Re: A New Hymn written with the CofC in mind -- 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: 20:14:36 03/26/11 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: A New Hymn written with the CofC in mind
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: A New Hymn written with the CofC in mind" on 15:38:52 03/26/11 Sat

>that would be your limited opinion lois... or another
>lie, depending on how one wanted to look at it...
>
>john

John, in order to join the council of Churches, the CofC has declared publicly that it was founded by Joseph Smith III in 1860, and has nothing to do with the original church. On the other hand, the RLDS church, through legal action it initiated, was successfully declared the legal continuation of the 1830 church, with Joseph Smith, Jr. having named his son Joseph Smith, III to succeed him. The documentation on all this stuff is massive.

Lois is telling the truth. The CofC doesn't even claim to be the RLDS church -- it really just claims that it owns the name.

So at this point, anyone who disagrees with Lois' statement that the CofC is not the RLDS church founded in 1830, is, by declaration of the CofC hierarchy itself, a liar.

The CofC is so disingenuous about everything, John, that it can't tell the same story straight twice in a row. As I said, my realization of it all started when I heard O.C. Henson's voice telling Richard Price that "if no women are called, none will be ordained," when the two of them both knew full well that Section 156 already announced "that women have been called to the priesthood.

The leaders of the CofC may have extensive academic credentials, but their personal ethics have made talking to them and their minions, such as you, like talking to an 8 year old pathological liar.

A man can be ignorant and honest, or he can be ignorant and be a sociopath. A man can be educated and honest, and he can also be a sociopath. Or anything in between. The CofC leadership is by no means ignorant, with all those sheepskins, but it lists heavily away from the "honest" pole.

John, are you just too overwhelmed to deal with this huge and atrocious (and expedient) lie about the origins of the church? I can't believe you are simply completely numb to all this and unable to think about it.

After all, if the CofC/alleged RLDS isn't the legal continuation of the 1830 church, maybe it should give back to the court the real estate awarded to the RLDS church on the ruling that it was the 1830 church. It seems to be well-interested and oiled for legal hair-splitting. I hope that interest and preparation is unbiased across the board. Or is it? Who really owns the Kirtland Temple? It wouldn't belong to a church that didn't exist before 1860.

George

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