Identity Movement

[Hoovie]

Naturally DA is sensitive to his newly adopted AI stewardship.
But I have had these thoughts long before his new forum.

I truely am surprised they wanted the AI name though for the same reasons I am generally opposed to the term. I understand of course that the motives were simply to co-opt the term from conservatives... So little thought went into that.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Quite honestly I don't know what you mean by "action".

If someone were to ask my preference, I would say abandon all public branding of Apostolic Identity. Too much baggage with the term.

Since the majority of us have never heard of the Apostolic Identity group you referenced, I don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about. Just my opinion.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Since the majority of us have never heard of the Apostolic Identity group you referenced, I don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about. Just my opinion.

That may very well be true and actually one reason for this thread. I do know at the time of my indirect interaction they were in the national news for various things.

I am interested in updates on the Apostolic "Identity" pastor and church in Michigan and also, any of the churches referenced by Pel who taught "Identity" in the form of British Isaelism.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Naturally DA is sensitive to his newly adopted AI stewardship.
But I have had these thoughts long before his new forum.

I truely am surprised they wanted the AI name though for the same reasons I am generally opposed to the term. I understand of course that the motives were simply to co-opt the term from conservatives... So little thought went into that.

Not fair. Like AQP said, I've never heard of what you're talking about and it's so obscure, it means virtually nothing. But Hoovie, you have no idea the quantity of thought that went into the naming of our forum, so your statement isn't true or fair and you haven't a clue what the motives were and to pretend you do is a misrepresentation.

For the record, I have spent my time trying to defuse whatever ill will was created by your post. As well, DA wasn't the only one who raised a question about it. In fact, someone who would fall more into the category of "Conservative" posted about it here! I'm sorry, but your post raised eyebrows and not just DA's. Personally? I don't care what your intentions were. I have zero interest in ANY ill will WHATSOEVER and any intentional attempts to create controversy are childish, and personally, I'm not going to play the game even if it does get started.

If our forum survives and prospers, it will be because it has valuable content and contributors, not because DA has "newly adopted AI stewardship." And if it fails, it will be because it didn't serve a legitimate purpose, not because anyone defeated it.

On our end, I'm messaging privately and posting publicly that I'm assuming your post was innocent. And even if you had ill intent, I don't care and a fight over it is pointless and hurts everyone. But your statements here in this post seem to lean in the direction of an agenda.

I can only speak for me, but in the formation of the new forum, I have not spoken nor written ONE SINGLE negative word about AFF. I don't have any. I think the name of your forum is a good one, and I think your ownership and Admin team is a fine one.

[aegsm76]

Hoov - I'll admit that when I saw your post, I thought it might be a play on either DKB's AI or on the new forum.
I thought you might be having a little TIC poke at one or both.
I will say I never heard of the racist AI term before your post.

[Hoovie]

Now thanks for the kind words. I can't imagine what "ill will" I possibly could have had. I am very much in favor of the other forum. I personally was relieved that you and a few others found a way to post with fewer restrictions, since it often seemed to be point of contention on AFF. I hope that works well for you.

About the co-opting of the AI name from the well established conservatives and their push for standards and conservative lifestyles.... Are you denying that? From the outside it looks like a no brainer - I think that is exactly what happened. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Now thanks for the kind words. I can't imagine what "ill will" I possibly could have had. I am very much in favor of the other forum. I personally was relieved that you and a few others found a way to post with fewer restrictions, since it often seemed to be point of contention on AFF. I hope that works well for you.

About the co-opting of the AI name from the well established conservatives and their push for standards and conservative lifestyles.... Are you denying that? From the outside it looks like a no brainer - I think that is exactly what happened. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Hoovie, I've done fine with the restrictions on AFF. After learning how things work here, I've only received one infraction (and that one I pushed for intentionally to see where new lines had been drawn, and it was with an alias ID) and I've never been banned.

Secondly, AI is not in response to DA's recent limitations. I have emails dating back to October when this idea first started and I threw out ideas to Baron and DA by email a couple months before that. The new forum is NOT a knee-jerk, walkout, protest reaction to the recent limitations you all gave him.

Third, AI isn't at all a place where DA, Baron and I can just go off on people, issues, Lee Stoneking, etc. In fact, in 9 days and around a thousand posts so far, there hasn't been a single post that would have been infracted on AFF, in fact, there's been nothing that would have even been reported on AFF. I know there is the impression that DA grabbed his pawns and started his own thing, but that's just not even close to the truth. I would NEVER participate in such a thing.

