- Topic
We have been debating a lot here and now I am curious to know how black men and women feel about Ron’s comment. He didn’t make that up and if old members of his time want to be honest about it they’ll stand up. I didn’t know “God” would discriminate. Why would God not want black children preached to?
Simon wrote:
KF wrote:
Simon wrote:
Many nations doesn't NEED to include africa (although it does seeing as the first gentile saved was frin africa)
Everyone will hear the gospel of Christ Jesus, and then the end shall come. Everyone is every nationality on earth.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
If all nations are not in Zion, then that is not the true church. ( because they use Micah 4:2 in their studies) That's why it's important for them to have at least a handful of every nation, so that it can seem as prophecy fulfilled.
Many ≠ Every
Using Matthew 24 is another argument altogether.
Yet again there were black members in LA at the time he said they didn't preach to them which makes me think its an oversimplification
I never said anything about Matt 24….anyhow, if you go and examine the video carefully, you will see that Ron says that ABOUT(estimate) 2 yrs before he left, they were taken into a room (here we need to assume that the members who were taken to the room for the meeting had to be deacons & deaconess & the Pastor) and they were told not to preach to blacks, hispanics, or mexicans ANYMORE.
That they needed to find the last tribe, which are the Caucasians, the wealthy people. (go to 12:15 on the video to verify) I'm assuming he had to relate this message to the members, and so I'm pretty sure you have heared them say that white people are arrogrant and that they need salvation too, but being that it's hard to convince a white person easily, (not because they are smater than other nationalites, but because it's in their nature to be that way) the brothers and sisters still needed to preach the gospel, and so anyone who listens to the gospel and believes is encouraged to come to the church for bible studies.
so this could be a possibilty as to why the members continue to preached to blacks, hispanics, & mexicans although they were told not to preach to them anymore, find the wealthy white people.
In my eyes they were just saying bring in the whites who got the money….PERIOD. Think about it everyone of every nation should had been preached too regardeless of color or economic status. The word of God is for all to hear! I remember when my friend told me (as he was told by them) that Jewish people weren't going to heaven because they crucified their messiah. And look now how they preached to you. HYPOCRITES!!!
I quoted you using Matthew 24:14
as I said in another thread my deacon was a member in L.A.well before two years before he left.
and my entire Zion was black save the Hispanics and me and that Zion is three years old.
so either way
Simon I understand what your saying, because from what I have heared from here, someone said that when they first came to the USA they were not preaching to blacks, but then that changed..(did you see my theory as to why that might had been) because then Micah 4 would not make sense according to their studies about all nations will come to Jerusalem.
you said…. that he said…. that they did not preach to blacks, but Ron says they were told …….NOT to preach to blacks or hispanics anymore. Meaning they were there already, so don't bring in no more blacks or hispanics and concentrate on the whites. There is a big difference between "did not preach" and "don't preach anymore". Do you understand what I'm saying.
Liberty wrote:
renita.payno wrote:
Relatively speaking, white people are closer to white than they are to beige which is a shade of brown. There are black people who are closer to black than they are to a wet beaver. However wrong it may be, it's an efficient way of categorizing. There's no such thing as a sun set or sun rise but people still use these terms. Though it's nonsense, it's what our eyes see.
I have seen some rather "beige" looking white people, believe it or not. Caucasian is not the same shade. Some are rather pale, some can be reddish (maybe blush easily or have freckles), and some can be quite tan. I've often heard my father, being Italian, described as "dark."
And yes, Latinos and Indians can be just as brown, or even darker than African-American's. I don't think its efficient as some may think, but I do understand your point.
And very true about the sunset/sunrise thing. Thats another reason why we have to be open-minded, because what we perceive to see/hear in this world may not be as accurate as we think. Prime example.
And yes Simon, I agree, it's best to say Person. Hopefully our world will get to that point someday.
Again with the specifics. I'm not blind and know there are a wide rage of white people. Perhaps you didn't read my response to Genny. I like to call my shade mahogany while my daughter is closer to chocolate milk and my mom is closer to dark chocolate. I know I know I know there are different shades. But collectively, the 3 of us are black, though it is a misnomer. Ellen D. is rather pale and this lady over there is orange because she spray tans.. But collectively, they are white though it is a misnomer. Michael Jackson! He's black….. as pale as he was, he's black. But someone who didn't know he was once black would probably way he's white though he's not that pale. I don't even think albino people are white but they're pretty close. But the black albinos are still black. =)
And saying person isn't enough when describing someone. Their are other ways to describe someone but this topic is about black people though we all know we all know we all know none of us are actually black! Personally, I prefer negro but so many people take offense to it.
