Talk:Apostolic Faith Church/Archive

Archive of discussions from 7 December 2004 through 4 March 2007. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Comments by Wetman and Answer

Entries made 22 August 2004 from ISP 198.81.26.48 should be thoroughly checked for accuracy, as this ISP is consistently a source of vandalism. --Wetman 14:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I made those changes without realizing that I was not signed in. Later, I learned that this ISP shows up for many writers. I, however, have never vandalized an article here or anywhere else. I attended this church from birth until I was over fifty-years-old and read several books and articles about it, including their own and those not their own. I checked these sources and did not put anything in the article that I had not read in at least three different published writings. Raina 05:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment about AFC article

Hello, I live just next to the church headquarters in Portland and have many good friends and family there. I can say with confidence that this article is a very accurate and fair summary of the AF Church and its doctrines and history.

Having been raised in the church myself, I want to stress how important the members of the church feel that sanctification and baptism are in the role of being saved--or unsaved. In order to be fully prepared to meet god and enter heaven, you must be saved and have felt the conviction of the holy spirit. You must also be sanctified, and baptized as described exactly in the bible. These are really the major standpoints of their doctrine.

The AFC is a strictly fundamentalist Christian church which interperates the King James Bible in a literal way, and without any exception. The Church does not seem to promote higher learning such as college etc. In my opinion, this is because learning involves asking questions, and asking questions about the bible "might" be the closest thing to heracy; quite possibly a damnible act.

I do believe that a semi-hidden reformation is in the works of the church(Or so I hope). [Unsigned comment by User:216.99.204.97 05:34, 6 June 2005]

Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. When I was a member there, I first heard, in the year 1968, that specific things were going to change. One of the things mentioned then has not yet changed, although I was assured numerous times through the years, by various church leaders, that it would change. The only things I really saw change, of those items, was the acceptance of television ownership.

No longer having access to such information, I would really appreciate your informing us of any accepted changes in their rulings.

Thank you. Raina 04:09, 13 June 2005

Re Sister Lila's Edits

Sister Lila: Thank you for your edits. I changed one of those edits back to the way it was previously, because "campmeeting" was a direct quote. I added [i][sic][/i] to it, to indicate this. Raina 05:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Women in Ministry in the Apostolic Faith

06:19, 23 January 2006 by Tuscaloosa11 (→Church doctrines and teachings)

I have no idea why the words "and women" were removed from the sentence under Church doctrines and teachings reading "These men and women are expected to further educate themselves by reading the KJV Bible . . . ." The Portland, Oregon, church was started by and pastored by a woman: Florence Crawford. There were/are many other female preachers and pastors in it, including others in Oregon, California, Washington, Kansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and more. Any comment? Raina 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that women pastors were and are indeed a major factor in the church and it's doctrines, AKA Florence Crawford. It was incorrect of me to remove "and women" from the article.

However, I suppose the reason why I so hastily removed the mention of women pastors without really thinking was because I don't ever remember seeing any women preachers or elders sitting on the platform facing the congregation. Please take into account, I find nothing wrong with men and women having seperate roles in the church, as this practice can be interpretated to have a biblical basis. Tuscaloosa11 06:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I could name some of the female pastors and elders who sat on the platform facing the congregation, but it has been a long time, and I have forgotten some of their names. Other than Florence Crawford, whom you mentioned, and without naming those who are active now, only those who have passed on, a few are Dolly Walker (pastor); Sara Hamilton (preacher, elder); Edna Jensen (elder); the lady who pastored the Richland Center, WI, church, whose name I cannot recall; a female evangelist who lived in Medford but traveled in the West Coast of the U.S. as a speaker; Rev. Nella Kostol; Edna Crawford (??); Rev. Edna Damron. Raina 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because of recent activity here, I have a renewed interest in this article. Because of this, I looked around the Apostolic Faith's website and found that they have several female pastors listed. If you have further interest in this, you can go to that website at http://www.apostolicfaith.org/aboutus/branch.asp#US, a site listed on the article's page. Raina 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments By M and Answer

In general, I think the article is well-written. As a member (25 years or my whole life), there are a few things that could stand a little explanation from our point of view, but on the whole, not bad.

