((((((((((((TULSA BOMBSHELL))))))))) "49 Elders" Explained!! See this LIST

[AmazingGrace]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I do find it interesting that some were trying to say this was just a planning meeting to discuss other options. Looks like it's much more than that.

Oh I know huh?! I addressed this about a month ago and one of the persons who said that said that it was later turned into a bigger plan (not word for word) but yet the "others" who stated this have yet to say anymore about that! They just go on like nothing ever happened yet tear into anyone who says anything about or against it... blows my mind! But thats ok... Typical about now.

[AmazingGrace]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Can I say it now without being banned?

The same thing I said back in early October?

Lies, lies and more lies.

Well I will say it too that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree so if you get banned I guess that puts me there too but its just the facts!

[rgcraig]

I try to look at it from both sides and I believe the ones that were trying to deny it were just hoping it wasn't true.

Can't fault them for hoping for the best, but it is sad to see others questioned so harshly when it was very clear what was going on.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Can I say it now without being banned?

The same thing I said back in early October?

Lies, lies and more lies.

You just did...amazing development's from a planning session/ fellowship meeting t a full blown organization........all before the meeting of the minds in tulsa even gets started.

[Nahum]

I doubt there will ever be an official listing of all the men who have turned in their licenses or just let their dues lapse since General Conference. Spin control is at defcon 4 currently.

But people, think about it, when was the last time Coon, Erickson, Bernard, and these other heavy hitters sent out a mass email or letter - unless it was for fundaising?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

You just did...amazing development's from a planning session/ fellowship meeting to a full blown organization........all before the meeting of the minds in tulsa even gets started.

Come on, they learned a lot from the political movers and shakers in the Mothership. Set it all up first, THEN invite others to THINK they are a part of the process.

Booker's Buddies & Co. didn't say a word at GC this year.

They were too busy getting this together.

How can anyone deny this is true?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I doubt there will ever be an official listing of all the men who have turned in their licenses or just let their dues lapse since General Conference. Spin control is at defcon 4 currently.

But people, think about it, when was the last time Coon, Erickson, Bernard, and these other heavy hitters sent out a mass email or letter - unless it was for fundaising?

"Hold the Fort"....that song is due for some new verses ;-)

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Daniel, I don't exactly get the inference here.

I think your charge of "obsession" is as warped as your hideous theological views.

You really, really worry me.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=10478&page=15

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I love ya Phil, but this is plain silly.

Some of these men may have those motives, but I dare say there is a group that just wants "power, power, wonder working power."

Wherein dost thou find silliness? I was simply pointing out that Keith's argument that these men are forming because of what they are Against is not a fair assessment. HE (Keith) may see it that way because of where he personally stands on the issues but that makes it merely his view and not truth.

These men, because of where they stand on the issues, see that they are forming because of what they are FOR.

You, bringing a third perspective to the party, see that these men are forming, not because of what they are against or what they are for, but because they desire power. This is because of where you stand on the issues and how your position establishes your perspective.

What am i saying? I am saying that we are all capable of being judges based on our own perspectives and we are probably all a little right and a little wrong but overall inaccurate in our assignment of motive.

I say again, if it be of God I don't want to fight it... if it be not of God I don't need to fight it because it will accomplish nothing of eternal value any way!

I just wish everyone had Dad's take on things... they would all have fewer ulcers, would sleep much better at night and would fulfill their specific call of God more effectively!

[PreacherV]

Greetings all!

I just made the mistake of reading through all the new posts that were added to this thread while I was sleeping the night away in peaceful bliss, knowing that the devil was in the phone booth dialing 911 and that I had just saved a bundle of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

Whether we choose to admit it or not, it is true that we all approach this subject with some sort of bias based on our own experiences, and it is apparent that on both sides of the aisle the most difficult thing to do is to be honest with ourselves.

I'll go first....As much as I want to see TV used to spread the gospel (and I do believe there is great potential in advertising and in the concept of redefining televangelism), I also am among the 30% of UPC ministers that would like to see all language regarding TV removed from the manual. My bias....I was raised in a home where there was no TV until I was 13 years old. We were taught that TV was an evil medium that one could not control. If you had one in your home, you would spend all your time watching it and would do nothing productive with your life. Funny thing was a lot of the people I knew that had TV hardly watched it and were amazed by how us Pentecostals couldn't take our eyes off the thing when passing by it....very, very slowly...in the electronics section at Wal-Mart. When my dad bought a little black and white TV, just as had been prophesied, we sat practically glued to the thing for hours at a time.....for like a week. And then we went on with our lives. I grew up, developed a personal walk with God, received my call of God to the ministry and walked right past the TV every day on my way to the will of God for my life until I got out on my own and was able to make the decision not to have a TV--or should I say until the UPC was able to make the decision for menot to have a TV. Therefore, I do not share the view of TV that many others have.

What is your bias? Are you more "principled" than me?

I used to have much greater respect for these holy men of God who were really "taking a stand" against such things that I in my carnality just didn't think was that big of a deal. I thought I was a weaker Christian that would never attain the level of men of such spiritual caliber. But now I believe they are no different than me. I like entertainment.....they like power. Both can easily corrupt a man.

I was shocked at GC when men who have so loudly voiced their opposition to TV were silent on the issue. There was no debate. A prepared statement for the resolution, a prepared statement against it, a couple of statements regarding the proposed amendment, and then the vote. I have heard people whine that KH pushed to the vote too quickly. That is just not true. Anthony Mangun and Irvin Baxter were the only people who made a move to the mic and both got their 2 cents in --AM for the amendment, IB against the amendment.

If the stuff coming into my PM box is true (and I have no reason to doubt the source), then many of these men are not leaving because they are anti-TV. They are begging a man to come on board in spite of the fact that he is pro-TV. Why? Because of his missions connections????

Are they having trouble being honest with themselves, too? Is it possible that underneath their holy motivation for a church free of vice, there is an undergirding of lust for power??

Just my opinion, but I believe they have been looking for a wedge issue that will pull away enough men to give their new ORGANIZATION (emphasis, emphasis) a chance at becoming the most prominent one at the UPC's expense. They got their wedge issue with a resolution that only passed by 80-something votes, and they weren't going to pass up such an opportunity.
Hopefully men who are considering leaving the UPC because they honestly believe the passage of Res 4 violated their godly principles will realize that the WPF may not be as principled as they seek to appear.

Okay, now you can all rip me apart. But please first ask yourself, "Am I really being honest with myself?"