On 5/31/2011 11:09 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
....

Yes, the congregation had *no* choice. She, and many in the congregation
showed them that, yes, they did have a choice.
....

Well, I'll make one last comment.

Under the UM Book of Discipline there is a church council every member
of the church is automatically a member of this council. Decisions on
changing a local church mission direction such as this are made by a
vote in such a council. So, there is a mechanism to have a say/make a
choice.

Now, often only a very small minority of the congregation members will
bother to show up and make their opinions known and cast their vote, but
that's no the same thing as having no choice.

Whether that happened in this instance or not I have no way of knowing,
of course, but there is a process that gives local congregations quite a
lot of leeway; it isn't absolutely forced from the outside w/ no
recourse. OTOH, while I fail to understand why, it seems that many are
often more pleased to not participate but then complain when the
decision didn't go to their liking.

Pastor/Parish Committee can even recommend a replacement for a pastor
that is not in communion w/ the majority of the congregation or even
reject a new pastor appointment (albeit this is rare, it has and does
happen on occasion).

--

Stormin Mormon wrote:
The "bind on Earth" quote refers to the sealing ordinances
of the temple.

Uh, sort of. The Catholic Church holds otherwise because it is the Church,
as an institution, that alone has the ability and authority to interpret
scripture. The non-Catholic tradition holds that the individual (guided by
the Holy Spirit) has the authority to interpret scripture any damned way he
pleases. Some of the latter hold with your view.


Jews are the tribe of Judah. I don't think many Mormons from
that tribe.



Uh, no. Judah was one of the tribes of the Israelites. It was the larger
group that took on the name "Jew" (from the predominate tribe).

The Book of Mormon holds that early residents of the Americas are descended
from the tribe of Joseph.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
You should invite the missionaries in, some time. Might
learn what Mormons really believe. Could be inspirational.


To me, it is irrelevant what they believe. I'm only interested in what they
can prove! By "prove," I mean clear and convincing evidence that will compel
a rational mind as to the probability of their conclusions being correct.

To take a more prosaic example, consider UFOs. I'm agnostic on the concept
of space aliens, but no amount of personal testimony can be sufficient
evidence*. On the other hand, I'm real easy to convince: Put a piece of a
flying saucer in my hand.

To date, no one has been able to do so.

-------
* As an aside, I think space aliens, if they exist, must be perverts.
There's just too much anal probing to be anything other than the
Galaicticons treating earth like the spot for a sexual holiday. We're sort
of the Thailand of the Milky Way.

On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:36:42 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 5/31/2011 11:09 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
...

Yes, the congregation had *no* choice. She, and many in the congregation
showed them that, yes, they did have a choice.
...

Well, I'll make one last comment.

Under the UM Book of Discipline there is a church council every member
of the church is automatically a member of this council. Decisions on
changing a local church mission direction such as this are made by a
vote in such a council. So, there is a mechanism to have a say/make a
choice.

They gave them *no* choice. Something like half the congregation left and
they were having problems paying their bills afterward. Tough.

Now, often only a very small minority of the congregation members will
bother to show up and make their opinions known and cast their vote, but
that's no the same thing as having no choice.

Vote? There was no vote.

Whether that happened in this instance or not I have no way of knowing,
of course, but there is a process that gives local congregations quite a
lot of leeway; it isn't absolutely forced from the outside w/ no
recourse. OTOH, while I fail to understand why, it seems that many are
often more pleased to not participate but then complain when the
decision didn't go to their liking.

Pastor/Parish Committee can even recommend a replacement for a pastor
that is not in communion w/ the majority of the congregation or even
reject a new pastor appointment (albeit this is rare, it has and does
happen on occasion).

They had to pick from three or four pastors. One they interviewed one (and
had them as a guest pastor) they had to decide up or down on that pastor. They
could not come back to him/her later. The third was automatic. They didn't
choose which ones to interviews, either. *Very* poorly done.

On Tue, 31 May 2011 00:06:47 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

You mean, like the Pope?

Yup, isn't he an ex-Nazi?

You mean like the Catholic Church?

Yup.

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I politely tell your missionaries I'm Jewish and close the door. They
have not come up with a good come-back to that one (yet), it's probably
being worked on in the sales dept. as we type.

Whatever you do, don't tell them you're a Druid!

Oh, good one! I think I'm gonna go with "Pagan" next time.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I didn't say that.

Of course they are.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:49:58 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I didn't say that.

Of course they are.

Your position WRT LDS is strange, given that.