Without knowing what you're referring as far as "things that were going to change," I can only guess. In the last ten or fifteen years, I've seen several changes. Women now often wear pants outside of the church (at least on the West Coast. Anything past Colorado and I don't have a clue.) Higher education is now accepted,with more and more young men and women entering college every year. Wedding rings still aren't accepted, but I would just like to note that I think this is more about maintaining unity with our foreign work and within the organization than anything else. I'm ferociously anti-television myself, but more from my personal opinions (yes, I am college-educated) than from church standards. If you have more questions, I'll see if I have answers! M 23 January 2006 [Unsigned comment by User:67.1.56.13 00:20, 24 January 2006]

Thank you for your input. I left this church in December, 1999, after having been a member for 50.5 years, so changes might have occurred in the last five years. There are those from that church, however, who would disagree with you, but that's all right. When I was there, the only foreign works that did not allow wedding bands were those in far northern North America; many of the others outside of the USA and on the east coast and south of the continental US have no problem with them.

By the way, you can get a name- and time-stamp by typing four ~(tildes) in a row. Nice to have you on board! By the way, why not do a personal page for yourself? Raina 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments Between Justin and Raina

[This section was removed by the two commenting editors. It has been retained, but is shown as deleted by being striked through. Also, the two editors' explanatory notes regarding the removals are shown below without the strikes above the deleted content.]

NOTE -- I have removed most (all, obviously) of my original input here in the comments section. You can check the archives, if you must, to review our discussion. --Justin [Unsigned comment by 71.142.87.239 07:20, 1 March 2007]

Out of respect toward Justin, I, too, have removed my comments. Raina 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

Good Article,

As a member of one of our branch churches on the West Coast, I heartily agree that most--probably all--of the information in your artical is factually true, but I wonder if you did not present the information in as negative a light as humanly possible. To be honest, I have many, many difficulties with accepting everything the church does as a whole. But it has been a difficult lesson for me to learn, that by laying every mistake or misinterpretation or poor intention I have ever suffered at the feet of "the church" I conveniently avoid addressing the very real problems of individual relationships.

There is no "the church." There are many churches, and some of them with the name "Apostolic Faith" have done incorrect, unbiblical things. In fact, in the light of history, every church is guilty in some way of falling short of perfection. But that's how you learn, as an organization or as an individual. No one starts out perfect, and our church is a prime example.

Higher education is neither encouraged nor discouraged, in my experience. Attitudes vary, as in all things, from person to person. My own father has a PhD in the Rhetoric of Philosophy from Berkeley University, and is an ordained pastor. The pastor I am "under" has a graduate degree in theology. Both of these men, while the exception and not the rule, are very well-read in materials both officially apostolic, and not officially apostolic, not even pentecostal. And last Sunday, our pastor asked us to remember the saints in Chicago, because Sister White, founding minister of the work there, passed away. Perhaps the prejudice against women is not organizational, but social? And society is as easy a target as church, right?

At my particular church, women are only asked to not wear pants while in the sanctuary, and while "pants-wearing" is still taboo in the minds of many, a good number of others do so at church functions quite often and are not censored or frowned at for their personal clothing choices.

Neither is it preached that you must have spoken in tongues or received some mystical experience outside of salvation to go to heaven, though in truth this teaching does often crop up perhipherally, often when our elder ministers reference in passing the doctrines they were taught as children. But our churches are not static, they are growing. While your experience in your branch church or churches sounds traumatic, it is not fair to condemn the faith of thousands because teachings and attitudes decades old.

I won't deny that some of the attitudes and ideas held by some of our people are retrogressive, but by the same token some of the attitudes and ideas taught are progressive, even for pentacostal evangelical fundamentalists. If you are ever in Southern California, look us up down this way. You might be surprised. Or you might not. Depends on which branch or minisiter you run into. That's the problem with worldwide organizations. You get ideas and people from all walks of life.

