My Name Was Used by WPF

[bishoph]

I am posting (with permission) a post by Bro. Johnny King that addresses the repeated allegations of names being used without consent.

Bro King did state and I quote:

"My post is about communication and it is in itself an imperfect communication. Also, I am not on AFF thus will be unable to answer questions or further elucidate on the post. However, what I have stated on my post is absolutely correct and factual to the best of my understanding."

For what it's worth....

Good and reliable communication is a rare and wonderful thing. A HUGE deal has been made of some men's names appearing on the WPF mailout.

My personal experience is- I was sitting at a table with a friend when one of the six sponsors approached and asked to speak with us. He mentioned the meeting in Tulsa and that they were working to form the WPF. He then asked if we would be comfortable in being on an advisory council of 49 or 50 men. I accepted. My friend did not accept. My name appeared on the mailout and the website. My friend's name did not appear on either.

Another incident - I received a call from a man whose name appeared on the mailout. He called me after the website was hacked and made public before the mailout arrived. He was shaken, he told me, because "I am in the midst of incorporating my church but it's not yet done." He was not happy that his name was made public. He asked for his name to be removed from the list and it was, but it had already come out. One official told me that he had spoken to this same man who had denied that he had agreed to be a part of WPF.

Another incident - I spoke with another man whose name appeared on the advisory council. He told me that he had agreed to be on the council but was not very excited that his name had been made public so soon. He also told me that he had been trying to reach Bro. Haney and explain to him that he didn't know his name would be publicized and that he had no intention of leaving the UPC for at least one year.

It's very easy to see what probably happened - All the men whose name were originally on the WPF advisory council in the mailout were contacted and agreed to serve. Many of the men, myself included, did not realize that our names would be publicized in December. (Even though I didn't know that, it's no big deal as far as I am concerned...but I don't have a District Superintendent breathing down my neck. )

Some men tell Bro. Haney, or tell their District Superintendent who tells Bro. Haney, that they didn't give permission for their names to be used in such a manner. What they mean is they didn't know their name was going to be on a brochure or on a website. What the official thinks they mean is that they did not agree to be a part of WPF.

So, there are many letters being sent out declaring "There are names on that list who never gave their permission." And there are no letters that I have seen to this point written by these men and giving their names.

Can you see how this has happened? I don't think anyone is intentionally lying unless it be a man who agreed to be on the WPF advisory council and felt the pressure to back down.

I was asked. I agreed. I did not know the names would be on the mailout or on the website although I might have been told that and forgot.

The six men on the WPF Executive Council are not lying about the names that appeared on the list. They were all asked to serve and agreed.

I don't think Bro. Haney or any other letter writers are lying when they say some of these men did not give permission for their names to be used. That is what they understand from what they have been told. The problem is inadequate communication from one or more sources.

This explanation might not satisfy anyone but it is given in the interest of fairness and truth.

[Barb]

It clarifies much for me. I did NOT for a second think they purposely lied, but much has been transmitted that caused me great concern.

This is the problem with not having direct communication re all of this, as well as the emotions involved.

It lends itself to so much private interpretation.

[Mr. Steinway]

My personal experience is- I was sitting at a table with a friend when one of the six sponsors approached and asked to speak with us. He mentioned the meeting in Tulsa and that they were working to form the WPF. He then asked if we would be comfortable in being on an advisory council of 49 or 50 men. I accepted. My friend did not accept. My name appeared on the mailout and the website. My friend's name did not appear on either.

1. This shows that they (two preachers) were approached and actively recruited.
2. They were offered a position and asked to make a decision on the spot. (pressure!) They may have not been given the option of "thinking about it" and getting back to them. Pressure tactics such as, "get in on the ground floor, we only will have 49 or 50 slots available.", may have been used! Who knows?

I can see a situation where a preacher could have initially agreed to be a part, but later changed their mind after thinking it all out.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

1. This shows that they (two preachers) were approached and actively recruited.
2. They were offered a position and asked to make a decision on the spot. (pressure!) They may have not been given the option of "thinking about it" and getting back to them. Pressure tactics such as, "get in on the ground floor, we only will have 49 or 50 slots available.", may have been used! Who knows?

