Resolution 3 Massacre Begins in South Texas Dist.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

You guys are hilarious.

Holocaust, massacre, cult, etc. Comparing the UPCI to Hitler's Germany, Jones' Guyana, and traitorous acts. And you think the UPC should be ashamed? That is quite laughable.

Even funnier, "It iwas the cons agenda to sanitize and they got their way with this Resolution!" seems to be the cry. Yet, it seems some of you have forgotten that it was at this very same GC that the "cons" lost the vote on the TV resolution. Now who is really confused? It appears you guys like to make the "facts" fit your argument. Talk about hyperbole.


For those who want to know "How do we know who is under question?" Believe it or not that procedure was already in the Manual before this Resolution ever passed.

Yes it was an addendum ... however it gave teeth to it .... by making it a board decision ... as evident now that boards are getting together to blacklist.

RR who wrote resolution 3???

In all of forumland there has to be one insider that knows the answer and can share this ...

Do you think they'd answer this question if I picked up the phone and called headquarters?

Rather than address these actions by this board will the org sycophants simply laugh off the severity of this type of ex post facto vigilantism (more hyperbole)

It's figurative language RR ... it's used in our everyday speech ... some like PP use it more than others. As long as we can separate fact from fiction I think we can still engage in honest discussion using these type of idiomatic expressions. What say ye?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yes it was ... however it gave teeth to it by making it a board decision ... as evident now that boards are getting together to blacklist.

RR who wrote resolution 3???

In all of forumland there has to be one insider that knows the answer and can share this ...

Do you think they'd answer this question if I picked up the phone and called headquarters?

Rather than address these actions by this board will the org sycophants simply laugh off the severity of this type of ex post facto vigilantism (more hyperbole)

It's figurative language RR ... it's used in our everyday speech ... some like PP use it more than others. As long as we can separate fact from fiction I think we can still engage in honest discussion using these type of idiomatic expressions. What say ye?

Daniel, I really don't know who wrote the Resolution but could probably find out. And I do understand the use of certain terms but words do have meaning. While I may not agree with every decision the organization makes I sure am not ready to be bombastic about it.

Surely you see some merit to such a Resolution? A local pastor who has neighboring churches would see some merit to it, IMO. In the long run I think the Resolution will be more bark than bite. We must keep in mind that the dynamics of District Boards are changing as new members are being elected. "Ethics", IMO, will be much clearer and less situational going forward.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by rrford

Daniel, I really don't know who wrote the Resolution but could probably find out. And I do understand the use of certain terms but words do have meaning. While I may not agree with every decision the organization makes I sure am not ready to be bombastic about it.

Surely you see some merit to such a Resolution? A local pastor who has neighboring churches would see some merit to it, IMO. In the long run I think the Resolution will be more bark than bite. We must keep in mind that the dynamics of District Boards are changing as new members are being elected. "Ethics", IMO, will be much clearer and less situational going forward.

And sadly the politics will continue.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Daniel, I really don't know who wrote the Resolution but could probably find out.

Could you please inquire about this ... it has historical significance, I believe.

I do see some merit to being wary of certain individuals who go through some type of due process ... however this re-invigorated measure now seems to be heading out like a out of control freight train (simile) as a tool to settle old scores during this season of schism ... and breed more disfellowship within the Body

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Could you please inquire about this ... it has historical significance, I believe.

I do see some merit to being wary of certain individuals who go through some type of due process ... however this re-invigorated measure now seems to be heading out like a out of control freight train (simile) as a tool to settle old scores ... and breed more disfellowship within the Body

Does it really matter who authored the Resolution? It is what it is. For the most part the authors remain unknonw unless they wish to make it known. If I come across the right person I will ask as I don't think the author would even care if it were known.

As for it being an out of control train, I think not. For one, the South Texas District is not led by men who are dull and dimwitted.

It may not be the same case, but I do know of one minister that was sent an email of disappointment for spekaing for WH. But at the end of the day the official had to back off as the person involved folowed the process outlined in the Manual and was given approval to speak there. Not sure such approvals will be forthcoming but on that one it was given and no further action was taken. At this point it is a dead issue.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Esther

And sadly the politics will continue.

In every organization, in every group of people, in every nation, and yea, even on this Fourm, politics will indeed continue.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Could you please inquire about this ... it has historical significance, I believe.

I do see some merit to being wary of certain individuals who go through some type of due process ... however this re-invigorated measure now seems to be heading out like a out of control freight train (simile) as a tool to settle old scores during this season of schism ... and breed more disfellowship within the Body

Let's be honest here. The Resolution was written because of those who had created a schism in the body. I realize you may not see it that way but I sincerely believe that was the intent. We know such measures can be abused and probably have been. But we also have to note that there are indeed some folks who should be under question and not fellowshipped or ministered for in an effort to protect the body. JMHO.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Does it really matter who authored the Resolution? It is what it is. For the most part the authors remain unknonw unless they wish to make it known. If I come across the right person I will ask as I don't think the author would even care if it were known.

As for it being an out of control train, I think not. For one, the South Texas District is not led by men who are dull and dimwitted.

It may not be the same case, but I do know of one minister that was sent an email of disappointment for spekaing for WH. But at the end of the day the official had to back off as the person involved folowed the process outlined in the Manual and was given approval to speak there. Not sure such approvals will be forthcoming but on that one it was given and no further action was taken. At this point it is a dead issue.

Interesting that the board or Supt. would give approval to speak at COC when this board categorically believes there are questions about him in regards to "leaving Holiness" ...

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Interesting that the board or Supt. would give approval to speak at COC when this board categorically believes there are questions about him in regards to "leaving Holiness" ...

Sure. But timing is everything. Technically, at the point of the invitation COC was not under question. Procedure had to be followed and it was. End of story.

[rrford]

Gotta run. Busy day and have to be in Orange, TX by 5:00. Be blessed.