>>>>
>>>>>It finally dawns on me what is going on. The
>>>Community
>>>>>of Christ, apart from the question of whether it is
>>>in
>>>>>fact the RLDS church, or just pretending to be, has
>>>to
>>>>>throw Joseph Smith, Jr. under the bus, not to
>escape
>>>>>orthodox disapproval of Joseph Smith, Jr. Quite the
>>>>>contrary. The covenant on marriage established as
>>the
>>>>>legal rule for the original church (which the RLDS
>>>>>church, claiming to be the original church, has
>>>always
>>>>>followed. This rule of the RLDS church states that
>>>>>marriage is to be between "one man and one woman."
>>>>>The reason that the CofC wants to disassociate
>>itself
>>>>>from the RLDS church (but not, of course the RLDS
>>>real
>>>>>estate and investments) is that under church rules
>>of
>>>>>the RLDS, same-sex marriages cannot be performed.
>AT
>>>>>this time, the church performs what can be called
>>>>>"same sex shacking up ceremonies" so that
>homsexuals
>>>>>and lesbians can celebrate an out of wedlock sexual
>>>>>relationship before the church, and "opposite sex
>>>>>shacking up ceremonies" so that heterosexual
>couples
>>>>>who haven't bothered to divorce their previous
>>>spouses
>>>>>can celebrate their out of wedlock sexual
>>>relationship
>>>>>before the church. However, the homosexuals are
>>>>>unhappy that they don't have the sanctitiy of
>>>marriage
>>>>>to salve their bruised egos, so the RLDS covenant
>of
>>>>>marriage has to go, and it has to go NOW.
>>>>>
>>>>>The CofC's backhanded rejection of Joseph Smith,
>Jr.
>>>>>has nothing to do with seeking orthodox approval,
>>and
>>>>>"non-cult" status. What has happened is that the
>>CofC
>>>>>leaders want a different kind of cult, and have to
>>>>>extricate themselves from any connection with the
>>>RLDS
>>>>>church to get rid of the few orthodox ideas and
>>>>>teachings that the RLDS were known and praised for.
>>>>>This flat out fraud perpetrated to make people
>>>believe
>>>>>the CofC is not the RLDS (original 1830 church) has
>>>>>absolutely nothing to do with trying to dissociate
>>>>>itself from the evil reputation of Mormonism. It
>is
>>>>>trying to distance itself from the evil reputation
>>of
>>>>>heterosexuality and marital fidelity.
>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>RLDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 111:4
>>>>>RLDS D&C 1919
>>>>>Lamoni, Iowa
>>>>
>>>>George,
>>>>
>>>>I think you are on to something. I believe that the
>>>>c-not-of-c tries very hard to stay to the letter of
>>>>the law and ignore the spirit of the law. I believe
>>>>that is why the 2011 National Conference is so
>>>>important to them. They want to make the letter of
>>the
>>>>law within the church conform to their agenda.
>>>>------
>>>>
>>>> >>>>href="http://cofchristrm.org/FortCollins/2009FPltrOr
>i
>>g
>>>i
>>>>nal.html">http://cofchristrm.org/FortCollins/2009FPl
>t
>>r
>>>O
>>>>riginal.html
>>>>
>>>>(May 9, 2009 Letter from the First Presidency -
>>>>Community of Christ)
>>>>
>>>>Doctrine and Covenants 111 refers to marriage as
>>being
>>>>between a man and a woman. Though Doctrine and
>>>>Covenants 111is not a revelatory statement, its
>>>>preface states that "the church knows no other law
>of
>>>>marriage than that which is set forth here."
>>>>-------
>>>>
>>>>Submitted by Lois
>>>>
>>>Of course I must point out that it should be quite
>>>easy for the c-not-of-c to ignore Section 111 since
>>>nothing in the c-not-of-c has ever been revelatory.
>>>Probably the last revelatory guidance given was
>Sunday
>>>April 8, 1962. This was given through W. Wallace
>Smith
>>>and was rejected.
>>>
>>>(excerpt)
>>>"The elders have the power to cause the work to rise
>>>or fall. My yoke is easy and my burden light when ye
>>>are diligent and not slothful. Even the Melchesidec
>>>Priesthood can be influenced by the evil designs of
>>>scheming men. Satan is moving in many guises and only
>>>constant adherence to the gospel can allow my purpose
>>>to move among my people."
>>>------
>>>
>>>Submitted by Lois
>>>
>>>>from the Community of Christ
>>>> >>>>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/USAConf/01-2011NatlCo
>n
>>f
>>>.
>>>>pdf">http://www.cofchrist.org/USAConf/01-2011NatlCon
>f
>>.
>>>p
>>>>df
>>>>
>>>>"The delegate conference, July 18�22, 2012, in
>>>>Independence, Missouri, will determine the level of
>>>>support for
>>>>
>>>>1.) Extending the sacrament of marriage to persons
>of
>>>>the same sex/gender OR providing a church-recognized
>>>>way for two persons of the same sex/gender to
>>publicly
>>>>express their commitment to each other.
>>>>
>>>>2.) Allowing people in committed, monogamous,
>>>>long-term, same sex/gender relationships (legal
>>>>marriage, civil union, church-recognized commitment)
>>>>to be considered for ordination.
>>>>
>>>>The delegates� common consent will determine if
>>>>present policies will remain in place or new
>policies
>>>>will need to be written and implemented.
>>>>
>>>>These are difficult issues......"
>>>>
>>>>signed by Linda L. Booth, Stassi D. Cramm, Ronald D.
>>>>Harmon Jr., Rick W. Maupin, and K. Scott Murphy
>>>>USA Team of Apostles

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

Replies:

Re: Lies! -- George, 19:07:59 04/01/11 Fri