From David Wasmundt..... - Page 18

NLYP · #**171** 08-14-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferd

NLYP clearly stated he disaproves of these things. he simply said they will not send you to hell. the manual does not say these things will send you to hell does it?

NOPE!

NLYP · #**172** 08-14-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphant1

No it does not...but that wasn't my point. my pointis that Epley has a point...oh lightening is about to strike I'm agreeing with SE!!!!!! Help, i'm suffocating!!!

The point that the AS does say that if you sign you are pledging to Practice and preach (teach) the Articles of Fath...which include hair and TV and mixed bathing and worldly sports and amusments and so on...but they do not include women's pants, which is kindof strange...

NYLP makes as though Urshan and becton made a blanket pass on interpretation meaning that hair and tv and stuff were off limits for licence revoking...but that is not the case.

I was in the building voting on the AS...the argument that Urshan's letter tried to quiet was the interpretation of "worldly amusments" NOT HAIR AND TV! The lib group was saying that UC's would take a man's license for playing golf...and Urshan said, no..participation in personal sporting pleasures were not targeted.

I don't believe for one minute Urshan or Becton would say that hair, mixed bathing, and TV were left to private interpretation...those are pretty clear in the manual.

Sorry Bro...you are wrong...

Steve Epley · #**173** 08-14-2007, 09:52 PM

women cutting their hair is specifically mentioned in the articles of faith is it not?
Again I want to make it clear I was only addressing the book and not DW anyone who has been sick deserves our prayers and if Sandra had not mentioned the book I would not have replied and if DW is reading this sir I meant nothing personal the problem is what was written and NOT you as a person and I wish you a speedy recovery.

NLYP · #**174** 08-14-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

My only gripe with DW was that Pendelum Extremes read like it was written by a man who was trying to get back in the good graces of the UPC and retain his license. That may not be the case but that is how I read it and at the time I had heard that he was upset at the negative reaction he was getting from the Ark. I can understand that as I am sure it was not his intent to alienate his fellowship.

No CC1
He wrote it because many took neo and had a flesh holiday with it!

I remember when he was writting Pendulum....He told me "Dan, Neo upset the cons....this one will upset the Libs"

He had already left the "ark" when he wrote neo...but way to many had a flesh holiday. that was not his goal.

triumphant1 · #**175** 08-14-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLYP

Sorry Bro...you are wrong...

Just for the wonderful sake of discussion, just exactly how am I wrong?

NLYP · #**176** 08-14-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The manual does not give ANY room for ministerial interpretation as to TV in the licensed ministers home.

that is correct sir!

triumphant1 · #**177** 08-14-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLYP

that is correct sir!

Ok...how can he be right and I be wrong? I was saying the same thing only w/more words...

NLYP · #**178** 08-14-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

women cutting their hair is specifically mentioned in the articles of faith is it not?
Again I want to make it clear I was only addressing the book and not DW anyone who has been sick deserves our prayers and if Sandra had not mentioned the book I would not have replied and if DW is reading this sir I meant nothing personal the problem is what was written and NOT you as a person and I wish you a speedy recovery.

Under the heading of "We wholeheartedly disapprove....."