TCOG Assembly Webcast

[Full Quiver]

Your the one that said they didn't submit which implies that they should have.

I do not know you. I know of Oletimer as he is a member here and UTR and such. Are you a member of UTR? I don't guess I would know Oletimer if he knocked on my door right now. He has complimented me on some of my beliefs though. I suppose we have clashed here at Jude 2 over a couple of things and I did send him a PM telling him I would be in the neighborhood if he wanted me to come preach for him. Other than that I don't know you guys. My family knows some people I don't know and I know people they don't know.

[oletimer]

FQ posted

cuthere wrote:
Yes an the one part about the resignation of the GO there were a few that didn't submit, but no one was ugly all had a good spirit, it seemed the wording of it confused or concerned some so Bro Smith tabled it for the committee to work on some more and invited any or all of these brethen to talk to the committee about their concerns and even give suggestions.

Your post brings up another point. Quote:
Yes an the one part about the resignation of the GO there were a few that didn't submit,

This implies that those few were wrong and in a bad spirit or rebelled. Maybe they were right. That term submit is really a joke considering that you say you practice unanimous agreement. If one or 20 don't agree and they are convinced to submit then the ruling is not unanimous. 1 or 20 go home feeling bullied or denied their opinion which may very well be more than an opinion (revelation).

I personally believe the piece should have passed and since it didn't it is basically a slap in the face to Bishop Pruitt who did resign. By not passing this these men have said Bishop Pruitt did not have the right to resign.

FQ, you took a part of a sentance out of context and want to make an issue of it. Read the rest of the sentance and it had a different meaning to it.

You took this part;"Yes an the one part about the resignation of the GO there were a few that didn't submit,"

the rest of the sentance reads;
"but no one was ugly all had a good spirit, it seemed the wording of it confused or concerned some so Bro Smith tabled it for the committee to work on some more and invited any or all of these brethen to talk to the committee about their concerns and even give suggestions"

[Full Quiver]

Yes an the one part about the resignation of the GO there were a few that didn't submit,

Very good Oletimer. You were able to recognize that I only quoted part of the sentence.

I did so to point out the implication. Sure she said that everyone had a good spirit but the implication was/is that there were a few that were outside the will and mind of God. Where is the respect? We were all taught at BTI, well those that went, that every voice counts. There is supposed to be safety in unanimous agreement but what it has turned into is majority rules by submission. That is no different than a vote brother! When c u there said they didn't submit it left me with the thought that they were an obstacle. Deal with it because I know you can't agree because it's against your religion to do so.

[one love]

FQ it was nothing of the sort, when they did not agree it was accpepted that way and tabled, not a vote. Had it been it would have passed. It was all done in a very good spirit I was in the second row for the whole session.

[Full Quiver]

I didn't say it was a vote but said when those that disagree are asked to submit then essentially it is a vote. What if the three or four or twenty, ever how many, were to ask the rest, the majority, to submit to them? Does that sound absurd? If so then you have not studied enough church history. Unanimous agreement was a safeguard. Submission was never meant as it is used today and Biblically is not so. When you ask one or a group to submit you are saying your voice and view does not matter.

The way c u there worded her statement she sent implications that some would not submit. She said they didn't submit which easily could mean they should have but didn't.

[one love]

I didn't say it was a vote but said when those that disagree are asked to submit then essentially it is a vote. What if the three or four or twenty, ever how many, were to ask the rest, the majority, to submit to them? Does that sound absurd? If so then you have not studied enough church history. Unanimous agreement was a safeguard. Submission was never meant as it is used today and Biblically is not so. When you ask one or a group to submit you are saying your voice and view does not matter.

The way c u there worded her statement she sent implications that some would not submit. She said they didn't submit which easily could mean they should have but didn't.

this is why i refrain Have I studied my church history? hmmmm does that need a answer
They did not agree and it was tabled, simpled as that. Regardless of any analogy of past assemblies this one is the object of discussion , a few did not agree so it did not pass, nobody was forced and they were all in a good spirit. I feel there is something being made of nothing, I dont get the point, that is all.

Love ya I am now bowing out again by all means take the last word, I should have stayed out of it as I said, sorry

[c u there]

You are really nit-picking FQ, I meant nothing of the sort that you are suggesting and I think you know that. I simply meant they were asked if they would submit and they didn't feel they could from their understanding of the wording, they had valid points and no one was run over. I as a woman have nothing to say in the business but as I heard and saw it no one was in a bad spirit and no one upset.

[Full Quiver]

Kevin, I said if it sounds absurd then you have not studied enough church history. I know you are a student and I respect that. The truth is that in AJ Tomlinson's day they did not practice unanimous agreement as TCoG does today. They either all agreed or they didn't. All those years when discussing D&R the GO never asked for those against the recommendation to submit.

It's not unanimous agreement unless all agree. If one submits he doesn't agree, he merely submitted. He may as well not even exist.

I'm not saying it happened that way. I'm not saying anyone was forced. You and I have already discussed that. What I am driving at is the submit comment. She said they didn't submit. To me that carries a negative connotation.

My question is why is it that TCoGers can never say you know what, that makes alot of sense?

[oletimer]

Full Quiver Posted:
The way c u there worded her statement she sent implications that some would not submit. She said they didn't submit which easily could mean they should have but didn't.


the rest of the sentance reads;
"but no one was ugly all had a good spirit, it seemed the wording of it confused or concerned some so Bro Smith tabled it for the committee to work on some more and invited any or all of these brethen to talk to the committee about their concerns and even give suggestions"[u]


Nothing was run over no one. not the ones that didn't sumit, nor the rest of the assembly. Things were put on hold untill the all the wording is right. To me that is more in line with bible, history, and the assembly. Not one of the one that had question had a bad spirit, just wanted clarification. Now what is wrong with that?

[Poimen]

never mind.

[Full Quiver]

OT, can you read? Where did I say that people were run over? I spoke with Kevin for a while on the phone last night. He shared with me what happened, we shared our opinions, had a great talk, and nothing of the sort came outta my mouth then nor have I typed it. Show me!

You are really nit-picking FQ, I meant nothing of the sort that you are suggesting and I think you know that. I simply meant they were asked if they would submit and they didn't feel they could from their understanding of the wording, they had valid points and no one was run over. I as a woman have nothing to say in the business but as I heard and saw it no one was in a bad spirit and no one upset.

Again, I never said anyone was in a bad spirit. You're killing me!

I am so glad you brought up the nit-picking term. Do you know what that means? Do you know what that implies? Nits are lice eggs. If one gets lice in their hair they have to do 2 things to get rid of them. 1st the live bugs have to be killed. 2nd the eggs have to be removed, completely removed, from the hair otherwise they will hatch and the cycle will continue.

The removal of the eggs is called nit-picking. Now with this lesson we can all surely agree that nit-picking is not a bad thing but a necessity. Now I see that you have used the term in a negative since as most people do but the truth is that nit-picking, though probably tedious, is a very necessary and expedient thing. Time is of the essence in such a case as head lice and therefore the nits must be picked and not left alone because eggs do hatch.

[c u there]

Okay Danny, I've explained myself the best I could, God knows what I meant and I think everyone else here except you do too. I guess its best to let it be.

[Full Quiver]

Cu There, truthfully why do you think I am?

I guess the nit-picking comment got you.

[c u there]

Actually most all of your comments get to me. Got to admit you have an ability to get things stirring. I guess that's the answer to your other question too.

[Full Quiver]

whatever