Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Son, I dont know who sold you these bag of goods or where you get off implying that Sam is a liar ... but for just a brief moment, my Kansasian hermano, take a seat.
1. Sam and Elder Epley are the resident historians up in here. From time to time Bishop 1 makes guest featured appearances.
It's my understanding that Sam's Apostolic library would put most big bawlers to shame. He's a walking encyclopedia.
2. Are you sure about Westberg not intending the AS to be about the New Birth ....
Let's disregard the multitude of witnesses that attest to this in Fudge's book.
Men, from this site, of integrity and experience have said quite the opposite.
A guy you may know ... called Coonskinner has stated that Westberg himself attested to the fact that the AS was about the New Birth ...
Here are some of his quotes:
Reformed Dave, whose father is an Apostolic icon, just the other day admitted that Price did quite a bit of, in his words, "arm-twisting".
.... and everyone, their mother, and he himself, knows that the honorable Bishop Kilgore mis-spoke on the floor at Salt Lake City ....
so either your facts are PATENTLY FALSE ... or these men are also LIARS.
|
I don't get off on nothing, nor am I a Kansasian. I still stand by the opinion that Sam is wrong on his perspective of the affirmation statement. I knew Bro Westberg as well as anyone on this forum...having shared the same roof many nights and being connected via his long-time friendship with my dad as well.
First I feel that Sam was wrong in portraying the passing of the affirmation statement as he did. I was there, so even though my opinion is decidedly subjective it is at least first-hand.
I also feel that I knew the battles Bro Westberg was fighting very well. He was not fighting a battle with "PCI" men. His fight was with men that were walking away from stances they had once held. I know that for a fact....from conversations and sermons in and around the birthing of the affirmation statement.
This included both principles of lifestyle and doctrine. He was very much concerned with preachers having televisions. He was concerned with the fellowshiping of trinitarians also. Sure, that included those who were "soft" on the new birth. However, you've got to understand that in the world of Pentecost he moved and lived in PCI influence was a non-entity.
You can believe me or not, but the PCI doctrine was simply not seen as a great threat at the time...at least not in our areas.
Was that motive lumped in during the process?? Perhaps...but I wasn't privy to that. I just know the motivating battles that lead to the initial seed idea...and PCI doctrine wasn't it.
Now, to clarify, this is my opinion based on my relationship with Bro Westberg. I might be, and have been, wrong. I did not intend to totally eliminate the notion that these men were not worried about the new birth. I very specifically spoke in the context of Barb's concern over whitewashing the PCI past of the UPC.
Until Fudge's book came out, PCI was a forgotten notion in the ranks of mainstream UPC. Actually, so was PAJC. Softness on the new birth has always been a concern.
I hope I clarified what I was trying to clarify about the affirmation statement.
Threaded Mode