On 6/1/2011 6:41 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:36:42 -0500, wrote:

....

They gave them *no* choice. Something like half the congregation left and
they were having problems paying their bills afterward. Tough.

Who was "they" and "them" here? Sounds like again, that the leadership
council made a decision and as so often is the case, a large portion
didn't participate.

If it was a bloc schism, that's unfortunate but things like that do,
unfortunately, happen. It isn't however, a fault of the UM Church as an
organization but of an individual congregation is the point.

Now, often only a very small minority of the congregation members will
bother to show up and make their opinions known and cast their vote, but
that's no the same thing as having no choice.

Vote? There was no vote.

Where was the Church Council and the congregation annual Charge
Conference during all this? Again, methinks "there's more to the
story" here...

¶ 252. 1. Purpose—The church council shall provide for planning and
implementing a program of nurture, outreach, witness, and resources in
the local church. It shall also provide for the administration of its
organization and temporal life. It shall envision, plan, implement, and
annually evaluate the mission and ministry of the church. The church
council shall be amenable to and function as the administrative agency
of the charge conference (¶ 244).
....

I would certainly have expected any major shift in programs or missions
of the congregation to have been brought to the annual charge conference
for authorization.

As I feared, this has gotten too far afield and too involved into the
particulars of one particular congregation to be possible to sort out
anything at all.

I will contend, however, that it isn't an indictment of the UM
organization as a whole but within a single congregation.

If there, I'm sure I'd been on the phone w/ the District Superintendent
and the Bishop on more than one occasion...


They had to pick from three or four pastors. One they interviewed one (and
had them as a guest pastor) they had to decide up or down on that pastor. They
could not come back to him/her later. The third was automatic. They didn't
choose which ones to interviews, either. *Very* poorly done.

That also doesn't really sound right...part of the UM way is that
Conference (the Bishop, primarily altho w/ advice) assigns pastors for
everybody w/ a modicum of acceptance/rejection by the congregation. I
would not expect for the senior pastor to be more than a single or
perhaps a choice of a couple under a suggestion from the bishop.

Unlike some others who hire independently. That's just part of "the
Methodist way"--has been; will always be. If it's not a fit; rarely
will such an appointment last more than a couple of years, however in my
observation of some 60 years or so. Sometimes there's lessons to be
learned from some of these that aren't "comfortable" initially, too,
though...

Anyway, sounds like it's all water under the bridge at this point so
I'll really sign off now...

--

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:49:58 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I didn't say that.

Of course they are.

Your position WRT LDS is strange, given that.

Why? The Catholic's don't make up their own "Holy Books" and pass them
off as "Gospel". Of course, the Vatican has *removed* original Books
from the Bible were incompatible with their control of the flock.

On 6/1/2011 10:01 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:49:58 -0500, G. wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I didn't say that.

Of course they are.

Your position WRT LDS is strange, given that.

Why? The Catholic's don't make up their own "Holy Books" and pass them
off as "Gospel". Of course, the Vatican has *removed* original Books
from the Bible were incompatible with their control of the flock.



The Irish nuns taught us Catechism of the Catholic Church, I still have
knots on my head from a half century ago. There were no Bible readings
like in my Protestant cousin's schools. Let's see, there was Sister
Torture, Sister Autopsy, Sister Defenestration, Sister Execution, Sister
Exsanguination. My first grade teacher was Sister Godzilla, an
American then the principal, Mother Mothra. The Parish priest was Father
Bigfoot. We small children were controlled and made to behave
through the production of shear terror. As a result, I have absolutely
no fear of terrorists but I do have an inexplicable fear of giant albino
penguins, they invaded my dreams for many years. ^_^

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

s taught us Catechism of the Catholic Church, I still have
knots on my head from a half century ago. There were no Bible readings
like in my Protestant cousin's schools. Let's see, there was Sister
Torture, Sister Autopsy, Sister Defenestration, Sister Execution, Sister
Exsanguination. My first grade teacher was Sister Godzilla, an
American then the principal, Mother Mothra. The Parish priest was Father
Bigfoot. We small children were controlled and made to behave
through the production of shear terror.

Scissor attacks!!!! That's worst than the worst ruler across the knuckles
story I've ever hear, and I grew up across the street from a huge Catholic
complex (church, rectory, bingo hall, convent, school and monsignor's
castle). They do have a different playbook than public schools (where I
went, although I took catechism classes in the Catholic school. At 60 to 70
kids to a class, they made do by seriously downsizing the furniture. It was
like a visit to Russia.

