This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 01/10/2011 1:39:34 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
. |
Posted on 01/02/2011 5:46:30 PM PST by Paragon Defender
My point was just in respect of witnessing in a Strong Arm manner, no I don’t think anyone here is like the vile Westboro Baptist Church, I am just speaking of an agressive witnessing method....
Not sure what you mean by "strong arming" your mother but all we can do is present the Good News, to the extent that people are willing to listen and let the Holy Spirit take over. If your mom rejects it, she isn't rejecting you and your news.
That you "see some change in her" is heartening and you are praying for her is great.
That tactic is despicable and you should be ashamed.
From all the praise you have heaped upon your self about your near perfect Christian walk and unimpeachable witnessing skills I think my exhortation should be able to penetrate your heart.
Being ashamed for comparing sincere Christians (fighting the spiritual battle against a false belief system) to a demonic inspired group of haters of mankind is nothing to be ashamed of.
Humility is a virtue.
We get the shock value of the comparison.
What does posting about a Priest’s work with homosexuals have to do with the false religions and the occults? Further labeling it the kind of ministry Christ ‘commands’ us to do?....more like the blind leading the blind.
They’ve tried for years to “Rehabilitate” these criminals..to no avail..which obviously after this deceased guys ‘30’ yrs. “helping” the evidence in the news attests he certainly hasn’t been very successful.
Given your report.. over 100 chapters of this organization in over 12 countries simply testifys that the problem with homosexuality in the Priesthood remains out of control... Regardless.
The best thing that could have happened was the news media exposing all this, but particularly the catholic leadership over up.
So this guys “ministry” could have very well been another one of the catholic leaderships places they parked these creeps at.
Ok sweetie... here goes...though I know you do your very best and are proud of your wonderous accomplishments, and have been all too gracious to share with us the sincere privledge of hearing your great words of wisdom and deep insights.............you need to get in the trenches and then we'll talk.
>.. I dont follow the comings and goings of the New Apostolic Church either. In fact, I dont follow any organized church...
I believe you, Jim. You did not comment on the long list I sent of 46 people the Catholic Church calls “apostle,” all the way up to Joseph Smith’s time. (My post #1478)
Apparently, it does not annoy you when Catholics call one of their clergy an apostle.
Why does it annoy you when the Mormons do the same?
= = = = =
>...it did appear to me that they were claiming some highly divine authority for Smith that I cannot believe is true.
Jim, are you saying that an article about a church’s doctrines and teachings can only be posted if you believe that those teachings are true?
One more question: If a Catholic had posted an article saying that “Pope Benedict XVI is an Apostle of Jesus Christ” ... would you have done the same thing?
Would you?
placemarker
I am in the trenches, believe me I am....
Peace and GOD Bless...
In the first century , there were 12 Apostles, 12 disciples.
There are many since then that are called disciples, but it's common knowledge that the 12 originals were unique.
Same with the Apostles.
This thread was obviously meant to say that Smith was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, in the same way the original 12 were.
I'm sure the LDS didn't recognize those on your list (except the original 12) as the list of Apostles that they were adding Smith's name to.
Those seeing this thread I'm sure mostly see it as saying that Smith is an Apostle along the lines of the original 1st centuary ones.
Your question at the end of your missive is a moot point, and a leading question that doesn't have a ‘right’ answer.
It's rhetoric.
Plus the Catholic church is part of main stream Christianity whereas Mormonism isn't.
This dust-up should make it very clear that posters must never use the caucus label as a tactic, i.e. cover to take pot shots at non-members.
Yes.
No; not my goats.
Poke around in HERE and you can seem some pix of mine...
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss354/elsieel/WarmBox3.jpg
No; not my goats.
Poke around in HERE and you can see some pix of mine...
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss354/elsieel/WarmBox3.jpg
Thank You.
As far as I am concern there is no longer a need for a LDS Caucus thread.
One thing would be nice is if those who opposed the LDS would clarify their thread title(Anti LDS) So other posters are not confused and blame the LDS for all those non-descript Open threads
This is something I have discovered by reading many post on FR many see those titles and think the LDS is the one posting those threads.
I also think as an LDS when reading the title Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ it would not register in our minds the way others would perceived it.
Someone could have fleepmail PD and tell him that title would be to offensive to others it needs to be tone down.
Then again maybe it would be best not to have a Religion Forum and just unite on the Godly principles that unites us as a people to keep the constitution strong.
IMHO
Resty, since it appears from posting history that you post more of the LDS caucus threads, what is you intention in posting them? Would you be satisfied if the 'caucus' designation was a hidden header type of thread, where the actual article and title would not appear except to those in the caucus who click on the 'Mormon' or 'LDS' Caucus link? ... Kind of the way our ping pages now have none of the article or post text, just the to and from info?
Resty, since it appears from posting history that you post more of the LDS caucus threads, what is your intention in posting them? Would you be satisfied if the 'caucus' designation was a hidden header type of thread, where the actual article and title would not appear except to those in the caucus who click on the 'Mormon' or 'LDS' Caucus link? ... Kind of the way our ping pages now have none of the article or post text, just the to and from info?
I assume that goats could winter over in central Indiana without freezing if they have adequate protection from the elements.
But what is adequate?
Mine come into the barn where the rain and snow can't get at them. It's drafty, but not windy. I shut the doors so that the rarely seen coyote can't get in.
Then I guess I spoil them! They have a 3' by 9' (3' high) enclosed sleeping area off the floor. At the end away from the rug flap door is a 250 watt heat lamp, behind a very heavy mesh screen. These goats can heat themselves up just by laying next to one another!
The ducks & Chickens share the same size enclosure at the left of the goats rug door flap. They, too, have a 250 heat lamp. I keep them away from the goats by another heavy mesh screen.
Lasty year, I had all the animals having free range in their part of the barn, and they all tended to sleep snuggled up together at night.But racoons got in from some small cracks in the outer walls and killed all (18) of our ducks, so this year I decided to make the sleeping arrangements critter proof.
The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535541
Joseph Smith |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.