Original Merger Letter - Page 5

SDG · #41 10-13-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barb

Thank you, Dan...he was forced out?! How did I miss reading about this?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

VOTED out it was an election. Good Grief. He didn't win. In our group we have had elections some won some lost no one was forced out. He was not the sole proprietor of the org. just an official. A. T. Morgan was not a flaming conservative himself.

Indeed AT Morgan was not a flaming a conservative ... more evidence that the forefathers of the UPCI were not "haters".

But Fudge lays out his case that the radical line in the org ... felt Goss' theology was flimsy and that they were the principal reason he was not re-elected. Elder ... no one said "voted out".

Barb ... please re-read page 103-110 where Fudge lays out the case for why Goss was not re-elected as being "theological" in nature.

Steve Epley · #42 10-13-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Indeed AT Morgan was not a flaming a conservative ... more evidence that the forefathers of the UPCI were not "haters".

But Fudge lays out his case that the radical line in the org ... felt Goss' theology was flimsy and that they were the principal reason he was not re-elected. Elder ... no one said "voted out".

Barb ... please re-read page 103-110 where Fudge lays out the case for why Goss was not re-elected as being "theological" in nature.

Dan still the fact was he was voted out. DS have been voted out-Presbyters have been voted out. Goss was simply voted out. I am NOT saying he views were not the main reason. However as I said A.T. Morgan was not a UC and he was voted in.

SDG · #43 10-13-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan still the fact was he was voted out. DS have been voted out-Presbyters have been voted out. Goss was simply voted out. I am NOT saying he views were not the main reason. However as I said A.T. Morgan was not a UC and he was voted in.

AND WE DON'T DISAGREE on Goss and Morgan ... my point is that Ethel wrote here book on the cusp of this ... hence it's fair to infer that her view in the book is swayed by what happened post 1951. I also would have to believe that as his wife ... she was taking a dig at those who began to marginalize Goss. Nor do I think its a stretch that privately Goss agreed w/ her.

stmatthew · #44 10-13-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

AND WE DON'T DISAGREE on Goss and Morgan ... my point is that Ethel wrote here book on the cusp of this ... hence it's fair to infer that her view in the book is swayed by what happened post 1951. I also would have to believe that as his wife ... she was taking a dig at those who began to marginalize Goss. Nor do I think its a stretch that privately Goss agreed w/ her.

I do not think it is a stretch either Dan.

Steve Epley · #45 10-13-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

AND WE DON'T DISAGREE on Goss and Morgan ... my point is that Ethel wrote here book on the cusp of this ... hence it's fair to infer that her view in the book is swayed by what happened post 1951. I also would have to believe that as his wife ... she was taking a dig at those who began to marginalize Goss. Nor do I think its a stretch that privately Goss agreed w/ her.

He may or may not have. I do know when preaching at the Harvey Camp he rebuked a young preacher for wearing a colored(blue) shirt? I know the preacher well. However he is no longer young.

SDG · #46 10-13-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

He may or may not have. I do know when preaching at the Harvey Camp he rebuked a young preacher for wearing a colored(blue) shirt? I know the preacher well. However he is no longer young.

Goss' testimony speaks more to this w/ his lifetime work, views on open fellowship and his beliefs that other Christians were saved ...

if I have to choose between who represents his views best... His wife or some guy's recollection of what happened or was commented at a camp w/o knowing the context ... I'll side w/ the man's wife.

rrford · #47 10-13-2007, 09:54 AM

I think her words have to be put in historical, as relating to timing, context. She is speaking of the early days of the movement from her present day situation..

Could it be that her view at the beginning was not what it was at the time of the writing? I do not see her as criticizing the holiness of dress, rather just making an observation of two different times in the evolvement of the movement.

From that view, both her recollections and Bro. Epley's would also be correct. JMO.

SDG · #48 10-13-2007, 09:57 AM

Glad you've showed up ... RR ... What do you think about this letter ....???

I think it puts a big hole in your flawed theory ... that at the time of the merger ... both sides hoped to unify themselves someday in doctrinal viewpoint...

rrford · #49 10-13-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Glad you've showed up ... RR ... What do you think about this letter ....???

I think it puts a big hole in your flawed theory ... that at the time of the merger ... both sides hoped to unify themselves someday in doctrinal viewpoint...

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

SDG · #50 10-13-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrford

I think her words have to be put in historical, as relating to timing, context. She is speaking of the early days of the movement from her present day situation..

Could it be that her view at the beginning was not what it was at the time of the writing? I do not see her as criticizing the holiness of dress, rather just making an observation of two different times in the evolvement of the movement.

From that view, both her recollections and Bro. Epley's would also be correct. JMO.

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 view the past ... based on our present.

"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."