As a result, I have absolutely no fear of terrorists

Sure you do. You write about them all the time. I don't know why. What a
terrorist would want in your neck of the woulds I can't imagine. Now here
in the DC area they have apparently unfinished business. People don't seem
to remember that 9/11 was an encore performance. They tried once before and
failed but kept trying. I worry that's the logic behing their next set of
targets.

but I do have an inexplicable fear of giant albino
penguins, they invaded my dreams for many years.

There's something about that face in the oval of white. Back in my time
nuns wore habits. I don't think they do know, at least not like the old
days. What's that Cheech and Chong riff, Sister Mary Elephant?

http://www.justsomelyrics.com/204735...lephant-Lyrics

Good morning, class. Good morning, class. Class? Class!? SHUT UP!!!!! Thank
you.
As you know your regular teacher Sister Rosetta Stone is on a small
vacation. However she does send her love, at least fingerpaintings, and desk
club she`s making. I am your substitute teacher, Sister Mary Elephant.
Class, attention. Attention, class! Class? SHUT UP!!!!! Thank you.
Young man, now give me that knife. (Knife hits wall) Thank you.
Now class, you all know who I am, so let`s find out who you are.
Class? Class!? SHUT UP!!!!!

--
Bobby G.

Didn't the Catholics change the Bible? Many would say that
makes them unChristian.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

So your position is that the Catholics aren't Christian?

I didn't say that.

Of course they are.

Hmm. Many people would say therefore Catholics are not
Christians.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...

The Catholic's don't make up their own "Holy Books" and pass
them
off as "Gospel". Of course, the Vatican has *removed*
original Books
from the Bible were incompatible with their control of the
flock.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Hmm. Many people would say therefore Catholics are not
Christians.


Maybe so. I don't have a problem with you personally, BTW. It's that
annoying sig. line that provokes this (and has for years). I (and many
more) don't want religion pushed in their face. Your sig. is
provocative, and leads to OT crap in a home repair group.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Didn't the Catholics change the Bible?

Yes, and King James.

Many would say that
makes them unChristian.

Who?

On 6/2/2011 2:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Hmm. Many people would say therefore Catholics are not
Christians.


Maybe so. I don't have a problem with you personally, BTW. It's that
annoying sig. line that provokes this (and has for years). I (and many
more) don't want religion pushed in their face. Your sig. is
provocative, and leads to OT crap in a home repair group.


I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.


I do find the top posting to purposely annoy people in a group where
everyone bottom posts bizarre though.

George wrote:

I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:52:25 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 6/1/2011 6:41 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:36:42 -0500, wrote:

...

They gave them *no* choice. Something like half the congregation left and
they were having problems paying their bills afterward. Tough.

Who was "they" and "them" here?

I don't remember what they're called, but the regional church hierarchy
(Bishop level).

Sounds like again, that the leadership
council made a decision and as so often is the case, a large portion
didn't participate.

My wife was on the search committee. Does that count for "didn't
participate"?

If it was a bloc schism, that's unfortunate but things like that do,
unfortunately, happen. It isn't however, a fault of the UM Church as an
organization but of an individual congregation is the point.

No, it was *not* at the congregation level. It was *forced* down on them.

Now, often only a very small minority of the congregation members will
bother to show up and make their opinions known and cast their vote, but
that's no the same thing as having no choice.

Vote? There was no vote.

Where was the Church Council and the congregation annual Charge
Conference during all this? Again, methinks "there's more to the
story" here...

Probably. It was six or eight years ago and I tried to stay out of it. When
one has a seriously ****ed SWMBO, it's sometimes hard to pull off. ;-)

snip

Anyway, sounds like it's all water under the bridge at this point so
I'll really sign off now...

Ditto.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:04:43 -0400, George wrote:

On 6/2/2011 2:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Hmm. Many people would say therefore Catholics are not
Christians.


Maybe so. I don't have a problem with you personally, BTW. It's that
annoying sig. line that provokes this (and has for years). I (and many
more) don't want religion pushed in their face. Your sig. is
provocative, and leads to OT crap in a home repair group.


I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

Right. It's easily ignored. Those who refuse to ignore it have only
themselves to blame. They're looking to be offended.

I do find the top posting to purposely annoy people in a group where
everyone bottom posts bizarre though.

Right again. Worse, his signature is in the wrong place and makes a mess of
the context. It has *nothing* to do with the content, rather form.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:55:03 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Didn't the Catholics change the Bible?

Yes, and King James.

Many would say that
makes them unChristian.

Who?