Best Wishes [Unsigned comment by User:71.142.102.115 04:33, 11 November 2006]

Thank you for your comments, writer. The original article on Wikipedia was very limited in information but stated that the organization existed. I added much information over a period of time, and others have also. You may not have noticed that the article is in flux, having been changed many times over the years. Some of the changes were errant and were removed; other changes were legitimate and remained. Further, although you mention that branch churches may differ and may have problems others of your churches do not, the reason your church has camp meetings is to command consistency; therefore, the church as an organization remains responsible for these churches and receives tithes from them as member-churches, even stating that all those branch churches are of that church body.

I used my real name in writing my changes, so there is a small possibility you know me. Having attended your church for over 50 years, and having researched the ideas stated, I believe the article, as it stands, is factual. Yes, I have had very negative feelings toward your church because of some unbiblical and unethical things that happened to both me and my family. Some are long ago incidents and some very recent.

I appreciate your kind invitation to your church. Raina 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Spurred on by your note, I went back over the article and did what I could to be sure that the article was factual, making small changes, some based upon your note. I believe everything in the article well represents the organization as it was and as it is today, including the things stated in your note. I had already acknowledged in a positive light many of the concepts your church teaches, even though I no longer believe many of them. I am fully satisfied that I have been honest in the article. If you disagree, please tell me what needs to be changed. Raina 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear author,

Thank you for replying.

To be honest, I wasn't sure if you checked out this site anymore, so I didn't know if I could engage you in a dialogue. Although you used your real name--I don't know where to look to find it--I don't know you personally. I don't think so, anyway. I'm relatively young, so chances are I just don't know you.

It is not my intent to present a point by point rebuttal to your article--especially because most of what you have written needs no rebuttal; it is true.

In regards to a couple of points you make, I think your facts might be off--particularly when you say the church does not trust formal educators. My father, a pastor, is also a full-time college professor, and heads college departments from time to time. He is without a doubt a formal educator. And I know of at least one formal educator sitting on the church board, who has his seminary degree from some place that is fully accredited.

And, in regards to divorce and remarriage, while some might adamantly agree with your interpretation of the doctrine of our church, there are allowances in certain situations--but I'll agree, not much.

You're absolutely right when you say that our branch churches pay tithes to our headquarters church, and that the church headquartered in Portland holds annual, international campmeetings; but I'm not sure that the campmeetings are held primarily so that our organization can command consistency--though this is assuredly a consideration in an organization with hundreds of congregations and ministers in Africa, Asia, North America, Australia, and Europe (maybe elsewhere, too. I'm not sure). With so many cultures and backgrounds influencing our individual and corporate outlooks, it seems to me that a little consistency between continents is a good thing.

While some of our older standards or traditions may feel burdensome to many of us Americans, we as a church have to consider our worldwide culture, especially in the African countries where our church is so pervasive to the culture that we are a considerable economic factor. While we American Apostolics might--and that's a big might--be able to change flexibly to meet the demands of our own culture, doing so will always affect thousands and thousands around the globe. As silly as it sounds, dropping a standard as (seemingly) trivial as wedding-rings could cause a major international split in the church, which in turn might cause no small amount of political and economic upheaval in an already unstable Nigeria. It is an unlikely scenario, I imagine, but those are the kinds of things we must consider, and our annual campmeetings help us become more aware of those issues, and enable us to deal with them more effectively--among other things. In situations like this, it is that consistency you mentioned that leads us to retain traditions and standards our own culture might find dusty, antique, or outdated.

But when you say that our organization tries to make every branch the same, I have to disagree. Maybe your aware of history that I am not--but that is history. Our current overseer (superintendant general) immediately took most of the direct power out of his hands as his first act of office--he created a separate office to head our overseas work, and then he created regional supervisors who could better manage the needs of specific areas. If anything, the evidence points to an allowance of cultural expression and identity--even encouragement and appreciation of those differences. It seems like we are growing into a church that appreciates the different applications of identical teachings.

