Most damaging resolution??

[AGAPE]

Which resolution do you think will be the most damaging??

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by AGAPE

Which resolution do you think will be the most damaging??

#3 used for #4!

[Ferd]

3 by far. 3 has some really odd quirks about it.

you could have one district banning cons that leave and another banning libs that are already out.

this could become a really nasty infighting situation.

take Texas for example
WH is out but he went out when Texas was one district. His church and his ministry have been in the South Texas area. BUT He was part of the TEXAS district.

the STexas DS was for res 4 and likely wont take issue with WH. but the Texas DS has already proven his desire to take action against anyone who even thinks the word TV.

The Texas DS, could claim that WH went out of his district and thus black list him. while the STexas district doesnt. what a mess.

this wasnt well thought out.

[mfblume]

What was 3? Info please!

We have already had testimony on this board from an individual that had a question placed on his ministry weeks or months AFTER he turned in his credentials of his own free will.

That makes this rule very powerful as it appears to me they made it very clear that a question could be for ANY reason the district deemed necessary.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Ferd

3 by far. 3 has some really odd quirks about it.

you could have one district banning cons that leave and another banning libs that are already out.

this could become a really nasty infighting situation.

take Texas for example
WH is out but he went out when Texas was one district. His church and his ministry have been in the South Texas area. BUT He was part of the TEXAS district.

the STexas DS was for res 4 and likely wont take issue with WH. but the Texas DS has already proven his desire to take action against anyone who even thinks the word TV.

The Texas DS, could claim that WH went out of his district and thus black list him. while the STexas district doesnt. what a mess.

this wasnt well thought out.

Good grief... that is one big mess waiting to happen.

I wonder who will be the first to be added and how long it will take to do it?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What was 3? Info please!

a guy that is out or goes out or (debatable) was never in, who is "under suspesion" cannot be fellowshipped by any UPCI preacher. you cant preach the guy, you cant preach for the guy. the only exception is funerals and weddings.


LOL! aint it funny that the "regular folks" often dont care what the org thinks about a particular guy.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Ferd

a guy that is out or goes out or (debatable) was never in, who is "under suspesion" cannot be fellowshipped by any UPCI preacher. you cant preach the guy, you cant preach for the guy. the only exception is funerals and weddings.


LOL! aint it funny that the "regular folks" often dont care what the org thinks about a particular guy.

Will UPC licensed preachers be able to be put under suspicion?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Ferd

a guy that is out or goes out or (debatable) was never in, who is "under suspesion" cannot be fellowshipped by any UPCI preacher. you cant preach the guy, you cant preach for the guy. the only exception is funerals and weddings.


LOL! aint it funny that the "regular folks" often dont care what the org thinks about a particular guy.

You can't you can't you can't. I thought this was a "fellowship". "Not a denomination". lol

[Digging4Truth]

Is the actual verbage of Res 3 anywhere to be found?