Re: CofC lenten scripture reading for Monday, March 28, 2011 -- 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: 20:30:01 03/28/11 Mon
Author: George
Subject: Re: CofC lenten scripture reading for Monday, March 28, 2011
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: CofC lenten scripture reading for Monday, March 28, 2011" on 20:17:50 03/28/11 Mon

>>>>>>In confirmation of the instructions contained in
>>the
>>>>>>pastoral letter dated September 19, 1995, naming
>>him
>>>>>>as successor in the office of President, my
>wervant
>>>>W.
>>>>>>Grant McMurray is called and should be ordained
>>>>>>without delay as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and
>>>as
>>>>>>Preswident of the High Priesthood and the Church,
>>to
>>>>>>the end that prophetic guidanxce and vision may
>>>>>>continue to be brought to the church throught the
>>>>>>ministry of my Spirit.
>>>>>>CofC Doctrine and Covenants 160:1
>>>>>
>>>>>George,
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, the part about prophetic guidance and vision
>>>>>certainly didn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lois
>>>>
>>>>Well, Lois, the revelation doesn't state who
>>is
>>>>giving it. It just says, "My spirit." After looking
>>at
>>>>some of these "modern revelations" of all kinds,
>from
>>>>the LDS to the RLDS to the CofC to the Temple Lot,
>>and
>>>>including the "Congregational Mormon" brigade, I'm
>>>>starting to wonder if the prophet shouldn't check
>the
>>>>ID of the entity giving the revelation. After all,
>>the
>>>>story of Jacob coming in before blind Isaac and
>>>>stealing Esau's blessing is pretty well known.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>href="http://www.cofchrist.org/wc2002/sermons/Grant
>2
>>0
>>>0
>>>>2
>>>>>.asp">http://www.cofchrist.org/wc2002/sermons/Grant
>2
>>0
>>>0
>>>>2
>>>>>.asp No longer there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Called to Discipleship: Coming Home in Search of
>>>>>the Path
>>>>>W. Grant McMurray 2002 World Conference Address
>>April
>>>>>7, 2002
>>>>>
>>>>>"....We have a twenty-year-old statement from the
>>>>>Standing High Council that serves as official
>>>>>guidance, but has not been universally adhered
>>>>>to throughout the church. I will be totally
>>>honest
>>>>>and acknowledge that I have myself participated
>>in
>>>>>situations where its provisions were not
>>honored.
>>>>>I have been present in conferences where persons I
>>>>>knew to be in long-term, committed homosexual
>>>>>relationships were approved for priesthood in
>>>>>jurisdictions where their lifestyle was known and
>>>>>their ministry was accepted. The conflict within me
>>>>>was between lawgiver and pastor. To enforce the
>>>policy
>>>>>would have required me to intervene and prevent the
>>>>>ordination of someone whose call to ministry I
>could
>>>>>not deny. This I could not do. This I will
>>not
>>>>>do.�
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lois, it occurs to me that W. Grant McMurray made a
>>>>major error in logic with this statement. He says
>>that
>>>>he "will not" do something that he "couldn't." If he
>>>>can't do it, what difference does it make what he
>>>>wants or doesn't want to do?
>>>>
>>>>If I got up and said, "I can't throw a 65 yard pass,
>>>>and I will not throw it," it would sound a little
>>>>stupid. But get a few degrees and doctorates after
>>>>one's name, and throw in a little "Pax Vobiscum,"
>and
>>>>everything one says is suddenly profound.
>>>>
>>>>George
>>>>
>>>>"When you come to a fork in the road, it's important
>>>>that you take it."
>>>>Yogi Berra
>>>
>>>The question is, why could he not do it? It
>may
>>>not have been compassion.
>>>
>>>Lois
>>
>>The priesthood candidate, or those ordaining him may
>>have had firsthand personal information about W. Grant
>>that W. Grant did not want told. That was how Lyndon
>>Johnson usually managed to get what he wanted in the
>>Senate. He could railroad it through, because if
>>Senators balked, he could always remind them that he
>>knew where the bodies were buried.
>>
>>Apparently, whatever it was got found out anyway.
>>Otherwise, Steve Veazey wouldn't be the prophet now.
>>
>>George
>
>George,
>
>We are on the same wave length.
>
>Lois
>
> >href="http://www.cofchrist.org/OnlineResources/issues/1
>982homosexuality.asp">http://www.cofchrist.org/OnlineRe
>sources/issues/1982homosexuality.asp
>
>Homosexuality
>1982 Statement by the Standing High Council
>
>(excerpt)
>The church recognizes that there is a difference
>between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity
>(defined as sexual acts between persons of the same
>sex). The former is accepted as a condition over which
>a person may have little or no control; the latter
>is considered immoral and cannot be condoned by the
>church.

That's all changed, now, Lois. John tells us that he is totally repulsed and disgusted by Joseph Smith, Jr.'s alleged romp in the barn with Fanny Alger, but he is silent about the fact that if it had been Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery romping in the barn, that it would have been o.k. -- since neither was apparently married to anybody at the time. Protected minorities are according special indulgences because of their "special circumstances."

But this may not be true, either. About 11 years ago, a local member of GALA told me that his wife left him because she was a lesbian. Now, it is obvious that she experimented with lesbianism while she was married to her husband, otherwise she wouldn't have decided that it was for her. However, the church was entirely approving of the whole thing. Now, if he had left here because he'd been fooling around with another woman, he would have been excoriated, because there are no special circumstances allowed for heterosexual sexual misconduct.

That's why Veazey's announcement that the church's approval of homosexuality doesn't include misconduct or degrading relationships. If fooling around on one's spouse is justifiable by a real or imagined homosexual orientation, then Mr. Veazey's qualifications have no meaning whatsoever, except to lull objectors back to sleep.

I might add that I don't out anybody involved in homosexuality, directly, or indirectly, if I have any direct knowledge of it. If a person wants to be known as a pervert, he can broadcast it himself. That is why I have had honest conversations with some GALA members. They are willing to speak the truth about what is going on.

George

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