Do you see AFF and former-NFCF as being any different?

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

MOW is a admin,boy what did I drag that poor fellow into.
HO I've changed too hopefully for the better,I'm not as dogmatic as I used to be,I've learned I haven't got God all figured out.The more I study the word,the less I feel I understand.

Scott, you are a great man, and I'm glad to have you as my friend.

Jim did a lot of things that made FCF great. He posted under several names so people wouldn't be intimidated by his being the forum owner. But he also banned people who refused to post without a bad attitude, even one of his own characters! There was no bashing of anyone, and 'newsflashes' had the proof behind them. He made sure of that.

People have come and gone since then, but with each new arrival came a new definition of 'freedom', and in many ways, the forum went to new levels...going down instead of up. It wasn't long before "a forum to discuss topics freely" went to "a place where Apostolics can speak with freedom", and that freedom meant 'free for all' to many who posted.

I've changed, and not for the better. I recognize it and I'm not happy.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Jim was very much UPC and loyal to it.

He felt there was need for change and he felt that there needed to be a venue where people could express themselves -- how they felt about the organization and the changes that needed to take place and what was happening without fear of reprisal. But he himself was definitely UPC and tight on the doctrine.

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Absolutely! He made that pretty clear many times as well.

One of the reasons I made that point is because there seems to be some worry that because this forum is partly owned by UPC preachers that there will be censorship in regard to critical views and opinion being expressed about the UPC.

Jim welcomed it and certainly didn't balk at free and open expression. I'm thinking the same thing will be allowed here.

One of the major differences though is the fact that Jim wasn't strongly "standards" oriented while the preachers who are at the helm of this forum may be and so there might could possibly be less tolerance in that regard. I doubt it though. We shall see.

I remember though that one thing that he did get a little edgy about though was the expression of contrary views in regard to the 3 step doctrine of salvation and Oneness too.

Originally Posted by Felicity

One of the reasons I made that point is because there seems to be some worry that because this forum is partly owned by UPC preachers that there will be censorship in regard to critical views and opinion being expressed about the UPC.

Jim welcomed it and certainly didn't balk at free and open expression. I'm thinking the same thing will be allowed here.

One of the major differences though is the fact that Jim wasn't strongly "standards" oriented while the preachers who are at the helm of this forum may be and so there might could possibly be less tolerance in that regard. I doubt it though. We shall see.

I remember though that one thing that he did get a little edgy about though was the expression of contrary views in regard to the 3 step doctrine of salvation and Oneness too.

Issachar thread just now seemed to be discussing that.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by OneTruth

Issachar thread just now seemed to be discussing that.

Yeah the old PCI vs. PAJC issue.

"PCIers believe you can be saved outside of Acts 2:38" So silly.

The truth is PCIers believe and preach Acts 2:38 exactly as it's written.

Originally Posted by Felicity

Yeah the old PCI vs. PAJC issue.

"PCIers believe you can be saved outside of Acts 2:38" So silly.

The truth is PCIers believe and preach Acts 2:38 exactly as it's written.

O I C. They are talking about some preachers that may have gone to that belief.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by OneTruth

O I C. They are talking about some preachers that may have gone to that belief.

Oh yeah? They've probably believed that way for a long time. Just kept it to themselves like so many others have and do.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

CC, that first statement is completely unfair, and I'm surprised that you'd make that kind of statement.

There are very few people on this forum who even knew who Jim was, and of all the members here currently, I bet less than ten percent of us even posted on that forum while Jim was alive, and not much more after.

Your 'simple' statement really isn't that simple, and Jim wanted more than just a place where people could openly speak about topics that were (and still are to some) considered taboo. He also insisted on people discussing those topics without fear or bad attitude. This couldn't be found on NFCF many times.

I think this forum can have the same vision he had, but not because he had it. I remember the days of FCF when Jim was alive. I long to post in a forum like that again, but I haven't since November of 2003. I wish I were still the poster I was when he was alive. I've changed. We all have.

We are all OLDER and I am fatter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CC1]

By the way about this "no preacher bashing" thing. I need to know right up front if that means no more jokes about Elder Epley's height? If so then I am outta here!!!!! LOL!!!!

[Esther]

Originally Posted by CC1

By the way about this "no preacher bashing" thing. I need to know right up front if that means no more jokes about Elder Epley's height? If so then I am outta here!!!!! LOL!!!!

Don't you think he would be disappointed if you didn't

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Felicity

One of the reasons I made that point is because there seems to be some worry that because this forum is partly owned by UPC preachers that there will be censorship in regard to critical views and opinion being expressed about the UPC.

Jim welcomed it and certainly didn't balk at free and open expression. I'm thinking the same thing will be allowed here.

One of the major differences though is the fact that Jim wasn't strongly "standards" oriented while the preachers who are at the helm of this forum may be and so there might could possibly be less tolerance in that regard. I doubt it though. We shall see.

I remember though that one thing that he did get a little edgy about though was the expression of contrary views in regard to the 3 step doctrine of salvation and Oneness too.

Yes, but he loved and respected you and others with a different view...that speaks much about the man, IMHO!!