KF wrote:
Simon I understand what your saying, because from what I have heared from here, someone said that when they first came to the USA they were not preaching to blacks, but then that changed..(did you see my theory as to why that might had been) because then Micah 4 would not make sense according to their studies about all nations will come to Jerusalem.
you said…. that he said…. that they did not preach to blacks, but Ron says they were told …….NOT to preach to blacks or hispanics anymore. Meaning they were there already, so don't bring in no more blacks or hispanics and concentrate on the whites. There is a big difference between "did not preach" and "don't preach anymore". Do you understand what I'm saying.
except they continue to
and as I said Micah 4 doesn't require preaching to blacks. Many nations isn't the same as all or even a majority of
The debate here may be better understood with examining the thought process Simon has displayed recently. It would be indicative of totalistic thinking. This is not to say that it is totalistic thinking, but if it were, then it would make sense.
What I mean is, and groups with ill intent have this in common, the thinking of its members over time becomes black/white or if/then or [choose your analogy and insert polarizing example here]. Very subtle, but this is the footprint of thought reform, and it is very hard for people inside of the environment to detect they are even acting this way. It seems normal to people inside the group, and the top down management to control thought is so easy once the pattern of black/white is established. In this type of dynamic, one needs not prove the hypothesis correct, one only needs to find a way to "prove" an argument against it wrong and, now satisfied, all thinking stops.
Human nature is inclined to post hoc arguments, and this is the pattern I see developing. In other words, its like saying that the rooster crowing before dawn causes the sun to rise, when we know that this relationship is not cause/effect but rather simple chronological order.
Another misnomer in thought reform is that all thought is controlled. This is simply not possible. If I were running a thought reform campaign, I certainly would want my members to believe that thought reform is a myth and I would "prove" this by convincing them that in this myth all thought is controlled and then I would ask them if anyone prevents them from doing X,Y, or Z and of course these would be issues that leadership cares nothing about (because these so-called member freedoms would be benign to the cohesiveness to the group (i.e., not a threat)). Again, a simple setup in which an argument against the issue at hand is easily dismissed by neutering an argument that has a negative effect against the group – not by examing what the issue is or is not, but by finding a simple example ancillary to the real argument but sufficient enough to relieve temporary member anxiety and get members back to that euphoric feeling one gets when involved in group membership.
The only thought that is controlled in thought reform are the thoughts that leadership finds necessary to keep the group bound. Any group itself is an organism that adapts to its environment just like any other organism does in nature. My example with the mormons/1978 is that excluding blacks was becoming an increasing threat. Similarly, in this group, the real issue is not whether or not there are blacks in leadership or still joining but if the policy did or did not exist. I see the argument that there was no apparent threat until now, and "proof" that blacks were still coming in should nullify my post, however I caution again that not all thought can be controlled and the individual in wanting to achieve recruiting goals will supercede leadership musts (bringing in races higher on the heirarchy) every time, if that were indeed the case.
Thank you, Questioninginla, for the above posting. It is well said and needed to be said.
the claim keeps changing so I’m very skeptical and if either were accurate they wouldn’t be promoting blacks enmasse on either side of the claim
Simon wrote:
the claim keeps changing so I'm very skeptical and if either were accurate they wouldn't be promoting blacks enmasse on either side of the claim
I'm assuming you refer to the claims of Ron/Diane? And that "they", relative to promoting, is the group?
Since I'm sure Ron/Diane will not be taken off the list of apostates any time soon, perhaps the indicator would be other forms of "doing what looks good when it is in conflict with the truth"? Not sure what that would be, exactly, but I'm sure if there is something to hide it will come out after people get comfortable – probably why Jesus warned us to be on the lookout, always, and to double check our homework. That equation could get cut short if this action is interpreted as blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Hmmm, perhaps we didn't have to go far for that conflict after all…
This is why there are whistleblower laws – because people have a tendency to "kill" (blame) the messenger ("everything was just fine before you HAD to say something", etc), but in reality the messenger didn't do the deed, which is where the sin exists. Is that what is happening here? I wonder what grades would be had in even so much as community college if we all turned in essays that only looked for supporting evidence, thereby creating a pseudo-test of the hypothesis, but convincing ourselves that we had earned a good grade and that the professor is punishing us unjustly.
no I’m saying at one point people claimed wmscog said blacks couldn’t be saved until recently and they only just started preaching to them now they are saying they always preached to blacks until now. fairly opposite claims
They don't play drums in Zion because drums entertain black people and drums come from Africa! It all makes sense now. I know I would love to hear drums to some of their songs.
Heavens will has drums in it
A lot of songs have drums in it. But the Zions don't.
The version of the song I just said on new song radio does and Denver Zion has drums symbols etc
That's not what my Miss. told me mister.
your what?
missionary. she said no drums in Zion. Only soothing instruments like the piano, violin, harp, etc.
Well clearly she never listened to New song radio
New song radio is hosted where?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.