Post UPCI Gen Supt. Election Questions

[n david]

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

Why the Holy Spirit wasn't checking PMs spirit while he was peacocking and sabre rattling to cons for the last year while trashing emergents and signaling to confidantes he would run is puzzling.

Lots of maybes, perhaps with PM?

Maybe his church is in a building project that is close to 20 million dollars in debt?

Maybe he has not been to secure his lineage (in law) as pastor as the church is not keen to the idea, and subsequently unable to secure a nest egg?

And, maybe it might be a reticent spouse or underlying health issues?

Originally Posted by GraceAmazing

I think someone already mentioned this, but I think it's truth....I think Mooney pulled his name because the lineage of the church (in law) has not been established. A lot of people do not want him as their pastor...I think PM is a good man, but he knows where to stay if he wants to keep a job and money coming in...in Indy. At a great church, good school and at least he's sticking with the building program!

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yep. True.

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

PM can say that he could have been the GS if he had wanted it. That gives him a LOT of political clout!

He can now keep his current position and have a heavy say in the direction the UPCI chooses to take.

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yep. He gets the best of both worlds that way. PM is no dummy.

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

You're being inflammatory. To accept someone's statement and move forward based on that in spite of doubt is not to call them a liar, it's merely taking what they say with a grain of salt and not having blind faith in a man. It is cautiously giving them the benefit of the doubt. Especially so when you're talking about a man who has demonstrated in very recent past a propensity for open and private politiking.

I'm not ... just connecting the dots.

It was said the reason he pulled his name was because he felt God told him to.

Others, including you, have openly questioned that reason and believe it to be something else ... hence PM is lying when he gave the reason.

You may not like the connection, but it is what it is ...

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not ... just connecting the dots.

It was said the reason he pulled his name was because he felt God told him to.

Others, including you, have openly questioned that reason and believe it to be something else ... hence PM is lying when he gave the reason.

You may not like the connection, but it is what it is ...

Sigh...this is retarded. Look, I'll try to be clear for you. I am not saying that PM is lying. He could be telling the truth. Idk, and neither do you. You choose to believe him. I choose to be neutral on it and not make a judgement either way. If others want to make a judgement either way then that's fine, I'm not doing that other than to say that based on my personal observation of his recent and past politiking as well as what I know from people close to me who have worked closely with him I am not so quick to just automatically accept what he has as gospel truth and assume that his motives for withdrawing weren't political. You may choose to do so, that's cool. But I choose to not be so quick to accept it at face value and not accept it blindly as some seem to do. I choose (based on my experience) to accept it, but with a grain of salt, realizing that there are lots of logical reasons for him to say what he said. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but you're calling me a liar for doing so.

Let me give you an example of how this works in a related scenario. I texted my dad who was in the meeting as it was happening. I asked him why PM withdrew his name. He said that it was because someone had nominated him without his knowledge and once he learned of it he immediately withdrew his nomination because he 'felt a check'. I didn't believe that story to be likely, but did I call my dad a liar or think he was lying? No. I accepted it, but had my doubts. I just figured there was more to the story than that. Turns out I was right. Just because you are respectful and accept someone's explanation but wonder if they're telling the whole truth doesn't mean you are calling them a liar.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Sigh...this is retarded. Look, I'll try to be clear for you. I am not saying that PM is lying. He could be telling the truth. Idk, and neither do you. You choose to believe him. I choose to be neutral on it and not make a judgement either way. If others want to make a judgement either way then that's fine, I'm not doing that other than to say that based on my personal observation of his recent and past politiking as well as what I know from people close to me who have worked closely with him I am not so quick to just automatically accept what he has as gospel truth and assume that his motives for withdrawing weren't political. You may choose to do so, that's cool. But I choose to not be so quick to accept it at face value and not accept it blindly as some seem to do. I choose (based on my experience) to accept it, but with a grain of salt, realizing that there are lots of logical reasons for him to say what he said. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but you're calling me a liar for doing so.

Let me give you an example of how this works in a related scenario. I texted my dad who was in the meeting as it was happening. I asked him why PM withdrew his name. He said that it was because someone had nominated him without his knowledge and once he learned of it he immediately withdrew his nomination because he didn't want to be GS. I didn't believe that story to be likely, but did I call my dad a liar or think he was lying? No. I accepted it, but had my doubts. I just figured there was more to the story than that. Turns out I was right. Just because you are respectful and accept someone's explanation but wonder if they're telling the truth doesn't mean you think they're a liar.

I don't see anyone calling PM a liar! All I'm saying is that I doubt PM heard an audible voice. I believe he felt what he needed to do in his spirit after some thought and prayer. My problem is that he isn't owning his decision to take his name off the political ballot. He is saying "God told me to do it". Well....nobody better question God!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not ... just connecting the dots.

It was said the reason he pulled his name was because he felt God told him to.

Others, including you, have openly questioned that reason and believe it to be something else ... hence PM is lying when he gave the reason.

You may not like the connection, but it is what it is ...

I agree with you generally, n_david.

It could be that the "check in his spirit" (PM's) that he felt was the Lord showing him what the cost of holding such a position would be for him. It may be that the "check" was something like, "you might get this - but here's the people who will be hurt and the many ways in which they will be hurt if you are elected." Or some other "cost."

I don't really see "God" as being directly involved in these things, necessarily; and I speak as someone who has held an elected position (three in fact) within the UPC.

