Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?

[n david]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree with Bro. Mooney; the secretive meetings and gathering of people to discuss what "shall be done" about current issues is nonsense.

Let them line up in front of the general board and picket and expound and plead and publicly declare a preaching strike or whatEVER--but there is no need to be secretive unless you are trying to draw people away from the organization or work some mischief behind the backs of others.

MOST of the time, what is done in secret needs to be hidden for a reason. I certainly don't teach my children to be secretive or to conceal their thoughts, words and actions. So adults even moreso need to learn to be bold and express themselves forthrightly and honestly, without subterfuge.

Now. That said. I have no idea what the secret meeting in Detroit was about, whether it had anything to do with the organization or not, and whether "secret" is the correct term for the event. "Exclusive" is not the same thing as "secret." But, it obviously wasn't public. I have to be a little suspicious of people who exclude anyone or any group who can offer dissension or an opposing viewpoint.

I believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.

PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.

Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?

What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.

Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...

IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by n david

I believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.

PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.

Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?

What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.

Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...

IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.

A few problems with this post. Speculation about PM's "hurt feelings" is speculation at best. This was not an "airing of grievances" but an entirely appropriate confrontation for those of who you ironically see no distinction between clergy and saints.

Paul didn't "name names" when addressing the Judaizers (oh he did on occassion), but more often, it's better to address the situation, then to sniper out names. I think you would be on this forum posting how awful that would be if that had happened.

Lastly, I wasn't at the service, but not all times of instruction are intended to be a place for people are receiving the Holy Ghost. And Campmeetings tend to be more for the exhortation of the church. Just because they didn't have a prayer line doesn't mean PM was wrong with addressing problems in the church -- and as a Superintendent and elder, he was well within bounds.

Do I agree with him? That's different. But his conduct was well within permissible bounds.

[n david]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Paul didn't "name names" when addressing the Judaizers (oh he did on occassion), but more often, it's better to address the situation, then to sniper out names. I think you would be on this forum posting how awful that would be if that had happened.

Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."

IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by n david

Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."

IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.

No, there are many ways to be confrontational, and both can be effective when used in the right way. Had PM went on a list of names, you'd really have yourself in a hizzy fit about what is appropriate for a campmeeting.

False prophet? Who said that? I think he warned about the damage, history and vulnerability of secret meetings. He made his point loud and clear, lest others are asked to participate in such meetings (and I'm sure that was his point).

Now, point aside, I'm not sure it was "secret", though certainly exclusive. But we've all been the kid without the birthday invitation at one time or another, right?

2 issues are here on this post:

1) Was the Detroit meeting okay?
2) Was PM in-bounds with this comments at the MS campmeeting?

For me #1 depends on many factors that I simply don't know about the meeting. And #2 is yes, he was okay to do what he did at the campmeeting. Doesn't mean I agree with his judgement, but he was perfectly within bounds.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Paul Harvey

Mooney states that one cannot go to sleep with "snakes in the house". He proclaims that false prophets "are among us."

He asks "Who are these "progressive" theologians who are wanting to lead us away from Pentecost? ... I'm not going with you!"

Originally Posted by Paul Harvey

Mooney alludes to the actions of some brethren as "cunning","conniving", "crafting" and that God is testing the Church in these last days with "dreamers" and "false prophets".

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

False prophet? Who said that? I think he warned about the damage, history and vulnerability of secret meetings. He made his point loud and clear, lest others are asked to participate in such meetings (and I'm sure that was his point).

Read the above.

The more I think about it, the more I remember PM with a stage presence. Like Jeff Arnold, he has this platform personna he uses and part of that is the bravado and stuff in this message.

Question remains ... was it just his platform personna, or does he really believe these men to be thieves, liars, false prophets, etc...?

[James Griffin]

There was never ANY talk of leaving the UPCI.

It was exclusive and not secret.

Like minded people meeting for fellowship and a communion service.

My Lord have mercy, how can you call anything "secret" that was the the subject of several threads on another forum weeks before the meeting.

As much as I love the UPCI it is its nature to rally AGAINST a perceived common enemy,( even when that enemy is a total straw man), ESPECIALLY when the main ones SOUNDING THE ALARM, are either incumbents or currently running for political office.

If the UPCI had spent a tenth the energy preaching what it is for, instead of what it is against (the last few decades especially) it would probably be ten times its present size.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

There was never ANY talk of leaving the UPCI.

It was exclusive and not secret.

Like minded people meeting for fellowship and a communion service.

My Lord have mercy, how can you call anything "secret" that was the the subject of several threads on another forum weeks before the meeting.

As much as I love the UPCI it is its nature to rally AGAINST a perceived common enemy,( even when that enemy is a total straw man), ESPECIALLY when the main ones SOUNDING THE ALARM, are either incumbents or currently running for political office.

If the UPCI had spent a tenth the energy preaching what it is for, instead of what it is against (the last few decades especially) it would probably be ten times its present size.

I couldn't agree with you more!

You don't need to use fear to rally the troops against those in your own circles!

[U376977]

Just a causual observer here. I'm not in UPC, never will be. When this "invite only" meeting was posted about here, now being called "secret" it was described as a "networking" meeting and that is was not a threat and they did not was to divide the UPCI, blah, blah, blah.
Now that Mooney has laid the "t..in the punch bowl" it seems like the "general board" has a lot of concerns. And that there was more to the meeting than what has been disclosed. One poster told me "the UPC is all about control;" how dare some of her preachers call a meeting without getting approval. They must be conspirators Brutus! In the name of God kill them all!

[papapraiz]

Originally Posted by n david

Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."

IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.

To be fair ... I believe it was MJ another younger speaker, whom some say called himself a "prophet" to the younger generation before the detroit meeting during a meeting in louisiana. I don't think PM was targeting TFT and RJ.