Hey!!!!!! This Just Dawned On Me!!!!!! - Page 5

Carpenter · #41 10-03-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

People do not like accountability...........pure and simple as that..........

IAINT CMON MAN!!!! Is a mob mentality OK because the mob has accountability to the cause and those he is running with?

Don't mind me, I have no idea what that means either.

Sarah · #42 10-03-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

This is already being debated about. I hope the organization revisits the abominable AS and corrects the mistake it made by passing it.

Then they need to go one step furthur and check the writing on the license a person signs for getting in the organization. I think they are very similar.

Kansas Preacher · #43 10-03-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Encryptus

If that is all the "AS" is would have to agree, why would anyone be afraid to re-affirm what they have already signed???

That's my point! EVERY minister fills out the EXACT SAME APPLICATION when they go for licensing. The questions on the Affirmation Statement are included on the original application in some form.

The Affirmation Statement simply has a person "affirm" that they STILL believe what they believed when they were first granted credentials.

I still don't see why it is such a problem.

Kansas Preacher · #44 10-03-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

*** BUMP ***
The entire Atlantic District was brought onboard without having to sign at the beginning. For them the 1992 AS was something of a betrayal of trust.

Before voting on the Resolution (I was there) the floor had many questions about how the General Board had voted on the issue. The fact of the matter was, there was so much division on the General Board that they never even voted. This fact was not disclosed and a false statement was made that "90% to 99%" of the General Board was behind the resolution. Basically, we at the conference in '92 were deceived. I have a problem with that.

Finally, the required reading material for ministers was always thought of as an "explanation" of the AoF, Manual and other things that a minister was signing on to. As the Required Reading materials were purged of their PCI material, the implications of what we were signing was changed as well. No votes were ever taken to purge this material. It was largely done behind closed doors. This also represented a problem for me. Basically they changed the meaning of the AoF between the time I first signed and the time that they asked me to sign again.

They made these changes behind closed doors without an open discussion; and then they offered up the AS deceitfully.

This is nonsense, plain and simple. The Affirmation Statement asks whether or not you believe, preach, teach, and live the Articles of Faith. You truly expect me to believe that the entire Atlantic District NEVER had to agree to the Articles of Faith? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

Kansas Preacher · #45 10-03-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Kinda like the guy who when his wife asked him why he never said he loved her "I told you I did 10 years ago, and I'll let you know if I ever change my mind"?

I've used that very story to explain the way I view the Affirmation Statement. Great minds think alike.

Kansas Preacher · #46 10-03-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

it is the "Infernal Document"

"blasted" is an adjective.

and it is because the intent was to exclude part of the UPCI that had been a part of the UPCI from day one. (we are talking PCI vs Water Spirit).

Ferd, a very dear friend of mine, the late Elder Leonard Westberg, was the author of the resolution which created the Affirmation Statement. I never heard him say ONE WORD about trying to "exclude" the "PCI" mentality. This is the FIRST TIME I have EVER heard anyone say that. How did you come up with that?

NLYP · #47 10-03-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

That's my point! EVERY minister fills out the EXACT SAME APPLICATION when they go for licensing. The questions on the Affirmation Statement are included on the original application in some form.

The Affirmation Statement simply has a person "affirm" that they STILL believe what they believed when they were first granted credentials.

I still don't see why it is such a problem.

Bro....I am sitting here looking at a General License App....Nowhere does it ask if you agree to abide by the Holiness standards of the UPCI.

Unless...Im blind....

Kansas Preacher · #48 10-03-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLYP

Bro....I am sitting here looking at a General License App....Nowhere does it ask if you agree to abide by the Holiness standards of the UPCI.

Unless...Im blind....

You mean you're NOT?

I don't happen to have a copy right here. I'll have to check when I get to the office tomorrow. I am thinking that the wording in the application is about agreeing with and obeying the Articles of Faith (which include holiness).

CC1 · #49 10-03-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

Ferd, a very dear friend of mine, the late Elder Leonard Westberg, was the author of the resolution which created the Affirmation Statement. I never heard him say ONE WORD about trying to "exclude" the "PCI" mentality. This is the FIRST TIME I have EVER heard anyone say that. How did you come up with that?

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I am going to ask you to clairfy your post above by asking you directly the following question;

Do you think that for one moment Westburg accomodated the "PCI mentality" in the UPC?

Next you will be telling me that Westburg was a kindly old gentlemen preacher who didn't lambast other UPC preachers by name from the pulpit.

This could be a better job of rewriting hstory than the Dems have done with Jimmy Carter. He has built a few Habitat For Humanity homes in retirement and you would think that means he was a great President instead of one of the worst in history to hear the mainstream media and Dems.

Kansas Preacher · #50 10-03-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I am going to ask you to clairfy your post above by asking you directly the following question;

Do you think that for one moment Westburg accomodated the "PCI mentality" in the UPC?

Next you will be telling me that Westburg was a kindly old gentlemen preacher who didn't lambast other UPC preachers by name from the pulpit.

This could be a better job of rewriting hstory than the Dems have done with Jimmy Carter. He has built a few Habitat For Humanity homes in retirement and you would think that means he was a great President instead of one of the worst in history to hear the mainstream media and Dems.

All I'm telling you is that I NEVER heard him say ANYTHING about the "PCI mentality" PERIOD. I've had MANY discussions with him, but honestly NEVER heard him bring it up.

And, by the way, he truly WAS "a kindly old gentleman." You don't build a revival church of over 500 in a town of 13,000 by being cruel, harsh, and full of bitterness.