Was the name of the new forum generated from a desire to connect with a popular new phrase that's been created and therefore possibly benefit from an association with that term? Well heck, we're opening a forum and hoping to generate membership and traffic so it seems like good business to tap into an available resource of potential interest. But that was NOT the sole reason for the name...it may have been one of the factors on the table, but not the only one.

But again....and I want to say this as strongly as I can....We have NOT created a forum where we can post with "fewer restrictions." No way. I have 115 posts there so far. I can copy them and send them to you and you will not find a single objectionable sentence.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

About 15 years ago I was exposed to the Christian Identity movement. Some Apostolic people who were close to me were involved in this faux KKK movement. For those not familiar with the Christian Identity movement Wiki has some good info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...ntity_movement

Read the entire article on Christian Identity, twice. Listed about 15 or so groups not ONCE was the word Apostolic used in any manner shape or form. Much less "Apostolic Identity."

With the recent resurgence of the apostolic Identity term and attempts to redefine the same, it brings questions about those who propagated the Identity message - even while licensed ministers of the UPC and other Apostolic churches.

DKB among others will be shocked, as a renowned wordsmith, scholar, and attorney you would think he would know better, tsk tsk

I know the government was cracking down hard on these groups and the "Identity" ministries who propagated the teachings. Does anyone know the current status of these Apostolic Identity ministries?

What Apostolic Identity ministries? Your article and references were ONLY to Christian Identity groups.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

However, for those of us who were exposed to the Christian Identity groups and in particular Apostolic Identity it is very peculiar indeed.

Where are the references?

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I agree. It simply made me wonder about the wisdom of using a label that has the FBI's keen interest.

The FBI does NOT have a keen interest in the label Apostolic Identity

Originally Posted by Hoovie

For those who are concerned that this attack on their forum/blog site that started a week or two ago - it's not. I understand they are simply yet again redefining the term.

I am just surprised the "Apostolic Identity" term gained mainstream acceptance among national Apostolic speakers and writers in the last few years - in spite of it's infamous meaning. I dare say this would not have happened in the 90's.

Why? "Apostolic Identity" did not hold a nation wide stigma in the 90s

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Naturally DA is sensitive to his newly adopted AI stewardship.
But I have had these thoughts long before his new forum.

Seriously? Must have been a strain to withhold your opinion of how foolish Bernard and others must have been to bandied the term about all this time.

I truely am surprised they wanted the AI name though for the same reasons I am generally opposed to the term. I understand of course that the motives were simply to co-opt the term from conservatives... So little thought went into that.

AAAhhhhh, now it shows. Shame...

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I am very much in favor of the other forum. I personally was relieved that you and a few others found a way to post with fewer restrictions, since it often seemed to be point of contention on AFF. I hope that works well for you.

Thank you for the well wishes, as NOW has already pointed out things are going great. The ultimate irony is to date the tone is even more polite than around here.

If/when events occur like the pending Alicea/Bassett debate, it will be just the two of them in an area away from the main forum.

Just for clarification- it is not Dan's forum, there are actually five co-owners and a team of moderators.

It is also, repeating yet again, NOT intended to be a rival for this or any other forum.

Personally I consider AFF to be my mothership. With a single exception I met all the other owners through this forum. (And that exception was the one who introduced me to AFF)

I have no doubt some questioned when the AFL was born, or the second TV station was started. But things turned out just fine.

I believe the relationship between the forums will be closer to symboitic than antagonistic.

Be blessed SH.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

About 15 years ago I was exposed to the Christian Identity movement. Some Apostolic people who were close to me were involved in this faux KKK movement. For those not familiar with the Christian Identity movement Wiki has some good info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...ntity_movement

Read the entire article on Christian Identity, twice. Listed about 15 or so groups not ONCE was the word Apostolic used in any manner shape or form. Much less "Apostolic Identity."
Nor did I say it did list "Apostolic"

With the recent resurgence of the apostolic Identity term and attempts to redefine the same, it brings questions about those who propagated the Identity message - even while licensed ministers of the UPC and other Apostolic churches.

DKB among others will be shocked, as a renowned wordsmith, scholar, and attorney you would think he would know better, tsk tsk

It is puzzling to me

I know the government was cracking down hard on these groups and the "Identity" ministries who propagated the teachings. Does anyone know the current status of these Apostolic Identity ministries?

