Are the Godairs leaving?

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by Esther

How do you think BOTT will be disruptive?

The future tense was refering to the Tulsa meeting. Some believe BOTT has already been disruptive. I am only pointing out that one's perspective makes all the difference.

If ministers do not have to withdraw from the UPCI to participate in the Tulsa activities then how will it have been more disruptive than the resolution and those who repeatedly submitted it? There is much speculation and attribution of motives but as of yet few facts about the future.

[Steve Epley]

Carlton Coon has sent a letter and Elder Travis has sent e-mails asking folks to stay in and some to men who are already out are they ethical?

[ChurchMouse]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Carlton Coon has sent a letter and Elder Travis has sent e-mails asking folks to stay in and some to men who are already out are they ethical?

Isn't Carlton Coon's name on the Apostolic Summitt card ? Tends to make you think that maybe these preachers are not pulling out. Maybe they are just aligning themselves up with men of like faith.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Mass mailings expressing your views are not unethical.

Mass mailings to attempt to effect change within your organization are not unethical.

Mass mailings within an organization to which you have pledged loyalty and unity for the purpose of promoting defection from that organization is beyond unethical.

BUMP

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by ChurchMouse

Isn't Carlton Coon's name on the Apostolic Summitt card ? Tends to make you think that maybe these preachers are not pulling out. Maybe they are just aligning themselves up with men of like faith.

Nope Crawford Coon.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

The issue is ethics. To sign a pledge to honor unity within your organization then to stay within that organization but attempt to draw others into a different assembly is totally unethical.

If this were a business situation it could easily result in a successful lawsuit for tortious interference. It is sad that business ethics would transcend those of ministers.

The men of ‘92 withdrew with honor, the issue is not whether or not they had leadership, it is how they conducted themselves while still members of the UPCI.

If some feel the need to form their own fellowship because they feel the UPCI no longer a holiness organization, they are to be commended for following their convictions.

If some feel that we need to use every technology available to reach the lost, they are to be commended for following their convictions.

As to the few who feel compelled to use all means at there disposal to draw away members from the organization they are still members of, and into a different organization, such actions are not only unethical, they are without honor.

IF the UPCI were a company and a current employee wished to form a new company, and covertly or overtly used company produced mailing lists, contacts, etc. to this end, they would be on the losing end of a lawsuit.

Lawyers, CPAs, and others have to take a course in ethics, and pass tests before licensure. It is becoming increasingly obvious something similar should be required of clergy.

And on the issue of ethics, neither side is void of blameless individuals. It is also unethical that many (if not most) ministers are signing pledges to uphold positions and standards which they have no intention of following or teaching. The rationale of I am just doing it because my DS says it does really mean anything is not worthy of a response.

POTD

[Straightline]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Mass mailings expressing your views are not unethical.

Mass mailings to attempt to effect change within your organization are not unethical.

Mass mailings within an organization to which you have pledged loyalty and unity for the purpose of promoting defection from that organization is beyond unethical.

LH's letter was a signal to many, and others also left at that time. He was not out when he wrote the letter, but leaving. This was after the AS vote, I believe. No one in the UPCI called him unethical, though the letter did promote defection (whether he meant it to or not, I will not judge).

The writings of SS and KT in the ACWF did not promote unity, to say the least, and was a signal to others for departure.

KP's writings were for the purpose of defection, IMHO. Where are the claims of being "beyond unethical"?

What does "beyond unethical" mean??

You have yet to answer my two questions.


Circular thinking can't follow a
Straightline

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Mass mailings expressing your views are not unethical.

Mass mailings to attempt to effect change within your organization are not unethical.

Mass mailings within an organization to which you have pledged loyalty and unity for the purpose of promoting defection from that organization is beyond unethical.

Speaking of ethics....

If you have a copy of a mass mailing from the organizers that "promotes defection from the organization" please post a copy. If you don't have such a mailing then what are you talking about? Please help me with some evidence before we proceed with this lynching.

[SDG]

Cons losing bad on this thread ....

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

The issue is ethics. To sign a pledge to honor unity within your organization then to stay within that organization but attempt to draw others into a different assembly is totally unethical.

If this were a business situation it could easily result in a successful lawsuit for tortious interference. It is sad that business ethics would transcend those of ministers.

The men of ‘92 withdrew with honor, the issue is not whether or not they had leadership, it is how they conducted themselves while still members of the UPCI.

If some feel the need to form their own fellowship because they feel the UPCI no longer a holiness organization, they are to be commended for following their convictions.

If some feel that we need to use every technology available to reach the lost, they are to be commended for following their convictions.

As to the few who feel compelled to use all means at there disposal to draw away members from the organization they are still members of, and into a different organization, such actions are not only unethical, they are without honor.

IF the UPCI were a company and a current employee wished to form a new company, and covertly or overtly used company produced mailing lists, contacts, etc. to this end, they would be on the losing end of a lawsuit.

Lawyers, CPAs, and others have to take a course in ethics, and pass tests before licensure. It is becoming increasingly obvious something similar should be required of clergy.

And on the issue of ethics, neither side is void of blameless individuals. It is also unethical that many (if not most) ministers are signing pledges to uphold positions and standards which they have no intention of following or teaching. The rationale of I am just doing it because my DS says it does really mean anything is not worthy of a response.

While some of your points are well taken,I find you analogy comparing ministers of an organization to employees a little skewed. A better comparison by be to the shareholders who invest their resources and elect there own leaders. They may and do solicit other shareholders to invest in other ventures.

If you have an example of a lawsuit where investors were sued successfully for tortious interference because they recruited current share holders to invest in another venture I would be most interested in reading the suit. There is no law against holding shares in ATT and Verizon for example.