I fully expect the affirmation statement to be removed.
However, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it is such a problem for some people. You sign the very same thing when you get license in the first place.
I know people don't do it much anymore, but when I was a kid, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day. Why does it hurt to reaffirm once every two years that you still believe what you believed when you joined?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why the "AS" is a "blasted" "infernal" thing. Someone help me out here.
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.
I fully expect the affirmation statement to be removed.
However, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it is such a problem for some people. You sign the very same thing when you get license in the first place.
I know people don't do it much anymore, but when I was a kid, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day. Why does it hurt to reaffirm once every two years that you still believe what you believed when you joined?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why the "AS" is a "blasted" "infernal" thing. Someone help me out here.
If that is all the "AS" is would have to agree, why would anyone be afraid to re-affirm what they have already signed???
I fully expect the affirmation statement to be removed.
However, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it is such a problem for some people. You sign the very same thing when you get license in the first place.
I know people don't do it much anymore, but when I was a kid, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day. Why does it hurt to reaffirm once every two years that you still believe what you believed when you joined?
I'm sorry, but I just don't get why the "AS" is a "blasted" "infernal" thing. Someone help me out here.
Agreed...
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
*** 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.
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.
Other than the fact it was "deceitfully" introduced the first time, surely those in the organization have since signed? Also, what were the changes that were so bad that ministers would want to leave then? And since this happened 15 years ago it apparently wouldn't apply to the newer ministers, do they also have a problem with re-affirming? (Sincere questions)
Linear Mode
