Tulsa Report Day 2

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Steadfast, at the risk of banning I am going to address this again.

You were the one (back in October) who assured us that a new org wasn't in the works. When many, many posters affirmed otherwise - you body-slammed them and said their opinion was akin to wild speculation (paraphrase).

So Friend, I have some respect for you, but your credibility has taken a hit here.

Could it be that your bias clouded your judgement?

Again, I was banned over that whole conversation (a first for me), but I still feel just as strongly as I did back then that these men fully intended to do what they are doing now.

How else can you explain Kevin Prince as the only anti-tv speaker on the floor of GC this year.

LB was silent.
JG was silent.
NW was silent.

If this issue was so important, why the silence?

The answer is clear.

They already had a plan.

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

Please Sir, don't insult me.

This was deception in its purest form.

Are you really so naive as to think I would buy the argument that the WWPF is not an organization?

You continue to defend these men at all costs.

Further, my mention of Bro Prince was not an insult to him (though I do have a personal history with the man). He quitted himself well on the floor of GC.

Very eloquent.

My point is that our system of governance is one of following. We follow men.

Where were the men who could have turned the tide?

They were silent.

Totally silent.

This little charade has been fun, but anyone with two functioning brain cells can see it for what it is.

A charade.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

PP, I can only speak those things which I 'see and hear' and what I was told -from the coordinator himself - is that it wouldn't be an 'organization' as such was EXACTLY what I was told by the individual. His precise words, beyond that, were that "What we're doing is NOTHING that will mandate turning in your license with the UPC. We're forming a network of fellowship between conservative minded men."

I'm not so sure that they are defining it as an organization, a network or a fellowship.

As for Bro. Prince being the speaker against the resolution? It was he who was the representative of the anti-TV advertising crowd and, as such, the one designated to speak and asked for from the floor.

Outside of that there wasn't much conversation on either side and a quick call for the question. That no more means this was a premeditated genesis of a new organization than the fact that you didn't speak FOR it was a premeditated act by yourself to start an organization of your own.

And, as for my credibility? I make myself of no reputation and my life is before enough people that it's an open book. For what it's worth, I think enough people on AFF know me and respect me that I'm not in any danger of being excommunicated anytime soon.



No, PP, if my unwillingness to devour either side of this equation is wrong then, well, I'm guilty as sin. If, however, I'm right in not devouring my brothers... well... it would appear a lot of others are in serious trouble.

For the record, I'll take my chances right where I am.

Of course, you will. You will take your chances and you'll remain right where you are...on either side of the issues...depending upon the hour and the amount of information available...

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

I rest my case...oh, yes...maybe you can find an even larger font...

What I meant was...let's get off the "what he said stuff" and discuss the bigger issue of the ramifications of the WPF versus UPCI split...I'll start first...here's why I say it is a control-driven event...

1. Being unable to "control" the outcome of the GC voting, they needed an outlet to "control" their environment, i.e., form a new fellows.., I'm sorry, a new organization that will assist in "controlling" the issue, thereby its overall impact on them and their fellowship buddies.

2. Having said that, I believe that it is ALSO a "control" issue for those on the majority vote side. In the aftermath of the vote, they seek to "control" the hearts and minds of their constituency at large...those beyond the immediate influence of the "Tulsa 6."

So I think I'm being fair here to both sides...it is clearly a control issue for both. I'll even give you the point that I could have stated that upfront in the discussion.

Riiiiiiiiiight...let's just ignore the fact that Pelathais blithely called a respected poster a liar and just discuss issues.

It is remarkable that Pelathais has such vast knowledge of the Apostolic movement that he can confirm or deny everything that did or didn't happen.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Riiiiiiiiiight...let's just ignore the fact that Pelathais blithely called a respected poster a liar and just discuss issues.

It is remarkable that Pelathais has such vast knowledge of the Apostolic movement that he can confirm or deny everything that did or didn't happen.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

CS...what did you do? Just wake up to these posts?

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

CS...what did you do? Just wake up to these posts?

I didn't look at the forum after about midmorning yesterday until this morning.

I read this thread and saw a good man's word and integrity dragged through the mud, and a bunch of folks who have banned people for doing similar things acting like they don't care.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I didn't look at the forum after about midmorning yesterday until this morning.

I read this thread and saw a good man's word and integrity dragged through the mud, and a bunch of folks who have banned people for doing similar things acting like they don't care.

yada, yada, yada, yada...etc., etc. etc.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

I didn't look at the forum after about midmorning yesterday until this morning.I read this thread and saw a good man's word and integrity dragged through the mud, and a bunch of folks who have banned people for doing similar things acting like they don't care.

Shame on your for not having your priorities right! You know good and well that AFF and Community Coffee early in the morning are the only way to start the day! (yeah I know it is 10:14 am and I am just now checking in and I am drinking Folgers Gourmet blend coffee, but do as I say not as I do!!!)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Riiiiiiiiiight...let's just ignore the fact that Pelathais blithely called a respected poster a liar and just discuss issues.

It is remarkable that Pelathais has such vast knowledge of the Apostolic movement that he can confirm or deny everything that did or didn't happen.

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Go back and actually read my posts this time and see for yourself if the word "blithley" is appropriate.

And the "issues" I discussed are the very things that Steadfast himself called "the issues:" "shacking up" and "social drinking" in the UPC. I say it didn't happen the way he describes it.

At first he worded the "shacking up with young men" to make it sound as if openly homosexual men were being used on the platform. Everyone who responded to his post read the "homosexual" implication, myself included. I'm left to wonder - based upon Steadfast's response - if that wasn't intentional. But he clarified and said it was a "woman" who was "shacking up with young men."

How would you like it if someone made that accusation about yourself and your church? "Coonskinner can't be fellowshipped anymore because he is using a woman on his platform and he knows that she is openly 'shacking up' with the young men in the church."

I would think that you might appreciate it if someone a couple hundred miles away spoke up and said, "I don't think Coonskinner would allow that to happen. No, it didn't happen." Would you come to my defense then, or try and defend the one who accused you of allowing gross immorality on the very platform of your church?

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Go back and actually read my posts this time and see for yourself if the word "blithley" is appropriate.

And the "issues" I discussed are the very things that Steadfast himself called "the issues:" "shacking up" and "social drinking" in the UPC. I say it didn't happen the way he describes it.

At first he worded the "shacking up with young men" to make it sound as if openly homosexual men were being used on the platform. Everyone who responded to his post read the "homosexual" implication, myself included. I'm left to wonder - based upon Steadfast's response - if that wasn't intentional. But he clarified and said it was a "woman" who was "shacking up with young men."

How would you like it if someone made that accusation about yourself and your church? "Coonskinner can't be fellowshipped anymore because he is using a woman on his platform and he knows that she is openly 'shacking up' with the young men in the church."

I would think that you might appreciate it if someone a couple hundred miles away spoke up and said, "I don't think Coonskinner would allow that to happen. No, it didn't happen." Would you come to my defense then, or try and defend the one who accused you of allowing gross immorality on the very platform of your church?

No individual was named.

And this is really neat--you becoming a defender of the UPC.

Who would have ever thought you would take off the critic's garb and go that route?