I can see a situation where a preacher could have initially agreed to be a part, but later changed their mind after thinking it all out.

I can see where a website was put together with names and meant to later be changed....

:boomm

(The coder here)

[Mr. Steinway]

I can see where a website was put together with names and meant to later be changed....

:boomm

(The coder here)

Why use REAL names?

[TRFrance]

Makes sense to me.

I think some of these men were surprised the cat was let out of the bag so soon, so they tried to quickly distance themselves from the WPF thing... but they did it in a way that made people question the integrity of the WPF folks.

I'll just be glad when this whole episode is over. This whole thing is becoming anticlimactic already.

[TRFrance]

He called me after the website was hacked and made public before the mailout arrived.

Hacked??
Are you kidding me?
:boomm

Isn't hacking a website unethical, un-Christian, and ILLEGAL??

[Mrs. LPW]

I am posting (with permission) a post by Bro. Johnny King that addresses the repeated allegations of names being used without consent.

Bro King did state and I quote:

"My post is about communication and it is in itself an imperfect communication. Also, I am not on AFF thus will be unable to answer questions or further elucidate on the post. However, what I have stated on my post is absolutely correct and factual to the best of my understanding."

For what it's worth....

Good and reliable communication is a rare and wonderful thing. A HUGE deal has been made of some men's names appearing on the WPF mailout.

My personal experience is- I was sitting at a table with a friend when one of the six sponsors approached and asked to speak with us. He mentioned the meeting in Tulsa and that they were working to form the WPF. He then asked if we would be comfortable in being on an advisory council of 49 or 50 men. I accepted. My friend did not accept. My name appeared on the mailout and the website. My friend's name did not appear on either.

Another incident - I received a call from a man whose name appeared on the mailout. He called me after the website was hacked and made public before the mailout arrived. He was shaken, he told me, because "I am in the midst of incorporating my church but it's not yet done." He was not happy that his name was made public. He asked for his name to be removed from the list and it was, but it had already come out. One official told me that he had spoken to this same man who had denied that he had agreed to be a part of WPF.

Another incident - I spoke with another man whose name appeared on the advisory council. He told me that he had agreed to be on the council but was not very excited that his name had been made public so soon. He also told me that he had been trying to reach Bro. Haney and explain to him that he didn't know his name would be publicized and that he had no intention of leaving the UPC for at least one year.

It's very easy to see what probably happened - All the men whose name were originally on the WPF advisory council in the mailout were contacted and agreed to serve. Many of the men, myself included, did not realize that our names would be publicized in December. (Even though I didn't know that, it's no big deal as far as I am concerned...but I don't have a District Superintendent breathing down my neck. )

Some men tell Bro. Haney, or tell their District Superintendent who tells Bro. Haney, that they didn't give permission for their names to be used in such a manner. What they mean is they didn't know their name was going to be on a brochure or on a website. What the official thinks they mean is that they did not agree to be a part of WPF.

So, there are many letters being sent out declaring "There are names on that list who never gave their permission." And there are no letters that I have seen to this point written by these men and giving their names.

Can you see how this has happened? I don't think anyone is intentionally lying unless it be a man who agreed to be on the WPF advisory council and felt the pressure to back down.

I was asked. I agreed. I did not know the names would be on the mailout or on the website although I might have been told that and forgot.

The six men on the WPF Executive Council are not lying about the names that appeared on the list. They were all asked to serve and agreed.

I don't think Bro. Haney or any other letter writers are lying when they say some of these men did not give permission for their names to be used. That is what they understand from what they have been told. The problem is inadequate communication from one or more sources.

This explanation might not satisfy anyone but it is given in the interest of fairness and truth.

Thank you for posting this.

[Praxeas]

I can see where a website was put together with names and meant to later be changed....

:boomm

(The coder here)
Yes but I have to wonder about the excuse that a hacker got in and turned the website on early...what hacker comes in and just turns on the website early?

[Praxeas]

Hacked??
Are you kidding me?
:boomm

Isn't hacking a website unethical, un-Christian, and ILLEGAL??
Yup and usually the hacker changes a website that is already up..

