Another SPLIT from the UPCI???

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

The fact that he signs an affirmation statement to obtain his UPC license allows us the luxury of assuming that he preaches and practices what he pledges to preach and practice.

Doesn't it?

Nathan Urshan wrote and told the ministers to just go ahead and sign and not worry about anyone calling you to account for it. In other words, the signature is a just formality with no meaning

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Sam

Nathan Urshan wrote and told the ministers to just go ahead and sign and not worry about anyone calling you to account for it. In other words, the signature is a just formality with no meaning

Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?

Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."

You must have received a different letter than the one I have.

Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?

Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."

You must have received a different letter than the one I have.

Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

Maple Leaf,
I am not UPC so I did not get the letter sent to me.
I have seen a copy of it and the way I remember the gist of it, that was the impression I got. In other words, Bro. Urshan was saying, "Just sign it and don't worry about it. We don't really care what you preach or teach. We just want your signature."
It has been a long time since I've seen the letter. I don't know if I have a copy of it any more, and if I do, I don't know where it's filed. And, I may have drawn some inference from it that someone else might not have.

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by Sam

Maple Leaf,
I am not UPC so I did not get the letter sent to me.
I have seen a copy of it and the way I remember the gist of it, that was the impression I got. In other words, Bro. Urshan was saying, "Just sign it and don't worry about it. We don't really care what you preach or teach. We just want your signature."
It has been a long time since I've seen the letter. I don't know if I have a copy of it any more, and if I do, I don't know where it's filed. And, I may have drawn some inference from it that someone else might not have.

That's the way I heard it too.
My husband no longer has UPCI Lic, but our DS basically stated it was ok to sign it based on the letter Bro Urshan sent with it.
It's been my observation that individual districts accept or reject the signatures.

[oletime]

for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by oletime

for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo

Huh? He was GS in '93

What are you talking about that he wouldn't have allowed to have passed? The AS or the advertising on TV?

[oletime]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Huh? He was GS in '93

What are you talking about that he wouldn't have allowed to have passed? The AS or the advertising on TV?

the advertising on tv because of the division it would and did cause

[EA]

Originally Posted by oletime

for the life of me i cannot understand how anyone can twist a meaning out of bro urshans statement its simple folks he said nothing about not caring whether you believed the affirmation or not he said if you believe it sign it and dont worry about anyone else disputing or interpeting your signature period.i said it before ill say it again the worst day imho was when bro urshan passed if he were still gs this never would have been shoved through by what 900 some votes out of something like 30000 i been told worldwide? whatever the numbers it was a miniscule proportion he would have gaveled it out of existence forever because he knew it would cause exactly what happened that folks is leadership and wisdom you can say they would have left eventually anyway but that is pure self serving speculation. they contended to the disunity of the body ie: the split, plain and simple.i only wish i could ask bro mangun and some others if they had it to do over would they? from what little i have seen of bro manguns spirit i think he probably does regret it. i dont think he is a divisive person, or a liberal so called. you cant be against tv or internet in the home and then advertise or broadcast on it to do so is ridiculous . that is why it shouldnt have been passed unless they want to eliminate the as which is probably next but they did it backwards.ps if you preach agaisnt this and cut hair etc etc and most of your people are still doing it it must be because your allowing it on the platform with no consequences or you dont really care or your a hireling jmo

Friend, I think it would be best if you just closed your trap for a bit.

The UPC currently has around 8700 ministers worldwide, not 30,000.

And of those 8700, only around 2000 showed up in Tampa to vote. The margin of passage was around 2-3%. That is very common in many ballot initiatives, and most Presidential elections fall within a similar margin.

Please, don't rewrite history to fit your agenda.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Friend, I think it would be best if you just closed your trap for a bit.

The UPC currently has around 8700 ministers worldwide, not 30,000.

And of those 8700, only around 2000 showed up in Tampa to vote. The margin of passage was around 2-3%. That is very common in many ballot initiatives, and most Presidential elections fall within a similar margin.

Please, don't rewrite history to fit your agenda.

Ed, you are actually wrong on these numbers. The UPC has over 30,000 ministers.

[harleypreacher]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Where in the world did you ever get an idea like that?

Bro. Urshan wrote: "If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications."

You must have received a different letter than the one I have.

Wholehearted disapproval of cut hair and makeup doesn't leave much room for ambiguity.

\


This is part of the letter that Nathaniel A. Urshan sent out, dated January 18, 1993 concerning the resolution that now forced ministers to sign a statement, called the Minister's Affirmation.

The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a sign statement.

The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and applications.

Some people have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rings, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saint. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.


Sounds to me that it's left to the pastor's discretion on how he wants to manage and run his church when it comes to standards.