Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 227867)

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 227867)

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 227876)

One other question: If not, then would the OK District have to amend their policy as a result of a national yes vote?

Now that will be very interesting if that is the case....the OK District voting to rescend a 30 year district prohibition against the use of TV...

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 227898)

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 227867)

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 227898)

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 227922)

Oh brother....get a life. Nobody has to be in an organization to ASk questions about it, they certainly don't need anyone else permission.

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227941)

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227941)

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 227961)

... and ...



I like "The Closer." (I've never seen the show or anything related to it).

But I like the poster. At the risk of getting my own comeuppance, how has it come about that you use a Television avatar and username but slap someone down because they are have made it "so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it." ???

I don't wanna fight. I'm just intrigued and wondering what I've missed from the CBS fall line up that is so pro-UPCI.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 227900)

...
I know for example that there are places over seas like UPC Burma that a friend of mine is licensed with cause he from there and they do not make their ministers do an affirmation. They can go to movies and follow the belief of standards of dress does not send you to heaven. They are much more lacked than the mainland UPC. I have heard of this stuff happening like the Australia Tv thing mentioned on Aff before. So you never know....

Originally Posted by RandyWayne (Post 227951)

Back to the secret handshake, secret location, secret password, and secret ties to the members finances, thingie......



And every post I remember ("remember" being a keyword) coming from The Closer seems to be dripping with sarcasm, acid, cat like, and sounding like many mens "first wife".

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 227980)

Also, aren't things like facial hair on men and women's hair length non issues in some countries as far as the UPC is concerned?

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 227898)

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

Originally Posted by Sam (Post 227980)

Also, aren't things like facial hair on men and women's hair length non issues in some countries as far as the UPC is concerned?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227941)

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 228032)

From what I understand they do. I know my friend that is from Burma, now a UPCI evangelist here in the states, goes to movies and he does not see it as wrong if a girl trims her hair. It is all in the mentality of it. Over in these other contries they are out to win the lost no matter what...and they do not let the dress code or other thing cloud their judgement. The fact is that it is all a part of what the culture is about. In Burma, from what I am told is, all about evangelism. They do not get caught up in the nonimportant things.

Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 227867)

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher (Post 228048)

I am neither "bright," NOR a District Superintendent (although I used to be the latter). So long as the District manual does not directly violate the General Constitution, there is no problem. Since the General Constitution would not mandate the usage of television, I cannot see where the OK bylaws would have to be amended.

That's just my opinion, and I'm certainly not a "scholar" on these matters. (I only served as DS for three years, and District Secretary for two years before that.)

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 228053)

I really do not mean any disrespect, but I read this and can only shake my head at the lack of ethics that is involved when a man holds credentials with an organization, and then dismisses their governing bylaws to please his own fleshly lust for entertainment.

I will never license with the UPCI, because while there are some great people in it, I do not want to be named with the ones that do these type of things.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 228063)

Well you see the truth that in these other countries the organizations are named U.P.C. Burma, etc.but are not the same UPC as here. They are affiliated with the UPC in the states because many of those works were started by UPC ministers from the states. However, they have their own rules, bylaws and etc. It is a weird thing, but apparently this is how it is in some areas of the world. Out of the states they recognize the "mainlanders" license and vicaversa. Though it is not the exact same bylaws. This is all from what I was told by my friend, which he father was at one time the GS of UPCI Burma.

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 228076)

From my understanding, All missionaries that are send from the USA are under the governing constituency of the US UPC. The Foreign Missions Department is its own district, and they are a part of that district. So they are NOT outside of the bylaws of the constituency.

But you stated this man is no longer in missions anyway, but is evangelizing. So it really does not matter how the missions department is set up. He would have been transfered to a district other than the Missions department if he has left the missions field.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK (Post 228032)

From what I understand they do. I know my friend that is from Burma, now a UPCI evangelist here in the states, goes to movies and he does not see it as wrong if a girl trims her hair. It is all in the mentality of it. Over in these other contries they are out to win the lost no matter what...and they do not let the dress code or other thing cloud their judgement. The fact is that it is all a part of what the culture is about. In Burma, from what I am told is, all about evangelism. They do not get caught up in the nonimportant things.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 228080)

The man in question is not (apparently) licensed by the U.S. UPC, nor the Foreign Missions Department, but by the UPC of Burma (Myanmar). Thus he is under their manual and jurisdiction. If they have no prohibitions concerning movies or whatever, then he has no compulsion in the matter either.

The missionary preaching in his hometown (that is, back in Myanmar), however, is probably licensed by the US UPC and so he must avoid movies in both Myanmar and the US. The Burmese ministers, however, follow whatever strictures that they place upon themselves.

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227941)

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by The Closer (Post 227910)

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher (Post 228059)

I answered this on the other thread, but not until late tonight. (My internet has been down all day.)

Here's the answer I provided:



I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by stmatthew (Post 228076)

From my understanding, All missionaries that are send from the USA are under the governing constituency of the US UPC. The Foreign Missions Department is its own district, and they are a part of that district. So they are NOT outside of the bylaws of the constituency.

But you stated this man is no longer in missions anyway, but is evangelizing. So it really does not matter how the missions department is set up. He would have been transfered to a district other than the Missions department if he has left the missions field.

Originally Posted by deacon blues (Post 228127)

SHEEEESH, doesn't a guy have a right to ask a question?!?!?!?:banghead

Originally Posted by triumphant1 (Post 228195)

Thanks for the reply...It would be very interesting to know if this in fact would encourage the conservatives that are rumered to leave if passed to just stay in and pass or uphold legislation within the confines of district policy.

In other words, conservative districts would be helped by the conservatives staying and placing district prohibitions against the use of tv....right?

It would be interesting to know if this angle has been considered by the likes of LB, VM, NW, and JJ.....

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 227947)

I think the question is an interesting one. Unless the UPCI is now a secret society, then the way it functions is pretty much anyone's business.