[MrsBOOMM]

One thing that is clear to me is that people have talked without knowing the whole story. Something that seems, at times, to be rampant on this and other forums. The Bible speaks of "he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

[Cindy]

One thing that is clear to me is that people have talked without knowing the whole story. Something that seems, at times, to be rampant on this and other forums. The Bible speaks of "he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

AMEN!!

[Scott Hutchinson]

I'm not UPCI,nor am I UC but I believe these men involved with The WPF are etchical men.

[Steve Epley]

I wasn't offered a position or an invitation???? I guess I am chopped liver.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I wasn't offered a position or an invitation???? I guess I am chopped liver.

They need to invite you to preach for them as you can carry the mail.
If I was a pastor I would trust to preach for me as I know you won't sow discord, you are ethical elder.

[embonpoint]

1. This shows that they (two preachers) were approached and actively recruited.


PM,

Your response is an example of the type of communication, based on incomplete facts, Bro. King was talking about. At risk of losing my anonymity here on AFF let me state that I was an observer of this meeting between these men and consider the other "recruit" to be a very good friend of mine.

This man had already sent in his resignation to UPCI Headquarters prior to being approached. So fail to see what would be wrong in "recruiting" him.

Further on the issue of recruiting how many conversations have we all been part of where someone states, "If you ever decide to sell that old pickup let me know" or perhaps closer to many on this forum "If you are ever preaching out in my area give me a call." Most folks would not think it was unethical to call some one based on this type of conversation. I can tell you that over the years I have been part of many conversations where men have expressed that if TV use in any form was ever approved by the UPC that they would be looking for a way out. Have also heard many express their wish that there was a viable alternative, to the UPC, even prior to passage of Res 4. If I was one of the organizers of the WPF I would not see anything wrong with approaching someone who had expressed those sentiments to me in the past. Particularly since from the WPF pespective it would not require one to leave the UPC.

2. They were offered a position and asked to make a decision on the spot. (pressure!) They may have not been given the option of "thinking about it" and getting back to them.

Bro King did not say they were asked to make a decision on the spot. It did not appear that way to me nor is that the way it was communicated to me later.

Pressure tactics such as, "get in on the ground floor, we only will have 49 or 50 slots available.", may have been used! Who knows?

Bro. King does and I am not ready to indict anyone based on what may have been said.

Neither Bro King nor the other preacher are the type to be pressured. They are going to make decisions based on what they see as right. The carrot of get in on the ground floor in an unpaid position when you are already respected and member for many years of the General Board in your current organization does not seem to be much of an incentive.

Btw the preacher that declined the position is still going to the meeting in Tulsa so obviously was not offended by the approach of the organizer.

I can see a situation where a preacher could have initially agreed to be a part, but later changed their mind after thinking it all out.

As can I.

[pelathais]

A point worth making again: the WPF web site was NOT hacked.

The list of names on the brochures was on a publicly visible page. When you post something on the Internet on a publicly accessible page you are publicizing that information.

To continue to claim that the WPF site was "hacked" is disinformation; kind of like putting men's name on a brochure without telling them it would be publicly distributed. To come along after the fact and complain to men like Bro. King that the site had been "hacked" is disingenuous, IMHO.

[TrmptPraise]

If what is stated is the case, that the names were made public before they expected or before they knew it.....I say shame on them. If you are approached by one of the framers of this org (whether you had turned in you license or not), would it not be a wise and prudent thing to start asking questions right then and there? I know if it were me, especially knowing the ramifications and reasoning behind why these men were creating this, I would be asking all kinds of questions before I would make as decision one way or the other. In this post, it makes it seem like it was just a casual conversation, "Hey you want to be on this new council?' Response: "Sure."

