Please Read!!!!

First of All....At most churches they have problems one way or another, however they do not discuss their problems openly in the congregation for all to see.... husband, wifes, children and visitors!
It is behind closed doors!!!!
What ever the problem is it is supposed to be handled by the head of the church, most of the time the problem is fixed and the congregation knows nothing about it and worship is not disturbed,
and they ones who do know only know by rumors and hearsay which stands a good chance to be inaccurate.
If you want a church to destroy a church real quick......
Let the deacons or congregation get a chance to get up on the pulpit and voice their opinion .....You would lose most your members and defiantly if someone visited they would never come back!!!

Anyways.... this is my prospective of the problem.
Hope someone will benefit from it.

Tony you have to stop picking me out, you act like I am the only Christian here .

I can't believe what I'm hearing here.

I'm familiar with the NT teaching on rooting out problems in the church. We are told to first bring it to the accused, then in front of witnesses, then to the whole church.

If your church is succeeding at keeping things quiet it either means one of two things
1) in every case they are able to produce repentence by confronting the person in private. or
2) They are trying it in private, it isn't working but they are willing to let it go for the sake of "peace" in the church.

If #1 is the answer, then hallelujah, your church is doing a great job. If it is #2, then you need to speak to someone there and show them these verses and ask them how they fit in:

Matthew 18 15“If your brother sins against you,<sup>b</sup> go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’<sup>c</sup> 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

How about this one:

I Cor. 5 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Or Here:

I Cor. 5 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature<sup>a</sup> may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Does that sound like Paul is telling the church to handle it in private? Sounds to me like he has the view that when something is poisonous it should be publicly exposed and expunged!

Al, I apologize for "picking you out", but you are bringing it on yourself by insinuating that being a Christian requires that we all sweep everything under the rug and hold hands while singing Kum Bah Yah! If that is your view of Christianity, you have all the right in the world to believe that. But don't be offended when others point out their differing views.

How many churches could have been saved in the past if the few who knew about adultery and theft at the top would have just revealed that information instead of allowing it to go on and kill the congregation?

Realize, while the situation in question is NOT a religious one, we, for the most part have handled it in exactly the same way Paul suggested for the church to handle it.

FIRST - we offered open dialogue with questions to the org TT and ED.
SECOND - our questions were censored so we went to phone calls and emails and pm's with questions (and accusations) to the TT and ED
THIRD - I don't know about everyone else, but I PERSONALLY AND PRIVATELY went to Carlos begging him to simply be honest.
FOURTH - when he wasn't honest and showed no intention of being honest I brought it before the "congregation" of contractors publicly.

These other guys have ALL tried to handle this privately. John gave them DAYS to fix the problem, but Carlos, as usual, chose to run to the earthly incarnate of the devil himself (an attorney) instead of just answering the accusations.

How has this been wrong Al? Can you suggest a more biblical way of handling this? Am I missing something? Does the bible teach me to walk away when I see the possibility of others being hurt by deception. If so please provide me with the evidence of that and I will repent.



 
If I thought that there was a remote hope that someone in a position of influence with the UAMCC would respond to a question, I would be all over. Since they seem to like to perpetuate lies and fantasies, such as they are banned from posting here, as well as the numerous personal attacks they have instigated against Rob, Ron, John and me, I do not see a purpose of making PWI a bully pulpit for them that are going to pretend doesn't exist. In my opinion, at this point, they are nothing more than a privately owned club that is destined for failure because of poor leadership. They really are not worth worrying about.

+10

Very well said Scott!

I would like the threads and posts to be here forever somewhere so if someone wanted to read them they can in case you decide to move them to another section that is out of the public eye.

I think that for people to make informed decisions, they need to find out as much about something as they can so with all these posts and threads here, that should be enough for them to help educate themselves before making a decision.
 
WOW! This is getting deep! :drag:
 
I can't believe what I'm hearing here.

I'm familiar with the NT teaching on rooting out problems in the church. We are told to first bring it to the accused, then in front of witnesses, then to the whole church.

If your church is succeeding at keeping things quiet it either means one of two things
1) in every case they are able to produce repentence by confronting the person in private. or
2) They are trying it in private, it isn't working but they are willing to let it go for the sake of "peace" in the church.

If #1 is the answer, then hallelujah, your church is doing a great job. If it is #2, then you need to speak to someone there and show them these verses and ask them how they fit in:

Matthew 18 15“If your brother sins against you,<SUP>b</SUP> go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’<SUP>c</SUP> 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

How about this one:

I Cor. 5 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Or Here:

I Cor. 5 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature<SUP>a</SUP> may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Does that sound like Paul is telling the church to handle it in private? Sounds to me like he has the view that when something is poisonous it should be publicly exposed and expunged!