What Apostolic Identity ministries? Your article and references were ONLY to Christian Identity groups.

The Apostolics that were into Identity did attend the larger Christian Identity meetings. One which was held in Branson each year.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

However, for those of us who were exposed to the Christian Identity groups and in particular Apostolic Identity it is very peculiar indeed.

Where are the references?
I did not keep their material, but I can tell you they were UPC and very active in the Identity movement. The church in Michigan had several hundred people in it at the time. Perhaps someone reading this can verify whether they still believe the Identity message. I was told by my Identity relative the Pastor preferred the term "Apostolic Identity" over Christian Identity. I do not have a website of this church, nor did I pretend to initially.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I agree. It simply made me wonder about the wisdom of using a label that has the FBI's keen interest.

The FBI does NOT have a keen interest in the label Apostolic Identity
I don't know to what degree their interest is now, but the Feds certainly investigated said pastor.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

For those who are concerned that this attack on their forum/blog site that started a week or two ago - it's not. I understand they are simply yet again redefining the term.

I am just surprised the "Apostolic Identity" term gained mainstream acceptance among national Apostolic speakers and writers in the last few years - in spite of it's infamous meaning. I dare say this would not have happened in the 90's.

Why? "Apostolic Identity" did not hold a nation wide stigma in the 90s

On the heels of Timothy McVeigh any "Identity" movements would have been suspect I think - regardless of prefix and subtitle.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Naturally DA is sensitive to his newly adopted AI stewardship.
But I have had these thoughts long before his new forum.

Seriously? Must have been a strain to withhold your opinion of how foolish Bernard and others must have been to bandied the term about all this time.

Foolish? Never called anyone foolish. I thought it was a fad - like "Apostolic Distinctive" but recently realized it is a full-blown "campaign".

I truely am surprised they wanted the AI name though for the same reasons I am generally opposed to the term. I understand of course that the motives were simply to co-opt the term from conservatives... So little thought went into that.

AAAhhhhh, now it shows. Shame...
Shame? Not at all. Do you then deny that you were co-opting the term (or attempting to) from the conservatives? Seems somewhat obvious from the outside...

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I am very much in favor of the other forum. I personally was relieved that you and a few others found a way to post with fewer restrictions, since it often seemed to be point of contention on AFF. I hope that works well for you.

My response in red

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Read the entire article on Christian Identity, twice. Listed about 15 or so groups not ONCE was the word Apostolic used in any manner shape or form. Much less "Apostolic Identity."
Nor did I say it did list "Apostolic"

DKB among others will be shocked, as a renowned wordsmith, scholar, and attorney you would think he would know better, tsk tsk

It is puzzling to me

What Apostolic Identity ministries? Your article and references were ONLY to Christian Identity groups.

The Apostolics that were into Identity did attend the larger Christian Identity meetings. One which was held in Branson each year.

Where are the references?
I did not keep their material, but I can tell you they were UPC and very active in the Identity movement. The church in Michigan had several hundred people in it at the time. Perhaps someone reading this can verify whether they still believe the Identity message. I was told by my Identity relative the Pastor preferred the term "Apostolic Identity" over Christian Identity. I do not have a website of this church, nor did I pretend to initially.

The FBI does NOT have a keen interest in the label Apostolic Identity
I don't know to what degree their interest is now, but the Feds certainly investigated said pastor.

Why? "Apostolic Identity" did not hold a nation wide stigma in the 90s

On the heels of Timothy McVeigh any "Identity" movements would have been suspect I think - regardless of prefix and subtitle.

Seriously? Must have been a strain to withhold your opinion of how foolish Bernard and others must have been to bandied the term about all this time.

AAAhhhhh, now it shows. Shame...
Shame? Not at all. Do you then deny that you were co-opting the term (or attempting to) from the conservatives? Seems somewhat obvious from the outside...

My response in red

I've made my position clear on all this, but I can't help but wonder why you care what the name of the new forum is? What difference does it make to you? Statements like the bolded above and the previous, "So little thought went into this" (speaking of the naming of the forum), seem to originate from an agenda. I've been sitting over in my corner, playing nicely, enjoying conversations here and there....and then I read a statement like that, an unprovoked statement, and I can't help but ask, "Why?"