Having trouble with comprehension?

In article ,
G. Morgan wrote:

George wrote:

I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

I wonder about how others judge sig lines of various sorts. Steve B, for
example, promotes his book with every post. Colby promotes his website,
which apparently is on topic (I've not visited it.) Are those seen as
more, less, or equally inappropriate or offensive as Chris' mormon sig?

There are things that annoy the crap out of me, but sigs aren't one of
them, even if they do have a link.

On Jun 2, 12:28*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
George wrote:
I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. *How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

And furthermore (damn, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this!) many
of us probably know much more about The Subject than you do!

HB

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:55:03 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Didn't the Catholics change the Bible?

Yes, and King James.

Many would say that
makes them unChristian.

Who?

Having trouble with comprehension?

No, who says it makes them un-Christian?

Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:28*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
George wrote:
I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. *How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

And furthermore (damn, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this!) many
of us probably know much more about The Subject than you do!


The subject of LDS church? Have at it....

I'll just put a link to the KKK signup page on my sig. and I'm sure no
one will mind..?

Stormin Mormon wrote:

1666 lines of {nothing} ?

On 5/31/2011 12:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

People ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian. I
return the courtesy.

I hope you tell the truth and tell them it's really a kludged together
*******ization of Christianity.


Wiki:
"Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints believe
that Jesus leads the church by revealing his will to its President, whom
adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator." The
current President is Thomas S. Monson. "

To subscribe to that faith one would have to believe the "boss" of the
church has a direct hotline to God. No one else, only the
"President"...(are you sure you're just not running a corporation?) gets
to tell his minions what God wants them to do. Nice little cult you
have there, I rank it right up there with Scientology. Both need to
have their tax-exempt status revoked. It's all about the $$$$, right?
That's why you force your children out in pairs to 'convert' people by
knocking on my door all the time. Selling religion, what a concept.

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

Just sayin'.

(Personally, I think all organized religions are con jobs. But whatever
it takes them to get through the night without screaming, I guess....)
--
aem sends...

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Didn't the Catholics change the Bible? Many would say that
makes them unChristian.


Er, no. It was the Church that decided what comprised the Bible in the first
place; in other words, the early Church DEFINED what books would go into the
official canon. The collection was first decided by Council of Laodicea in
A.D. 363 and confirmed by subsequent conclaves.

The folks in these assemblies would take issue with the notion that they
decided which writings would define the New Testament. Their position was
that GOD decided which books and they were only His instrument in carrying
out His will.

Nevertheless. . . .

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:17:12 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:28*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
George wrote:
I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. *How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

And furthermore (damn, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this!) many
of us probably know much more about The Subject than you do!


The subject of LDS church? Have at it....

I'll just put a link to the KKK signup page on my sig. and I'm sure no
one will mind..?

Go for it. That might even make you look dumber than you do now.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:14:40 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:55:03 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Didn't the Catholics change the Bible?

Yes, and King James.

Many would say that
makes them unChristian.

Who?

Having trouble with comprehension?

No, who says it makes them un-Christian?

Nothing, as far as I'm concerned, however that was your position.

You commented on the thread of the LDS not being Christian with statements
that I turned around as also applying to the RCC, to which you agreed. By
indirection, you agreed that the RCC isn't Christian.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:41:49 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

On 5/31/2011 12:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

People ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian. I
return the courtesy.

I hope you tell the truth and tell them it's really a kludged together
*******ization of Christianity.


Wiki:
"Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints believe
that Jesus leads the church by revealing his will to its President, whom
adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator." The
current President is Thomas S. Monson. "

To subscribe to that faith one would have to believe the "boss" of the
church has a direct hotline to God. No one else, only the
"President"...(are you sure you're just not running a corporation?) gets
to tell his minions what God wants them to do. Nice little cult you
have there, I rank it right up there with Scientology. Both need to
have their tax-exempt status revoked. It's all about the $$$$, right?
That's why you force your children out in pairs to 'convert' people by
knocking on my door all the time. Selling religion, what a concept.

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

I guess I'm not the only one who made that connection. He's said that he
doesn't believe the Catholic Church is Christian either.

Just sayin'.

(Personally, I think all organized religions are con jobs. But whatever
it takes them to get through the night without screaming, I guess....)

Why all the angst about what others need "to get through the night without
screaming"?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:17:12 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:28*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
George wrote:
I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. *How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

And furthermore (damn, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this!) many
of us probably know much more about The Subject than you do!


The subject of LDS church? Have at it....