I will add that I was impressed by the extent of the effort and presentation you made in your article--it is very professional. And my name is Justin, so you don't think I'm anonymously striking back. Now my opinions are blatently identifiable with me. (That's never worked well before :-)

Best wishes and prayers. [Unsigned comment by 71.142.94.207 07:48, 5 February 2007]

Thank you, Justin. I appreciate your note. : )

I must say that the most outstanding feature of your note is the fact that when you give me a bit of your history, I can pretty well tell you that while I don't know you, I am quite certain I know your family. What I find to be sad about that is this: the organization is large enough that I should not know your family based upon the fact that your "father, a pastor, is also a full-time college professor. . . . He is without a doubt a formal educator." If this were the situation of several, I would not be able to deduce this -- right? I noted, too, that you wrote that your parents went through a period of being treated as outsiders. This is because education was suspect. I hope you understand what I mean.

My intention, in writing what I have, was to lay aside my differences and just tell what happened. Originally, admittedly, it was written in derision, because of the short, glowing report that was first here. As my pain from my treatment in your church subsided, I became singularly interested in telling the truth. Therefore, when I wrote such ideas as the branch churches paying what they call "tithes" to the headquarteers church, that was merely a fact, not a criticism. After all, there is no way that your headquarters church could cover its own needs and the needs of the international written ministry without that offering.

You have written here that things have changed in recent years. Since this is a historical article, I would ask you, then, to add into the article such things as "the church once held that ___, but now, it teaches ___" so that such changes can be known and the article kept honest.

Regarding the pain I went through in your church, I am certain you understand that this is not the place for me to relate it. Fortunately, I have found my place and my peace. Where I now attend, my questions have been answered, and I am able to freely serve the L-rd with joy.  : ) Raina 06:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh -- I should add: my name is the blue word below my comments -- Raina -- but you likely know that now. And Justin, it is very unlikely that I would tell you what happened to me over the years in your church, even if I somehow get to know you. I strongly believe that if you have made the choice to serve the L-rd in that church, it is not my job to try to discourage you. Raina 06:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a swift response.

I'm am very pleased--relieved?--to know that you have found a place to serve G-d, and that you have the answers you need and the peace you desire. I hope I didn't sound nosy or give you the impression that I was interested in the sordid details of what you went through--in my limited experience, that would be the opposite of helpful.

Regarding the historical aspect of your article, I think I can provide the information inside the format you laid out:

The church once held that seperate services for whites and blacks was culturally appropriate, but now holds this to be utterly ridiculous and is embarrassed by this practice's presence in its history.

The church once held that only certain types of music were acceptable before God, but now teaches that it is not the type of music played or performed, but the intent of the worshipper that makes ANY worship style acceptable. In fact, the church (my church, anyway) once regarded classical music to be sacred and superior; now classical music--indeed, any music not written or played to the glorification of Christ--has been quietly restricted in our services. Music is now aimed at pleasing God, not man.

The church once held that the definte work of sanctification made a person completely and utterly perfect before God--now it teaches that sanctification is a purifying of motive before God. This is verifiable in the church pamphlet easily obtainable through the organization titled "Sanctification--A Second Definite Work of Grace." You can find online through the organizational link at the end of your article.

The church used to teach that three experiences were necessary to be "rapture-ready;" now it recognizes this teaching to be unsubstantiated by definite scripture.

The church used to teach that only "saved, sanctified and baptized Christians" were top-level; today the church officially teaches that there is "no such thing as a second-class Christian."

The church used to teach that adherence to church-imposed standards was tied directly to a person's salvation; today this teaching is condemned.

The church used to teach that seeing outside counselors or therapists for any reason whatsoever was at best a mistake; now, the church has recommended seeing counselors/therapists, and on occasion even co-financed visits. Bro. Darrell wrote an article specifically supporting the practice, which was featured on the church website.

