Apostolic Friends Forum
Page 25 of 83 « First 15161718192021222324 25 2627282930313233343575 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   WPF News (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46)
-   -   Tulsa Report Day 2 (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=11829)

Pressing-On 01-26-2008 12:21 PM
Perhaps they didn't anticipate how many were going to participate at the outset and when they found out decided it was enough to form an organization?

freeatlast 01-26-2008 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley (Post 368935)
The AMF was formed in the 60's and was formed because certain men were thrown out illegally according to the manual. I have all the correspondance concerning it. They formed because they had no recourse. The GS was afraid of the La & Tx. Supts and bowed to their wishes all contrary to the manual.
Sounds about the same way they they bowed and ramroded the Westburg Resolution or he AS upon the church.

The spirit behind the voting in of that Affirmation Statement was about as low a moment in the integrity of our movement that most of us have ever seen.

Barb 01-26-2008 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Poster (Post 369108)
I have a question for Steadfast and Coonskinner.

Why do you continue to support these men in this endeavor?

Why aren't you condemning them for their deceptive behavior?

I still remember (last October) when both of you claimed a new organization wasn't being formed. That you had been told it would not happen by some of the same men who are now a part of this group.

I think your integrity is in question here. Your bias is evident, and it's troubling.

You both think nothing of questioning the honesty of men who sign an affirmation statement with no intention of abiding by it.

Why then do these men get a free pass from both of you?

BTW, I think both of you are fine men, I just don't understand the blatant double standard.

Please respond sincerely, as I am tired of hearing how "great" these men are, and what a "great spirit" they all have.

I just don't buy it.
I am disappointed in you, PP...for what it is worth, very disappointed.

On the one hand you say that Steadie and Coonskinner are fine men, but you question their integrity.

They are two of the finest men I have never met...what has happened to you?!

BoredOutOfMyMind 01-26-2008 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 369120)
Perhaps they didn't anticipate how many were going to participate at the outset and when they found out decided it was enough to form an organization?
:stop

Stop this, or I will be glad you are back!

Mrs. LPW 01-26-2008 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGAPE (Post 369113)
u r right but one of those guys was PUT OUT of the upc b/c of his immorality now he is with this group....
If he's repented and God is using him again, who am I to judge?
I know of a man who committed adultery with his church secretary, consequently left (or was removed) from pastoring and being licenced with the UPCI... repented.. his wife forgave him.. and now pastors an independant work many many miles away...

I'm not going to start a whole conversation on whether men should be reinstated after a sin such as this... but I do know God's grace is all sufficient and he's not trying to preach in the same area he fell in. He isn't stirring up old memories and wounds. He's one of the most humble men I've met.

Nahum 01-26-2008 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 369117)
I repeated what I had heard from a friend who had spoken to one of the original six.

It has been my understanding that this thing evolved somewhat from the original plans, which were the plans I first heard about.

It is entirely possible that my understanding of what I heard was flawed, or that there was some miscommunication involved between when the words were spoken and when I heard them.

I might be naive. I am admittedly biased in favor of men I love and respect and who have been a blessing to me.

But to say my appreciation for them, and my choice to believe what they say is an integrity issue for me?

I am not really following you there.
I am saying some of these men claimed they were not going to do the exact thing they are currently doing. They made these claims while planning for a new org was under way.

This is not debatable. It has been verified by many good people.

However, you chose to believe their denials, and still continue to support and uplift these men even though their actions can be viewed as nothing short of deceptive.

Please tell me how you can honestly and objectively chastise men who sign the affirmation statement with no intent to abide by it, while at the same time commending this Tulsa group, who have obviously engaged in unethical and deceptive behavior?

Where is your consistency?

Coonskinner 01-26-2008 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On (Post 369120)
Perhaps they didn't anticipate how many were going to participate at the outset and when they found out decided it was enough to form an organization?
PO, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I don't mind admitting that.

But it is just slightly possible that there might not be near as much intrigue and guile here as the detractors want to perceive.

It seemed to me early on that different things, slightly, were being stated by different members of the original six. That tells me that they really might not have totally worked out all the details months in advance the way some want to think.

The concept seems to have evolved somewhat since the first tentative reports came out.

That is what I think.

But I will admit openly that I am biased in favor of men I have respected my whole life, and am hesitant to believe ill of them.

Nahum 01-26-2008 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind (Post 369118)
From what I understand-
It is a fellowship with no credentials. One does not have to leave behind the UPC to be a member.

Your post is troubling.

see Post #239 from Coonskinner.
How is my post troubling?

I am not trying to be vicious here, I just don't think that entire conversation should be swept under the rug.

I was banned over that event.

I took my punishment - no problem.

I just think there is an issue that is being overlooked here.

Weary Pilgrim 01-26-2008 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind (Post 369118)
From what I understand-
It is a fellowship with no credentials. One does not have to leave behind the UPC to be a member.
Your post is troubling.

see Post #239 from Coonskinner.

All of this talk about being at peace with the UPC sounds good politically,but if it was really true,why are they making their young people break all ties with their friends from other UPC churches?

Barb 01-26-2008 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner (Post 369126)
PO, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I don't mind admitting that.

But it is just slightly possible that there might not be near as much intrigue and guile here as the detractors want to perceive.

It seemed to me early on that different things, slightly, were being stated by different members of the original six. That tells me that they really might not have totally worked out all the details months in advance the way some want to think.

The concept seems to have evolved somewhat since the first tentative reports came out.

That is what I think.

But I will admit openly that I am biased in favor of men I have respected my whole life, and am hesitant to believe ill of them.
As we should be...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 AM.
Page 25 of 83 « First 15161718192021222324 25 2627282930313233343575 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.