I'll just put a link to the KKK signup page on my sig. and I'm sure no
one will mind..?

Go for it. That might even make you look dumber than you do now.

WTF are you on about??

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

You commented on the thread of the LDS not being Christian with statements
that I turned around as also applying to the RCC, to which you agreed. By
indirection, you agreed that the RCC isn't Christian.


Oh **** off with your misguided "logic" and twisted way of attempting to
put words in my mouth. I said the LDS church was a "*******ization" of
Christianity, not the same as saying they are not "Christians".

If you are going to banter with me, we will use facts and quotes.. not
slimy innuendo; mother****er. A "yup" from me commenting to another
poster does not give you enough information to reach a conclusion.

Hell David Koresh was a "Christian". It's not what *I* call them that
matters. It's what they call themselves, AND if they actually preach
(and practice) the bona-fide text from at least the Old Testament and
the original doctrine.

From what I've seen, the ones that claim loudly they are "Christian" are
sinning just as much as everyone else. Hypocrisy is rampant amongst any
religious organizations, especially Christians.

aemeijers wrote:

On 5/31/2011 12:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

People ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian. I
return the courtesy.

I hope you tell the truth and tell them it's really a kludged together
*******ization of Christianity.


Wiki:
"Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints believe
that Jesus leads the church by revealing his will to its President, whom
adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator." The
current President is Thomas S. Monson. "

To subscribe to that faith one would have to believe the "boss" of the
church has a direct hotline to God. No one else, only the
"President"...(are you sure you're just not running a corporation?) gets
to tell his minions what God wants them to do. Nice little cult you
have there, I rank it right up there with Scientology. Both need to
have their tax-exempt status revoked. It's all about the $$$$, right?
That's why you force your children out in pairs to 'convert' people by
knocking on my door all the time. Selling religion, what a concept.

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

Just sayin'.

I don't think the Pope goes around announcing he has God's cell phone
number. The LDS "President" --- (weird title for a religious leader)
has it though!


(Personally, I think all organized religions are con jobs. But whatever
it takes them to get through the night without screaming, I guess....)

Yeah...

Problem is, church tells the sheeple without an origional thought in
their heads who to vote for. AND they get tax-exempt status for all
the parties and shing-dings, nice eh?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I guess I'm not the only one who made that connection. He's said that he
doesn't believe the Catholic Church is Christian either.

Cite that...

On Jun 5, 12:23*am, G. Morgan wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
On 5/31/2011 12:00 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

People ask if the Church of Jesus Christ is Christian. I
return the courtesy.

I hope you tell the truth and tell them it's really a kludged together
*******ization of Christianity.

Wiki:
"Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints believe
that Jesus leads the church by revealing his will to its President, whom
adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator." The
current President is Thomas S. Monson. "

To subscribe to that faith one would have to believe the "boss" of the
church has a direct hotline to God. *No one else, only the
"President"...(are you sure you're just not running a corporation?) gets
to tell his minions what God wants them to do. *Nice little cult you
have there, I rank it right up there with Scientology. *Both need to
have their tax-exempt status revoked. *It's all about the $$$$, right?
That's why you force your children out in pairs to 'convert' people by
knocking on my door all the time. *Selling religion, what a concept.

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

Just sayin'.

I don't think the Pope goes around announcing he has God's cell phone
number. *The LDS "President" --- (weird title for a religious leader)
has it though!

(Personally, I think all organized religions are con jobs. But whatever
it takes them to get through the night without screaming, I guess....)

Yeah...

Problem is, church tells the sheeple without an origional thought in
their heads who to vote for. * AND they get tax-exempt status for all
the parties and shing-dings, nice eh?

AND they abuse their tax-exempt status by breaking the law over &
over, claiming "God" told them to. Churches and pastors are strictly
forbidden under the IRS codes from advocating for a given candidate.
They can preach from the pulpit for/against a given measure in
Congress, or for/against a given idea (Abstinence Only, for example,
an idea that has not only NOT prevented teenage pregnancy and STDs; it
has made them worse. Esp. in the Bible Belt. What do these morons
think is going to happen to horny teenagers who are not allowed to
learn about their bodies because the Fundamentalist "school board"
forbids practical sex ed?)

Getting back to churches & the IRS: Bible Belt (inter alia) pastors
routinely tell their congregations to vote for Candidate Holier-than-
Thou. Then the ACLU and AU and similar organizations have to run
around with a fire hose trying to make these Godly crooks obey the law
like the rest of us have to.

