From David Wasmundt..... - Page 16

Steve Epley · #**151** 08-14-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLYP

No sir....(HERE COMES THE STORM!!!) I do not believe in the essentiality of uncut hair.
I do believe in long hair...but I do not, nor have I ever believed it is to remain uncut.

As to pants...Tiffany does not..its her conviction.
I personally don approve because it crosses, IMHO a sex line. BUT do I believ its a heaven or hell issue...No.

Do YOU sign the AS letter??????????????????????????????

Straightline · #**152** 08-14-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Do YOU sign the AS letter??????????????????????????????

Elder Epley: It's a shame that you have to ask the questions that the LA District Board won't.

No snake travels in a
Straightline

NLYP · #**153** 08-14-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Do YOU sign the AS letter??????????????????????????????

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

BUT the AS letter does NOT address "Standards"

And remember in the UPCI Manual it CLEARLY states..."WE wholeheartedly disapprove"

It dos not say "Thou shalt NOT"

Read it...its there for a reason....its a fellowship of men with different views on

these things....

Bro. URSHAN HIMSELF said that these things were up to the "PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LOCAL PASTOR!"

AND HE AND BRO. BECTON made it VERY clear that the AS did NOT address those outward issues...
It is not nor will it EVER serve as the catalyst to force conformity on these issues.

Ferd · #**154** 08-14-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It would be interesting to know how many on this forum new about DW before they came to forums?

Just like folks quote Tom Fudge and only a small handfull of Canadians new him or of him before his book.

I did not. I did hear some of the rumblings after 1992 but really didnt understand everything. only after being on FCF did it all click.

I had not even heard of NLYP before Faithchild!

Ferd · #**155** 08-14-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Straightline

Elder Epley: It's a shame that you have to ask the questions that the LA District Board won't.

No snake travels in a
Straightline

watch it.

triumphant1 · #**156** 08-14-2007, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NLYP

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

BUT the AS letter does NOT address "Standards"

And remember in the UPCI Manual it CLEARLY states..."WE wholeheartedly disapprove"

It dos not say "Thou shalt NOT"

Read it...its there for a reason....its a fellowship of men with different views on

these things....

Bro. URSHAN HIMSELF said that these things were up to the "PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LOCAL PASTOR!"

AND HE AND BRO. BECTON made it VERY clear that the AS did NOT address those outward issues...
It is not nor will it EVER serve as the catalyst to force conformity on these issues.

I don't think you have read the AS in its entirity...

It definately says that the signer will "Practice and PREACH (TEACH) the Articles of Faith AND the holiness standards as written in the manual of the UPC". The manual includes the hair...and the TV...but it is silent totally on women in pants!

chaotic_resolve · #**157** 08-14-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Straightline

Elder Epley: It's a shame that you have to ask the questions that the LA District Board won't.

No snake travels in a
Straightline

Dumb.

triumphant1 · #**158** 08-14-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It would be interesting to know how many on this forum new about DW before they came to forums?

Just like folks quote Tom Fudge and only a small handfull of Canadians new him or of him before his book.

I knew of them both before the forum experience...I already owned a copy of DW's books (neo and pend ex) and had looked at a copy of fudge's...

I still do not own fudge's book and am not interested....it is beside the point to me.

I personally like Linda Hopper's book, "False Holiness Standards" also...

Ferd · #**159** 08-14-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by triumphant1

I don't think you have read the AS in its entirity...

It definately says that the signer will "Practice and PREACH (TEACH) the Articles of Faith AND the holiness standards as written in the manual of the UPC". The manual includes the hair...and the TV...but it is silent totally on women in pants!

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?

triumphant1 · #**160** 08-14-2007, 02:36 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?

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.