Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.
And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.
PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?
The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.
It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.
The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."
PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?
They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.
|
It appears that some prospecting might result from those who might interpret this article as a call to provide a "safe harbor"/haven for those seeking "doctrinal holiness".
I think this article is more divisive than originally thought.
Threaded Mode