I contribute what I can to these groups that are out there protecting
OUR civil liberties!

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (run by a
Christian minister): AU.ORG

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

I guess I'm not the only one who made that connection. He's said
that he doesn't believe the Catholic Church is Christian either.


It's endemic. When pressed, most Christian denominations will claim theirs
is the "true faith" and that others are virtually apostates because they
have music in the church, have 11 sacraments instead of three, harken to a
centralized authority, and what-not.

I think the attitudes between the Sunni and ****e Mohammadens is similar to
that between the Baptists and the Catholics.

On the other hand, there couldn't be more differences between Reform Judaism
and the Orthodox variety if you'd pulled dogma out of a hat. Yet each has no
problem believing the other is Jewish.

Yep, religion is pretty weird.

HeyBub wrote:

It's endemic. When pressed, most Christian denominations will claim theirs
is the "true faith" and that others are virtually apostates because they
have music in the church, have 11 sacraments instead of three, harken to a
centralized authority, and what-not.


That does not apply in this case. I think they all are nonsense. I can
know God all by myself, and last time I checked He didn't need any
money.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 01:59:52 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 02:17:12 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:28*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
George wrote:
I don't care about the sig line because religious expression is not
prohibited and shouldn't be.

In the home-repair venue it's unexpected and unwanted. *How many other
participants do you see wearing their religion on each post they make?

How many of those actually solicit you to click a link for
indoctrination?

And furthermore (damn, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this!) many
of us probably know much more about The Subject than you do!


The subject of LDS church? Have at it....

I'll just put a link to the KKK signup page on my sig. and I'm sure no
one will mind..?

Go for it. That might even make you look dumber than you do now.

WTF are you on about??

Have you even read what you've written? Are you capable?

Hint: You agreed that the Catholic Church was a "nice little cult", "ranked
right up there with Scientology", and "need(s) to have (its) tax-exempt status
revoked".

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 02:17:32 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

wrote:

You commented on the thread of the LDS not being Christian with statements
that I turned around as also applying to the RCC, to which you agreed. By
indirection, you agreed that the RCC isn't Christian.


Oh **** off with your misguided "logic" and twisted way of attempting to
put words in my mouth. I said the LDS church was a "*******ization" of
Christianity, not the same as saying they are not "Christians".

It's not my logic. You agreed to my assertion. You're the one who believes
the Catholic Church is equivalent to Scientology. I can't help it if you're
illiterate.

If you are going to banter with me, we will use facts and quotes.. not
slimy innuendo; mother****er. A "yup" from me commenting to another
poster does not give you enough information to reach a conclusion.

I don't have to quote, though I did in another post. The record is right in
this thread for everyone to read.

Hell David Koresh was a "Christian". It's not what *I* call them that
matters. It's what they call themselves, AND if they actually preach
(and practice) the bona-fide text from at least the Old Testament and
the original doctrine.

You're good at fuzzy logic. When it's your turn, are you going to name moral
relativism trump?

From what I've seen, the ones that claim loudly they are "Christian" are
sinning just as much as everyone else. Hypocrisy is rampant amongst any
religious organizations, especially Christians.

Charges of "hypocrisy" from a moral relativist, what a surprise. You need to
open your eyes a bit. Christians don't say they're perfect humans, rather the
opposite.

If hypocrisy is the heaviest charge you can lay against Christians, they must
be a pretty good bunch. OTOH, I suppose you think Muslims are better people
because they say they're going to kill and aren't being hypocritical.

Dig deeper. You're doing a great job.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 06:28:03 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

Gee, sounds just like the Catholic church....

I guess I'm not the only one who made that connection. He's said
that he doesn't believe the Catholic Church is Christian either.


It's endemic. When pressed, most Christian denominations will claim theirs
is the "true faith" and that others are virtually apostates because they
have music in the church, have 11 sacraments instead of three, harken to a
centralized authority, and what-not.

I think the attitudes between the Sunni and ****e Mohammadens is similar to
that between the Baptists and the Catholics.

Utter nonsense. Babtists nor Catholics use suicide bombs on each other.
Neither has "death to the apostate" in their central teachings. My aunt (a
SB) used to have religious debates with the priest in the church in the
adjoining lot. Neither killed or bomb each other.

On the other hand, there couldn't be more differences between Reform Judaism
and the Orthodox variety if you'd pulled dogma out of a hat. Yet each has no
problem believing the other is Jewish.

Babptist and Catholics have no issues with Jews or Israel, either.

Yep, religion is pretty weird.

So is humanity. Your point?