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

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Then you do see the potential of litigation abounding because of this blacklisting resolution being abused?.

No more than it has since the clause has been on the books. It's nothing new, it just clarifies a couple of areas.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

So you are publically stating that teaching/preaching theology does not constitute "conduct" under this clause???

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Guy

The DB has no authority over that pastor - only the evangelist. The pastor could have whoever he wanted. The big question lies more with the evangelist.

Agreed ... it is a control device ...

Why didn't the resolution specifically address the problem it sought to solve ... by addressing that it would be a safety valve for those officially under investigation ... as it stands ... the good ole boys could sit down and compile lists with or without probable cause ... yes?

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".
Hypothetically it is possible to commit adultry, be accused, have witnesses, charges be laid before the district, drop your card and stop any investigation dead in its tracks before being found guilty and dropped for immorality. That is the kind of situation this particular clause is designed for.
Could it be misused? Absolutely.
I stated what I would do if placed under question frivolously. I would deal with it and make them put up or shut up. If it had gone too far I would demand an apology be published in the local newspaper.

It (the rule of law covered in res. #3) is too ambiguous and is rife with the potential for legal action. I know of a poster on this forum who left by lapsing his credentials. His former district board, post withdrawal for non payment of dues, voted to put him under question and then caused several scheduled meetings to be canceled. Others in his circle of fellowship got the same treatment. This rule flies in the face of the autonomous local assembly! It is a control tactic and a tool for division and destruction of brotherhood!

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Guy

It's possible for any piece of legislation to be abused.
However this does not refer to men who leave the organization over theology either to the left or the right. if you will note it refers specifically to "conduct".

Originally Posted by Encryptus

So you are publically stating that teaching/preaching theology does not constitute "conduct" under this clause???

Why the silence?

[Hegavmelif]

Well, here is my take on the whole Resolution 3 matter within the UPCI...

The ministers within UPCI and those associated either directly or indirectly are now getting the kind of stupid treatment that most UPCI preachers have handed out to saints for decades.

This Resolution reveals the mentality of our leaders in that it shows just how manipulative and controlling most ministers are in the UPCI. They want to tell everybody what they can do, when they can do it, where they can do it, and with whom they can do it.

Just like they have preached to saints for years, “you can’t go to that church,” “you can't fellowship with them,” “you can't do this, you can't do that....you can't have anything to do with sinners,” “what fellowship doth light have with darkness” - all-the-while condemning the saints because they are not winning souls.

I ask, “How can you win souls if you can't fellowship on any level?” My wife and I have been crucified for years by ministry and saints because we have chosen to befriend certain people in our communities. However, the dichotomy is that for the particular people who happen to be our friends and happen to be millionaires or billionaires, we would here comments like…”We’ll take their money, but I don’t want to be around them.” Even Christ himself went to places and did things with people that the religious of his day crucified him over!

The very message that our men have preached to us for decades “How can a house stand that is divided?” has now come home to their own backyard. I have said for years that if God will judge the Catholic Church for all that it has done to the innocent children of years past, what will God do with his own church that is so judgmental and divided within itself?

Again, my statements are based on and qualified with 50 years of firsthand experience and observation within the UPCI.

Don't get me wrong, I love this truth, and there and many men for whom I have great admiration and a great love for in our movement.

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Why the silence?

Encryptus,

The fact is that the resolution was to clarify that there is a DIFFERENCE between conduct unbecoming a minister and simply being under the umbrella of question. There are two very specific categories with one clearly defined and the other defined by ambiguity.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by philjones

Encryptus,

The fact is that the resolution was to clarify that there is a DIFFERENCE between conduct unbecoming a minister and simply being under the umbrella of question. There are two very specific categories with one clearly defined and the other defined by ambiguity.

which still avoids the question. Guy stated that it was not intended to target theological positions, but conduct. Therefore he is stating that teaching theological position is NOT conduct leading to coming under question. Does that sound rational to you?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

which still avoids the question. Guy stated that it was not intended to target theological positions, but conduct. Therefore he is stating that teaching theological position is NOT conduct leading to coming under question. Does that sound rational to you?

Which means that Preterists, Divine Fleshers and those that don't teach Holiness dress standards are now welcomed in the ark?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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

Bump. Same ole thing.