"We" have the power to make such decisions with regard to our leadership. It's just like I can choose to involve myself in other activities, and the way that I can chose to esteem or withhold esteem from my brethren (and sisters too).

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I agree with you generally, n_david.

It could be that the "check in his spirit" (PM's) that he felt was the Lord showing him what the cost of holding such a position would be for him. It may be that the "check" was something like, "you might get this - but here's the people who will be hurt and the many ways in which they will be hurt if you are elected." Or some other "cost."

I don't really see "God" as being directly involved in these things, necessarily; and I speak as someone who has held an elected position (three in fact) within the UPC.

"We" have the power to make such decisions with regard to our leadership. It's just like I can choose to involve myself in other activities, and the way that I can chose to esteem or withhold esteem from my brethren (and sisters too).

Yeah..but. When you say 'in my spirit' you don't think it carries a connotation of divine intervention? It does to me...you may as well be saying "God said", same difference. If it's not God then be like Paul and say "Hey, I'm not sayin' this is God, it's probably me, but it seems best to me..."

We're splitting hairs.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yeah..but. When you say 'in my spirit' you don't think it carries a connotation of divine intervention? It does to me...you may as well be saying "God said", same difference. If it's not God then be like Paul and say "Hey, I'm not sayin' this is God, it's probably me, but it seems best to me..."

We're splitting hairs.

Right, because who would be the one performing the "checking in the Spirit"? The answer is God.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yeah..but. When you say 'in my spirit' you don't think it carries a connotation of divine intervention? It does to me...you may as well be saying "God said", same difference. If it's not God then be like Paul and say "Hey, I'm not sayin' this is God, it's probably me, but it seems best to me..."

We're splitting hairs.

I didn't quite intend to split that hair. I agree that what he said DID amount to a claim for divine revelation, at least of some sort of divine revelation.

My only point was that maybe it wasn't "God" telling him that he was NOT to be GS; but rather "God" telling him of the nature and the effect such an office would have on himself and those around him.

And then God sort of "steps back" and allows the humans to make their own decisions and choices. In this view we don't have a "God" operating a political machine like some sort of heavenly version of a Boss Tweed or Richard Daly.

Instead, we have a God who is the source of wisdom and insight and One Who helps "both sides" to see things with a bit of clarity and then leaves the personal choices up to the individuals He inspires.

If God did speak in such a way to folks and gave them this information, then I think we'd see a rather large number of candidates bowing out due to a similar "check in their spirit."

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I didn't quite intend to split that hair. I agree that what he said DID amount to a claim for divine revelation, at least of some sort of divine revelation.

My only point was that maybe it wasn't "God" telling him that he was NOT to be GS; but rather "God" telling him of the nature and the effect such an office would have on himself and those around him.

And then God sort of "steps back" and allows the humans to make their own decisions and choices. In this view we don't have a "God" operating a political machine like some sort of heavenly version of a Boss Tweed or Richard Daly.

Instead, we have a God who is the source of wisdom and insight and One Who helps "both sides" to see things with a bit of clarity and then leaves the personal choices up to the individuals He inspires.

If God did speak in such a way to folks and gave them this information, then I think we'd see a rather large number of candidates bowing out due to a similar "check in their spirit."

How come Jerry Jones didn't feel the same check in his spirit? Did God want for there to be a runoff election? Was JJ not sensitive enough to the voice of God?

If another leader like Bro. Haney was still in the running, would God have changed PM's mind? If it looked like a preacher who was tolerant of the extremes looked like he would win, would PM have let his name run?

Lot's of questions! Don't you LOVE religious politics?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

How come Jerry Jones didn't feel the same check in his spirit? Did God want for there to be a runoff election? Was JJ not sensitive enough to the voice of God?

If another leader like Bro. Haney was still in the running, would God have changed PM's mind? If it looked like a preacher who was tolerant of the extremes looked like he would win, would PM have let his name run?

Lot's of questions! Don't you LOVE religious politics?

Dunno. I don't think the Almighty is too concerned with weeding out and sorting the various candidates for a position within the UPC. But if we lack wisdom on a matter we can confidently ask and receive some illumination.

Maybe JJ didn't think to ask, or maybe he's one who tells God how it's going to be when he prays (I doubt that though, because I've prayed with him before). Or maybe the circumstances in JJ's life are a bit different than those in PM's life?

Maybe "God" was telling PM to dodge a bullet, and didn't tell JJ because that bullet wasn't aimed at him?

Human lives are almost infinitely complex. All I can do is apply some principles of complexity and then I'll see, or at least be able to imagine, all of the ways the two men's lives and callings are different.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Dunno. I don't think the Almighty is too concerned with weeding out and sorting the various candidates for a position within the UPC. But if we lack wisdom on a matter we can confidently ask and receive some illumination.

Maybe JJ didn't think to ask, or maybe he's one who tells God how it's going to be when he prays (I doubt that though, because I've prayed with him before). Or maybe the circumstances in JJ's life are a bit different than those in PM's life?

Maybe "God" was telling PM to dodge a bullet, and didn't tell JJ because that bullet wasn't aimed at him?

Human lives are almost infinitely complex. All I can do is apply some principles of complexity and then I'll see, or at least be able to imagine, all of the ways the two men's lives and callings are different.

Great answer!