However, the article on which this thread is based seems itself to be based on an easily avoidable untruth.
See my #219 (though I'm not sure why you should, actually. It's just another Dawg rant.) It's a waste of time, I think, to have any kind of serious discussion when the framework is, at best, culpably careless and, at worst, slanderous.
While I could scarcely disagree more with your ecclesiology and ideas of authority, I do from time to time give thanks to God for you. So there.
I thank God for you, too, dear brother in Christ!