Now, stepping away from this format, I think it might also be helpful to note that, whatever some pastors or ministers might personally feel, I had my pastor tell me point blank that we don't need a minister present to get together and study the Bible on our own--in fact, he encouraged it. Also, the young people at our church regularly get together as a group to pray and talk and discuss Christian doctrine and Christian living--you get the picture. Whatever exclusionary or elitist attitude existed regarding independent group study, it is dead here in Richmond.

On a different note, I noticed that you wrote that you don't want to discourage me from serving the L-rd at this church. I believe that this is, in essence, true. But I have noticed that the links at the end of this article lead to other sites that roundly condemn pentecostal teachings--and these sites are not factual, but opinion. And that much of your phrasing, even when factual, has retained that derisive tone you mentioned.

If you were only interested in presenting the truth--the truth entirely, and not just certain parts of the truth--wouldn't you also mention the beneficial or helpful aspects of our church? Wouldn't you mention the verifiable effects of certain doctrine on a large number of people? Or do you contend that there are none, that our church is wrong, unhealthy, narrow, egotistical, and heretical entirely? Would you say, genuinely, as a whole, that we do more harm to the world than good? (These are actual questions--I'm not preaching through rhetorical means:-)

Is there a way to exchange email addresses privately, to continue this discussion in a somewhat more private setting?

Hope to see your response soon. [Unsigned comment by 71.142.83.143 07:45, 8 February 2007]

We need to get the long, personal stuff off here. I would just take much of it off, but in doing so, I may be breaking a Wiki rule. Would you truncate your posts please, Justin? Your whole post will still be reserved in the archives.

The fact is that I don't care that much about your church, except for the fact that it has used the last century to severely hurt people and as far as I know, it is still hurting people. People who hurt people in the name of G-d are despicable indeed!! Perhaps your church has turned to the better, but some of the same people are still in your church, in leadership positions.

The only reason I bother with it here is because I come here to see what articles I have worked on, or have interest in, have been updated and how. If you want that much to email me, one of your old pastors, who was purposely made uncomfortable enough to leave your church, was my pastor after he was yours. His son has my email address, and I will let him know that he may give it to you. If you can get it, fine.

As far as the article goes, do what you want, but if I see one glowing "untruth" in it, I will be all over it like a fruit fly on a banana. Okay?

And by the way, Wiki requests that we list all sources we have used. There is no need to attempt to read anything into such a list. Raina 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raina,

I had been inclined for some time to delete the personal stuff, but I wasn't sure if it was accepted wikipedia practice or not--I've now taken out most of the personal material from my entries.

As far as I know, yes, the Apostolic Faith Mission is (or was then) a definite part of our church. But what you're describing is not the whole church, but one branch of the church, responding to a local situation. I'm not aware of all the factors our African leaders are aware of, nor do I understand the social and cultural temperment of any third-world church, but I do not believe the situation of almost 10 years ago is the same today.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your responses right. Earlier you said that, whatever your initial intentions were, you are now only interested in presenting the truth about the church. But after reading your last response, it sounds like you are primarily concerned about correcting "glowing" untruths. Does that mean you feel there are less-than-obvious errors contained in your writings, and that those don't concern you?

Again, thanks,

Justin [Unsigned comment by 71.142.108.75 02:42, 16 February 2007]

Okay. Since you don't know about the African AFM I asked about, I removed the quotation, because there is no proof that all African AFM churches are affiliated with the Portland-based AFM.

No, if what you wrote here is really how you understood my response to you, you did not understand it as I had intended it or as I had written it. To explain to you, the original article that was here, while a short and glowing report on the American AFM, put a spin on the AFM that I was used to while in your church. However, having been away, it surprised me, and I set out to correct it. When you asked, "Does that mean you feel there are less-than-obvious errors contained in your writings, and that those don't concern you?" that was real cute, Justin, but it is typical of the manipulative truth-spinning that church embraces. It really doesn't deserve an answer. Thanks anyway.  :) Raina 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you might think I was trying to be cute. I didn't take enough time to explain my question. I'll give you your two different responses, next to each other, so that you can see for yourself the apparent contradiction that perplexes me:

"Originally, admittedly, it was written in derision, because of the short, glowing report that was first here. As my pain from my treatment in your church subsided, I became singularly interested in telling the truth."

