KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by keith4him

As I have discussed this on here before, Clyde Haney did believe that people could be saved outside of a full experience of Acts 2:38, it was the same form that AD Urshan and GT Haywood and others like Ewart believed.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Does KH hold this view?

Originally Posted by keith4him

In private yes, organizationally no.

I thought that this was interesting, and wanted to place this in its own thread for some serious discussion. If these are the beliefs of Kenneth Haney, as is being reported, then what are your thoughts on this? What about you 3 steppers? What is your reaction? Do you just turn the blind eye?

[Felicity]

I'm convinced that the Gen. Supts. of the UPCI - past and present - believe very little differently than my husband and I.

[Papabear]

I think this type of supposition is foolish.

I don't believe he does.

I wonder if....

Like these voices that act like they know, know anything.

I think we are passing what someone thinks they think someone else thinks... and that is just silly.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Papabear

I think this type of supposition is foolish.

I don't believe he does.

I wonder if....

Like these voices that act like they know, know anything.

I think we are passing what someone thinks they think someone else thinks... and that is just silly.

The fact is that Keith4him IS close to that family, and has been in Stockton for a long time, so he potentially has information you and I do not.

It is common knowledge by most that Clyde Haney taught the "friend of the bride" doctrine, which is nothing more than the light doctrine. Why would it be a stretch to state that his son believes the same? I find it very reasonable and logical to say that the father passed on his doctrine to his son.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The fact is that Keith4him IS close to that family, and has been in Stockton for a long time, so he potentially has information you and I do not.

It is common knowledge by most that Clyde Haney taught the "friend of the bride" doctrine, which is nothing more than the light doctrine. Why would it be a stretch to state that his son believes the same? I find it very reasonable and logical to say that the father passed on his doctrine to his son.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Papabear

I think this type of supposition is foolish.

I don't believe he does.

I wonder if....

Like these voices that act like they know, know anything.

I think we are passing what someone thinks they think someone else thinks... and that is just silly.

Elder, this came up because those who know him well from his home State know this is so...no supposition here.

[bishoph]

From many conversations with people very close to CH it is my understanding that he renounced this teaching in later years.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by bishoph

From many conversations with people very close to CH it is my understanding that he renounced this teaching in later years.

Not questioning your word or theirs, is there some other evidence that this is so?!

Did the elder go to everyone he ever taught this to and tell THEM he had renounced this teaching?!

[Sam]

If this works, I will attach a copy of G.T. Haywood's book on the resurrection. He includes the "holy, righteous, and wicked" teaching in it.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Papabear

I think this type of supposition is foolish.

I don't believe he does.

I wonder if....

Like these voices that act like they know, know anything.

I think we are passing what someone thinks they think someone else thinks... and that is just silly.

I know for a fact that Clyde taught the light doctrine. I grew up in this neck of the woods- my father knew him well

It's not foolish supposition at all