* D. Bernard speaks out against forum *

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Bishop Frank Weber

Old Paths,

The majority of your information was flawed. An unidentified CAF member copied and pasted the full threaded discussion to Smith, from there Smith forwarded the thread to DKB. After that DKB writes a letter to CAF addressing the lies which were being told about him [each lie, he addressed in his letter]. DKB then sends the reply to Smith. Smith starts sending the response out in mass emails to various CAF members and none members alike. I received a copy of the letter from Smith, that is when I emailed Pastor Riggen to inform him of this underhanded act of betrayal.

Mind everyone though in spite of Smith's unethical actions that within itself is not the issue. The issue is that members of the Conservative Apostolic Forum made the bad choice of making untrue and unjust comments about DKB.

Bishop F.W., your summation of the events over which we have poured out a great deal of concern is accurate and commendable. The actions of the rapscallion under question, reprehensible as they be, would no doubt have never been wrought if it were not for the lamentable animadversions and obloquies of the contending erstwhile brethren.

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by staysharp

My post was observational of DB's behavior to criticism. Even though I thought the criticism was insane and unmerited personally, he felt a need to defend. When this occurs, from a human behavioral standpoint, there is insecurity involved. Insecurity comes from instability, instability from trying to reconcile mixed messages.

I see nothing wrong or insecure about someone who defends their reputation. I think he is following the advice to the Corinthians ( 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 )

"We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men."

[Brother Price]

As I told one brother, DB may have felt he needed to defend himself. But, the more this brother and I talked, the less and less the need for DB to defend himself arose. He addressed some points real well, but he did not need to defend the implication that he is a company man. The brother was right in saying that DB is the poster boy for the intellectual elite in the UPCI, him and DS. He is UPCI through and through, and there is no need to come against that accusation.

Truth is, men on so-called conservative forums will speak on people as much as against doctrine. This is true of so-called liberal forums, but I have found less venom on the latter than the former. But, there must be love, and to attack a brother is not love.

To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man. -Michael Servetus

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Bishop Frank Weber

It wouldn't surprise if Smith didn't actually pay someone on CAF to give him information. I've dealt with him and his family for years. They have taken advantage of their wealth and caused many to suffer senseless shame. A very underhanded group of people. His connections with the Cohen makes things worse, adds fuel to the fire.

Your unsupported hypothetical accusations are unwise as you yourself said "The issue is that members of the Conservative Apostolic Forum made the bad choice of making untrue and unjust comments about DKB" You have no proof to what you say, yet you say it anyway.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

I see nothing wrong or insecure about someone who defends their reputation. I think he is following the advice to the Corinthians ( 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 )

"We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men."

Jeff,

I see your viewpoint ... but I believe this verse deals w/ taking pains doing what is right ....not necessarily the need to to defend what we've done ... especially if we are not directly accountable to a certain group or it may cloud the issue more.

DB has done what is right ... and has taken great pains at studying, writing, and living what he believes is right before man and God , w/ decorum...

This here, the letter to CAF, was a mistake on many levels.

[timlan2057]

I never thought I'd use the word "naive" to describe David Bernard.

I can't believe he cooperated with a bottom-feeder like Smith.

Smith obviously believes Bernard is an ultra-liberal so Smith was just looking to stir something up.

And Bernard played right into his hands by writing this response and sending it back via Smith.

If I was in Bernard's position - some nutcase like Smith would get nothing - except maybe the back of my hand.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

I never thought I'd use the word "naive" to describe David Bernard.

I can't believe he cooperated with a bottom-feeder like Smith.

Smith obviously believes Bernard is an ultra-liberal so Smith was just looking to stir something up.

And Bernard played right into his hands by writing this response and sending it back via Smith.

If I was in Bernard's position - some nutcase like Smith would get nothing - except maybe the back of my hand.

As a man w/ experience in leadership ... surely he must know that you don't and can't put out every little fire.

Not only has he played into the hands of an attention starved radical but, IMO gives the impression to those who made the accusations the impression that they wield more influence then they do ...

He's legitimized them in a sense.

Further, perhaps he's not a company man ... being that he is a frontrunner for the GS position ... and the careless handling of this episode doesn't fare well in the eyes of the political world he's a part of.