"As far as the article goes, do what you want, but if I see one glowing "untruth" in it, I will be all over it like a fruit fly on a banana"

These two statements seem to be somewhat opposite. A singular interest in the truth is different from a concern for glowing untruth. So, my question really does deserve an answer, as difficult as it may be to give an answer. Maybe I was a little too blunt in asking, but I think its obvious that you prefer to get right to the point. My point, my question, for the third time, is this:

Do you really think your description of the Apostolic Faith Church, as an international organization and member of the Christian community, is factual and unshaded by your personal opinions? That's all I'm asking. I'm questioning the reliability of your article, because I'm questioning the motives and intentions and purposes you had in devoting yourself to its creation. "Singularly interested in the truth." That's what you wrote, right? I want to know if that's true--I would like to know how it is that the truth-spinning that you so soundly condemn permeates the article you yourself wrote.

If you don't wish to venture an actual response to that question, that's fine--but launching into an unneccessary character attack is a interesting reaction to what is a valid line of questioning. I'm going to to take your invitation to participate in the article presentation as sincere. 71.142.77.218 08:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so that you will know, no one needs an invitation to write on Wikipedia. Raina 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuation:Comments Between Justin and Raina

[This section, as a continuation of the one above, was removed by the two commenting editors. It has been retained, but is shown as deleted by being striked through. Also, the two editors' explanatory notes regarding the removals are shown below without the strikes above the deleted content.]

NOTE -- I have removed most (all, obviously) of my original input here in the comments section. You can check the archives, if you must, to review our discussion. --Justin [Unsigned comment by 71.142.87.239 07:20, 1 March 2007]

Out of respect toward Justin, I, too, have removed my comments. Raina 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

Justin, while I am sure Joe Bishop would be chagrined to know that I think he preached the best sermon on biblical modesty ever preached in your church, do you know if there is a way to get a written copy of it? It was at a camp meeting teaching in around 1998 - 2001

Also, do you know when they quit using Apostolic Faith Mission? This was the legal name of your church for years, and it appears, from what you have written and some of what I have read, that it has been legally changed.  ???

I hesitated to say this, but if you are going to work on this article, I really think you need the help of some older people with broader knowledge of your church than has been shown so far. This is nothing against you or your skills at all; it's just that your experience is very limited by your age and the AF churches you have attended. Since Wikipedia is very widely read and is often touted in the media (including radio) as an up-to-date resource, you may want to get some older AF people from around the States, at least, to help you. Just a suggestion. Raina 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm,

I believe that most of the American Churches have dropped the "Mission" part of the title because it was simply was not true anymore. The name is probably still in use in Africa. Legally, most of our American churches go by "Apostolic Faith Church," with some churches adding the word Trinity to distinguish our organization from others. In regard to Joe Bishop's sermon on Biblical modesty, I think--I'm fairly certain--I know exactly which sermon you're talking about. I thoroughly enjoyed it myself. There are some copies floating around. I know a few people that have them.

You're absolutely right--my age does limit my experience. But I think, to be fair, your experience limits your objectivity. A few people have asked me about this Wikipedia page, and my response to them has been along the lines of "it doesn't really need that much fixing." I'm not interesting in changing the majority of what you've written. The only thing that concerns me is the spin, the anti-AF opinion that runs through the factual accounts. Every historian operates through a unique lens of perspective, and the lens you're looking through is tainted by some--I imagine--very painful experiences.

