Original Merger Letter - Page 6

SDG · #51 10-13-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

I know you think it puts a hole in it. I still don't. Guess we'll always disagree on that one.

When faced w/ a primary document and a revisionist view .... I'll side w/ the primary document. Thanks *wink*.

rrford · #52 10-13-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

She is clearly making a statement against holiness preachers here RR ... I'm sorry ... she is pining about the good ol' days and taking a dig at those who believe in "plainess of dress" to try to separate her retelling w/ of the early movement and what she saw later in the 30's-50's is not intellectually honest.

"We did not wear uniforms. The lady workers dressed in the current fashions of the day.....silks....satins.... jewels or whatever they happened to possess. They were very smartly turned out so that they made an impressive appearance on the streets where a large part of our work was conducive in the early years.

It was not until long after, when former holiness preachers had become part of us that strict plainness of dress began to be taught.

Although entire sanctification was preached at the beginning of the movement, it was from a Wesleyan viewpoint, and had in it very little of the holiness movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for what everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seeming never occurred to any of us."

I still read it as observation and not necessarily criticism. Her reference to "uniforms" is probably referring to other groups who would dress in uniforms for the purpose of evangelism.

No doubt, either viewpoint could be expressed from her writings because she is not specific at all. We can only infer her intent, IMO.

rrford · #53 10-13-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

When faced w/ a primary document and a revisionist view .... I'll side w/ the primary document. Thanks *wink*.

And of course, your view of the document is always correct. Must be nice to always be right.

SDG · #54 10-13-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

And of course, your view of the document is always correct. Must be nice to always be right.

Well at least 90% of the time ... Is this revisionist view of OP history taught in bible colleges? Are primary documents ever examined?

rrford · #55 10-13-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Well at least 90% of the time ... Is this revisionist view of OP history taught in bible colleges? Are primary documents ever examined?

How can one answer such a question since no one has ever been able to definitively say what the actual intent was or what the actual revisionist view is? But I am sure if we hang around long enough you will tell us the "correct" view of each.

Steve Epley · #56 10-13-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Well at least 90% of the time ... Is this revisionist view of OP history taught in bible colleges? Are primary documents ever examined?

Dan WAP has published and sold her book for years how could they be HIDING her views? Watch it the black helicopters are over head.

rrford · #57 10-13-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan WAP has published and sold her book for years how could they be HIDING her views? Watch it the black helicopters are over head.

Now be careful. We know they definitely hide any views contrary to theirs.

SDG · #58 10-13-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan WAP has published and sold her book for years how could they be HIDING her views? Watch it the black helicopters are over head.

I was referring to the letter in post 1, Elder.

Steve Epley · #59 10-13-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

How can one answer such a question since no one has ever been able to definitively say what the actual intent was or what the actual revisionist view is? But I am sure if we hang around long enough you will tell us the "correct" view of each.

I gave him a direct quote from I pastor I have known for years that matters little since it does not validate his point. The pastor involved has never wore a colored shirt to church since that encounter after all Elder Goss was a legend particulary to the NB brethren. He was not criticizing Goss but just relating a story. I can give you his phone number he is a Texan now.

rrford · #60 10-13-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I was referring to the letter in post 1, Elder.

Say, uhm, it seems to me you have lately been referring to EG's writings and not the letter. Silly me, I am wrong again. Somehow you can start with a letter, digress to a book and then when someone else mentions the book you respond by saying you were talking about the letter. Wow.