[Steve Epley]

I have said different men were company men through the years it has never meant to be an ugly remark about them. But when men are officials or speak officially over most issues why wouldn't they be company men and where is the insult. I listed to talk show guys on both ends of politics and some regardless if what some politican does they defend them. They are company men whether they are paid by the party or not. Elder Bernard has been an apologist for the UPC and is an official to say he is a company man should not be an insult to him. That is NOT saying he doesn't have a conscience and just speaks when bidden. I think he is a man of integrity though we disagree on many issues.
Honestly guys on both sides of libs and cons it is easy to pile on when a subject comes up. So it is like the pot calling the kettle black. I don't understand a man of Elder Bernard's stature dealing with CS? That is the perplexing thing to myself. However Elder Riggen showed great decorum and class in dealing with the issue and also invited Elder Bernard to CAF to address anything personally.
May I say this all issues are fair game BUT no one's reputation is ever fair game. A few careless words can bring a lifetime of misery and injury. Every child of God is going to give an account of every idle word. NUFF preaching.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by ghostryder

To make the comment about psychologists' stance on discrediting what men (under 30 years old) say is ludicrous. So, then Staysharp are you asserting that all the teachings that Jesus Christ did as a child in the temples is not worthy and should be ignored? Furthermore, are you also asserting that the men that God inspired to write his word should not be read or adhered to, some who were younger than 30 years of age? You stated that you have been in the ministry for 20+ years. I assume you are over 30 years of age. Thus, should all those who have heard you preach or teach, now discount what you have spoken; undoubtedly by the leading of the Holy Ghost? Seeing as that does not fit in with what psychologist state and your mind just being developed?

Also, if by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, does God not make us complete in our minds. Are our minds not whole in Christ Jesus? But, if we were to listen to you then this world would go to hell if anybody is not over 30 years old. We have young saints teenagers in my congregation that travel on missions trips around the world. Preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are not over 30 years old, so then those that they lay hands and are healed and receive the Holy Ghost, is that then an illusion and a fallacy? You said that you know of which you speak. Yet, you truly do not know of which you speak.

I as an ordained Minister of the Gospel (at the age of 22 and started preaching at 18 years old), an Evangelist, Pastor (previously), and a Prophet for over 35 years have sat down with good brethren of the UPCI some gone on to be with the Lord. Bro. Urshan, Bro. Guidroz, Bro. Bernard, Bro. Cole, Bro. Phillips, and the list goes on and on. All men who started out in the ministry when they were under 30 years of age, and have continued to build upon the foundation of the Apostles, Prophets, and Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone a sure foundation. So for you to make such an asinine statement of what a worldly psychologist would say of disregarding all that a man does before he is 30 years old is preposterous. And I would dare you to stand up before your district presbyters and the brethren in your district at your next fellowship meeting and make the statement to them, that you believe the psychologist that state "disregard all that a man does before he is 30 years old".

I won't be responding to any of your feedback. A-men to Bro. DB's response.

Originally Posted by J-Roc

I see nothing wrong or insecure about someone who defends their reputation. I think he is following the advice to the Corinthians ( 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 )

"We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men."

Reread my post, I did not say there was anything wrong with defending ones position. The question was asked why he would defend, and I responded with my observation.

The accusations were so trivial, a defense was unwarranted. Especially about being a "company man". What's wrong with being a UPC company man? Nothing as long as you like the "company".

He should be proud to be a "company man". If his emotional attachment to the UPC was secure, he would be saying..."yea and I'm proud of it". Instead, he's taking offense to the fact that others would consider him to be. This is problematic, especially for a District Supt.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I have said different men were company men through the years it has never meant to be an ugly remark about them. But when men are officials or speak officially over most issues why wouldn't they be company men and where is the insult.

Elder, I respect you for who you are. You don't mind being stereotyped as long as it fits. Paul didn't mind being called a "prisoner of Jesus Christ". DB's defense to the "Company Man" accusation is troubling. He is a District Supt. He should be proud to be called that. Obviously, he is not and this clearly leads me to believe he has disassociated at a particular emotional level.