I have only read the first four pages of this thread so probably someone has already pointed this out.
It sounds to me like this is just a case of Paul Mooney positioning himself for a run for GS. You have to convince the base you are solid, steadfast, locked into the UPC traditional views, to have a chance at being elected.
PM is a fine man. One of the nicest big name preachers I have ever met. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him once a year several years in a row and was very impressed. However he is a part of a unique religous culture that demands certain things of it's leaders.
In many ways PM would be a good progressive leader in much the same way KH has been but he will make it clear (and I believe he means it) that he draws the line well short of changing any doctrine or standards.
__________________ "I think some people love spiritual bondage just the way some people love physical bondage. It makes them feel secure. In the end though it is not healthy for the one who is lost over it or the one who is lives under the oppression even if by their own choice"
Titus2woman on AFF
"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 conducted 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 later Holiness Movement characteristics. Nothing was ever said about apparel, for everyone was so taken up with the Lord that mode of dress seemingly never occurred to any of us."
Quote from Ethel Goss (widow of 1st UPC Gen Supt. Howard Goss) book "The Winds of God"
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Pastor Philips could you expound more on this opinion from your orginial post in the thread?
You seem like a guy who doesn't mind to parse words or call names, so I'm wondering which preachers, specifically, you had in mind when you said this. No reason to talk in vague generalities, IMO.
Who exactly were you addressing with that?
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
I will answer that when you tell me "who" you really are!
Ron, you are getting a bit silly now. If he told you his name was Robert Clayton would that really make a difference - - you probably wouldn't know him either way.
I can't believe that you seriously have this much problem with people posting anonymously. Some could be the same brethren you post with on JP, but choose to take a REAL approach on how they feel over here - - so who's being truthful now?
This is a view strictly from the outside as I've never been in the UPC and have no real attachment to the issues being discussed.
What I find odd is that of all the innuendo and rumor included by those who are speaking against the Detroit meeting, their posts seem to be devoid of any details of what actually occured at the invitation only gathering. Do those of you who are criticizing the brothers for meeting having specific details from credible sources about what was actually discussed that would be hurtful to the UPC?
What I see is a lot of groaning and complaining just because the meeting was in an exclusive setting where only certain bretheren were invited. That, in and of itself, doesn't seem that bothersome to me, without knowing the facts of what was discussed.
Just from the outside looking in, it seems like those who weren't invited are upset that they weren't included and have resorted to fear mongering and rumor mongering.
Ya think?
A little hard to draw a conclusion if they weren't there, huh?
I've tried to only question and discuss issues. It's not an attempt to be negative. Some are acidic in their approach, but surely you don't see us all that way.
It's funny that there is "negative attempts" here, but what PM said wasn't negative.
Linear Mode