It was as if these "recruits" did not know that this was going to be a summit. It sounds like they thought it was going to be a few men meeting in a conference room over coffee and juice. From the number of those surprised at the publication of their names and the removal of a few from the list either one, these "recruits" were not well informed on how this organization was going to be promoted or publicized. Or two, they just did not educate themselves about the circumstances to which they were about to commit. JMHO

[bishoph]

It was as if these "recruits" did not know that this was going to be a summit. It sounds like they thought it was going to be a few men meeting in a conference room over coffee and juice. From the changes and number of removed names from the website either one, these "recruits" were not well informed or were mislead on how this organization was going to be promoted or publicized. Or two, they just did not educate themselves about the circumstances to which they were about to commit. JMHO

Again this (the bolded portion) is an example of the misinformation that seems to abound. I have compared the original list (which is posted on this forum) and the current list, and there are only 3 names that have been removed/replaced 4 if you count TLC which is current and has been verified that he will be in attendance.

The "accusation" is that many/several men's names were listed without their permission, and yet only three names have been removed. A little exaggeration IMO.

[TrmptPraise]

Again this (the bolded portion) is an example of the misinformation that seems to abound. I have compared the original list (which is posted on this forum) and the current list, and there are only 3 names that have been removed/replaced 4 if you count TLC which is current and has been verified that he will be in attendance.

The "accusation" is that many/several men's names were listed without their permission, and yet only three names have been removed. A little exaggeration IMO.

Agreed, Bishop. Perhaps is should have read "From the number of those surprised at the publication of their names and the removal of a few from the list either one,...."

Either way, their surprise at the release of their names indicates that they were not informed or did not properly inform themselves as to how the process was going to be handled. Does that make sense?

[bishoph]

A point worth making again: the WPF web site was NOT hacked.

The list of names on the brochures was on a publicly visible page. When you post something on the Internet on a publicly accessible page you are publicizing that information.

To continue to claim that the WPF site was "hacked" is disinformation; kind of like putting men's name on a brochure without telling them it would be publicly distributed. To come along after the fact and complain to men like Bro. King that the site had been "hacked" is disingenuous, IMHO.

I agree with you that the site was not technically hacked.

However, in defense of the men who are the Tulsa framers while their terminology may be errant, I believe this (hacked) is what they equate it to. (Being unfamiliar with the lingo/terminology of the IT generation should not be used as evidence of wrong motives/actions, and deception.) While in the course building the website, they did not realize that someone could access the information without the site being fully functional. So......when someone "hacked" in and released their info ahead of their intended roll-out it caught them and others, who had not yet given a heads-up to the necessary officials, etc, it obviously caused quite a stir. JMHO

[bishoph]

Agreed, Bishop. Perhaps is should have read "From the number of those surprised at the publication of their names and the removal of a few from the list either one,...."

Either way, their surprise at the release of their names indicates that they were not informed or did not properly inform themselves as to how the process was going to be handled. Does that make sense?

Agreed!

[TrmptPraise]

Agreed!


I have edited that post to better reflect my line of thought. Thanks, Bishop.

[Threads]

Yes but I have to wonder about the excuse that a hacker got in and turned the website on early...what hacker comes in and just turns on the website early?


I find it interesting that a hacker would even know about this website, unless it was someeone from one of the churches involvded. L could be the webmaster just hit the wrong button and posted by accident.:drama:stirpot

[philjones]

Yup and usually the hacker changes a website that is already up..

Welcome to the world of the political Apostolic Pentecostal hacker! :toofunny:ouch

[Mr. Steinway]

PM,

Your response is an example of the type of communication, based on incomplete facts, Bro. King was talking about. At risk of losing my anonymity here on AFF let me state that I was an observer of this meeting between these men and consider the other "recruit" to be a very good friend of mine.

This man had already sent in his resignation to UPCI Headquarters prior to being approached. So fail to see what would be wrong in "recruiting" him.

Further on the issue of recruiting how many conversations have we all been part of where someone states, "If you ever decide to sell that old pickup let me know" or perhaps closer to many on this forum "If you are ever preaching out in my area give me a call." Most folks would not think it was unethical to call some one based on this type of conversation. I can tell you that over the years I have been part of many conversations where men have expressed that if TV use in any form was ever approved by the UPC that they would be looking for a way out. Have also heard many express their wish that there was a viable alternative, to the UPC, even prior to passage of Res 4. If I was one of the organizers of the WPF I would not see anything wrong with approaching someone who had expressed those sentiments to me in the past. Particularly since from the WPF pespective it would not require one to leave the UPC.

