*** [Exclusive] Resolution 3: The Bloodbath and Inquisition begins ****

[Whole Hearted]

I think that the whole purpose of res.3 is to bar the men who may leave over res.4 from being able to preach in UPC churches and vice versa.

If a true split does occur then those who stay in will not be allowed to preach for those who have gone out and those who have gone out can't preach for those who are in.

I think it was done to try and scare people into staying in the UPC.

I did not vote for this res.

[JaneEyre]

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

I think that the whole purpose of res.3 is to bar the men who may leave over res.4 from being able to preach in UPC churches and vice versa.

If a true split does occur then those who stay in will not be allowed to preach for those who have gone out and those who have gone out can't preach for those who are in.

I think it was done to try and scare people into staying in the UPC.

I did not vote for this res.

I agree!....These resolutions were looked at in the big scheme of things. This is all about more control and judging others - to say who is questionable.

[Steve Epley]

Nothing new they have been doing this for 40 years. That is why Elder Verbal Bean was thrown out.

Can any of you people read?
Resolution 3 only slightly modified a paragraph.
It has to do with a man placed under question because of his conduct by a formal action of the District Board.
Not knowing if the newly independent brother left the organization with an accusation that he did not want to face I will not comment any further.
Lacking facts will not stop many.
Carry on with the ignorance.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Guy

Can any of you people read?
Resolution 3 only slightly modified a paragraph.
It has to do with a man placed under question because of his conduct by a formal action of the District Board.
Not knowing if the newly independent brother left the organization with an accusation that he did not want to face I will not comment any further.
Lacking facts will not stop many.
Carry on with the ignorance.

Let's assume what we know is partially accurate ...

Would you agree that this DS would have to have the authority of the District Board to invoke Res.3 ... "under question" .... as his reason for not approving this evangelist visiting the independent church.

Of course, I think it would have been his prerogative for not approving this for any other reason.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Guy

Can any of you people read?
Resolution 3 only slightly modified a paragraph.
It has to do with a man placed under question because of his conduct by a formal action of the District Board.
Not knowing if the newly independent brother left the organization with an accusation that he did not want to face I will not comment any further.
Lacking facts will not stop many.
Carry on with the ignorance.

Great Thoughts Guy.

Glad someone takes time to think before they react. Sure, it SEEMS wrong the night before the crusade, but this was not the first time that Pastor had been requested NOT to use the evangelist I am sure.

Back to the spin crowd.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Nothing new they have been doing this for 40 years. That is why Elder Verbal Bean was thrown out.

Anti-semitism is nothing new either, Elder ... but historically it has reared it's head in various "new ways" ...

Russia had it's pogroms.
Germany had it's Final Solution and Crystalnacht.

This Resolution is a new twist to an old practice ... it's now being abused as predicted.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Great Thoughts Guy.

Glad someone takes time to think before they react. Sure, it SEEMS wrong the night before the crusade, but this was not the first time that Pastor had been requested NOT to use the evangelist I am sure.

Back to the spin crowd.

Really ... says who?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Let's assume what we know is partially accurate ...

Would you agree that this DS would have to have the authority of the District Board to invoke Res.3 ... "under question" .... as his reason for not approving this evangelist visiting the independent church.

Of course, I think it would have been his prerogative for not approving this for any other reason.

Just read the resolution "under question by the District Board". The whole resolution is about an official action of the Board, not just the Sup't. However, if I were an evangelist and the Sup't said, "Bro. we have a problem with this guy and would appreciate it if....." I think I would listen and count the cost.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Guy

Just read the resolution "under question by the District Board". The whole resolution is about an official action of the Board, not just the Sup't. However, if I were an evangelist and the Sup't said, "Bro. we have a problem with this guy and would appreciate it if....." I think I would listen and count the cost.

This official action would require a meeting and vote right? If a District Supt. invoked Resolution 3 but did not had the blessing of the board what recourses would a preacher "under question" have?