I've had offers of help, and I've turned them down. Since the only work of note that I have really put into the article amounts to the altering or deletion of about six phrases, I didn't think it would be worth mustering the Apostolic Forces. It's not my place or desire to create an historical account for the world to look at. Perhaps this is laziness excused, but I feel that if the organization was concerned about the encyclopedic content available through Wikipedia--and I think that it should be--some committee or pastor or minister or historian should get on and take care of it. (Fact is, I'd guess that most of our AF leaders probably aren't aware of just how widely-spread Wikipedia is used, and if they were, they would probably do something about it--if someone also told them they were allowed to. We're not exactly on the cutting edge of technology.) I'm sure that whatever I wrote, or however I wrote it, someone somewhere would disagree. Probably many someones. Which is another reason why I've greatly limited my input.

If I asked you to verify all your encyclopedic content, how much information would be left that isn't rooted in undocumentable or unverifiable personal experience? I think large portions would be missing from the "church doctrines and teachings" section--though I did not delete them, because I know that, while not verifiable or encyclopedic, most of what has been written is factually accurate. Is that what Wikipedia is for, though? Unverifiable facts?

One last question, about the alteration you made to my alteration regarding dancing. What dancing are you referring to as being prohibited? Dancing privately? Slow-dancing in a ballroom? School dances? Because there are different attitudes regarding all of those, among many different people, and I'm not sure what you mean by "dancing was prohibited through 2000." What kind, and by what verifiable source?

Justin [Unsigned comment by 71.142.80.197 07:05, 28 February 2007]

Justin, please forgive me -- I did not see this note down here; I only saw the numbered list above that was added to my numbered list.

Perhaps I did not state my question regarding "Mission" being changed to "Church" in the legal name very well. My question was whether the organization has changed it legally.

Regarding things written here being disputed, that is part of why Wikipedia articles exist: they are here for people to adjust until they come as close as possible to the truth. I had hoped that, because I have been away from the AF since 2000, someone would make the proper changes to keep it up to date without trying to whitewash it.

Justin, history can be verified by the people who live in it. As you saw above in this area, others have written that the article is accurate. Disregarding what I learned from AF publications about your church, the churches I attended for years that taught me what I have written here are those in California; Missouri; Minnesota, Washington, D.C.; and Washington state. Other church resources include Midwest camp and Portland camp. This is why I suggested that people from your church organization all over the American continent should help one another bring the article to some point at which they basically agree. Raina 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You May Need to Make Serious Reconsiderations About Your Choices If . . .

[Part of this section was removed by its contributing editor. The remainder has been removed as unrelated to the purpose of this talk page: improving the article. To see both parts of this removed section, see here.]

Private Response to The Article

[This section was removed by the single commenting editor. It has been retained, but is shown as deleted by being striked through. No explanation was given for the deletion.]

I have received e-mails from people regarding this article. In e-mails from one of the persons who has not yet written here, I have been accused of having "used the forum inappropriately." My e-mailed response to that person was that if this is what I did, then they are obligated to report it here as such, to which the response was that I had thus created "logical fallacies," and that the e-mail writer was "not naive." Upon asking if that person believed I had lied, this person replied "Well, what do you think? Is deception lying?"

I have presented the truth as best I could, after having consulted the AF's own literature as well as that of other churches that came from the roots they share. My reason for writing what happened is that the AF, as I knew it, had attempted to present itself as perfect, as the only organization with the "whole truth." Yet it appeared that there was a major cover-up at the AF's roots that hurt many people, according to many resources which wrote of the demise of the Seymour church that parented this church. Had the AF acknowledge that mistakes were made, this would have been less of an issue, but this legacy would have remained. Since most believers believe in forgiveness, however, it would not have been so blatant.

Perhaps I labor under the concept that the truth should be prized rather than covered up by carefully-manipulated words. I also recognize that because I was deceived multiple times by people I should have been able to trust, I can be harsh and rigid toward truth.

However, because of e-mails I have received, I know that several AF people, including pastors, have read this article over a period of time that includes, minimally, several weeks. If what I wrote was untruthful, and if it was indeed biased, why was the article not rewritten to show the truth? Raina 05:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since my honesty and integrity have continued to be called into question in e-mails, by someone I loved, I have reverted the article to what it was before I found it. Raina 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)