Pardon, but I'm just trying to be a detective here.

1.) With so many preachers that just so happened to be in the same restaurant, can I assume this meeting took place at General Conference sometime after the vote on res. #4? Wouldn't this be taking advantage of the initial emotional response of preachers that just voted against the resolution?

BTW, I see no problem "recruiting" preachers who were known to be dead set against res #4, to the extent that they were planning on turning in their license.

2. IF this conversation occurred at GC, can I assume the Tulsa meeting was planned in advance of the res vote?

Bro King did not say they were asked to make a decision on the spot. It did not appear that way to me nor is that the way it was communicated to me later.
Here is the original quote:
My personal experience is- I was sitting at a table with a friend when one of the six sponsors approached and asked to speak with us. He mentioned the meeting in Tulsa and that they were working to form the WPF. He then asked if we would be comfortable in being on an advisory council of 49 or 50 men. I accepted. My friend did not accept. My name appeared on the mailout and the website. My friend's name did not appear on either.

In the above quote, one can easily deduct that the offer of being on the advisory council happened at the initial meeting.


Bro. King does and I am not ready to indict anyone based on what may have been said.

Neither Bro King nor the other preacher are the type to be pressured. They are going to make decisions based on what they see as right. The carrot of get in on the ground floor in an unpaid position when you are already respected and member for many years of the General Board in your current organization does not seem to be much of an incentive.

Btw the preacher that declined the position is still going to the meeting in Tulsa so obviously was not offended by the approach of the organizer.

Can it be deducted that a preacher in a high leadership position for many years will have a hard time leaving that organization? Would an offer of a similar position in a new organization make that decision a little easier to make? Could this not be considered a "carrot"?

[embonpoint]

Pardon, but I'm just trying to be a detective here.

1.) With so many preachers that just so happened to be in the same restaurant, can I assume this meeting took place at General Conference sometime after the vote on res. #4? Wouldn't this be taking advantage of the initial emotional response of preachers that just voted against the resolution?


Actually it did not occur at General Conference. As a matter of fact it wasn't even at a restaurant.
So there goes another assumption:biggrin:


BTW, I see no problem "recruiting" preachers who were known to be dead set against res #4, to the extent that they were planning on turning in their license.

I agree.


2. IF this conversation occurred at GC, can I assume the Tulsa meeting was planned in advance of the res vote?

Since that is not where it occurred that would be another wrong assumption if you based it on this incident. :)

Here is the original quote:
My personal experience is- I was sitting at a table with a friend when one of the six sponsors approached and asked to speak with us. He mentioned the meeting in Tulsa and that they were working to form the WPF. He then asked if we would be comfortable in being on an advisory council of 49 or 50 men. I accepted. My friend did not accept. My name appeared on the mailout and the website. My friend's name did not appear on either.

In the above quote, one can easily deduct that the offer of being on the advisory council happened at the initial meeting.

Yes it could, but that does not automatically lead to the conclusion that an "on the spot" response was required. Remember Bro King is summarizing what happened and does not say when he and his friend responded. I also believe it is important to remember that these men have known and respected each other for many years.

Can it be deducted that a preacher in a high leadership position for many years will have a hard time leaving that organization? Would an offer of a similar position in a new organization make that decision a little easier to make? Could this not be considered a "carrot"?

One could probably reasonably deduct that, but I don't know that it would be a real healthy carrot. :carrot: Again the man who refused the offer had already submitted his resignation and Bro. King may or may not have.

Btw my point in this is not to "slam" you, PM, but to illustrate how wrong deductions and assumptions based on very good logic can be particularly when they are shaded by some, perhaps very justifiable, prejudices.

[Melody]

maybe if you knew the definition?

Being asked to see on a committee.
Here is a definition:
committee n. A group of people officially delegated to perform a function, such as investigating, considering, reporting, or acting on a matter.

[CC1]

Any beta or test site that was actually accessible in any way should have been password protected for access until it was ready to go live. The "hacker" accusation thrown around is inaccurate. Just because some halfway computer savvy / internet savvy surfer finds his way on to the site does not make it "hacking". If he had cracked a password now that would have been hacking!