Al, I apologize for "picking you out", but you are bringing it on yourself by insinuating that being a Christian requires that we all sweep everything under the rug and hold hands while singing Kum Bah Yah! If that is your view of Christianity, you have all the right in the world to believe that. But don't be offended when others point out their differing views.

How many churches could have been saved in the past if the few who knew about adultery and theft at the top would have just revealed that information instead of allowing it to go on and kill the congregation?

Realize, while the situation in question is NOT a religious one, we, for the most part have handled it in exactly the same way Paul suggested for the church to handle it.

FIRST - we offered open dialogue with questions to the org TT and ED.
SECOND - our questions were censored so we went to phone calls and emails and pm's with questions (and accusations) to the TT and ED
THIRD - I don't know about everyone else, but I PERSONALLY AND PRIVATELY went to Carlos begging him to simply be honest.
FOURTH - when he wasn't honest and showed no intention of being honest I brought it before the "congregation" of contractors publicly.

These other guys have ALL tried to handle this privately. John gave them DAYS to fix the problem, but Carlos, as usual, chose to run to the earthly incarnate of the devil himself (an attorney) instead of just answering the accusations.

How has this been wrong Al? Can you suggest a more biblical way of handling this? Am I missing something? Does the bible teach me to walk away when I see the possibility of others being hurt by deception. If so please provide me with the evidence of that and I will repent.


+10 Very well said Tony!

You even show scriptures to show where they can find it in the bible if they don't believe you, wow!

You sure know your stuff!

I am very proud to call you a very good friend of mine.
 
If they had stated in the the beginning (and they stated today as well)they..... were a private organization or club nobody would care.

When they state their mission is to Raise and Save the industry as a national organization that becomes problematic.



..
.

.
.
..

..
 
Note to everyone:

The bible verses were brought up for Al because I know he believes them as I do.

Anyone who has no intention of believing them should just disregard them as being immaterial to the thread.

I'm not here to shove Christianity down anyone's throat, I was just answering a fellow Christian with scripture.
 
If they had stated in the the beginning (and they stated today as well)they were a private organization or club nobody would care.

When they state their mission is to Raise and Save the industry as a national organization that becomes problematic.


..


You are right David, if they presented themselves as they really are, there would be no topic of discussion.

On the other hand, if they presented themselves as they are, they would have a much harder time getting members.
 
If they had stated in the the beginning (and they stated today as well)they..... were a private organization or club nobody would care.

When they state their mission is to Raise and Save the industry as a national organization that becomes problematic.



..
.

.
.
..

..


+10 Very good point David!
 
Note to everyone:

The bible verses were brought up for Al because I know he believes them as I do.

Anyone who has no intention of believing them should just disregard them as being immaterial to the thread.

I'm not here to shove Christianity down anyone's throat, I was just answering a fellow Christian with scripture.


No problem Tony, I am sure that most people that know you will know what you are saying and that you are not trying to force religion on anyone.
 
If there are positives and negatives to every situation, why are all negative threads going to be closed? If one person's side is Pro and the other person's is Con, does the person who is Con not have a voice? Or does that person have to be a Moderator to have a voice?

I have refrained from posting on this site for a few months because I feel that there are too many Mods here and they use the position, at times, to show bias. I think threads should be left up for all to see. It shows the type of people you are dealing with. If it is not slanderous, profane or offensive, it should be allowed. People should be allowed to make asses out of themselves. They should also be allowed to make amends.

I come here because there is much to learn. I get put off by the Mods that think they have the right to decide what people see. We are grown. We have our own opinions and should have the ability to make the decisions with ALL of the information. Not just the positive info, but the negative too.
 
The problem with that Chuck is that this forum is open to our customers or potential customers too. If someone is checking out our company and some of the kooky stuff pops up on a Google search we are associated with those comments. Of course negative comments do have a place when they are used in a constructive manner. I don't see those being deleted.

Just as in open society there have to be some type of checks in place. The moderators have to use their own judgment. I see the moderators job as a no-win situation. I'm glad someone will do it. I see very little bias.
 
You know, Rick. You are probably right. I just think that maybe there are too many Mods here. I also know that nobody makes me come here. I quit even reading Uamcc's site because it was too much "flowers and roses". I just hate to see it happen here. If it needs to be aired out... air it out. I understand that customers may see it. Maybe people should think about it before posting. It seems as the environment is such that certain people can put someone on blast... then have it pulled later if they "know the right people."

As I re-read this I do see the reasoning for there to be some moderation. I do agree that if people need to "air it out" they should do it among the involved parties. It's tough because I read some of the things that people post and it helps me think about that person and whether I want to take that person's insight as worthwhile. If the post are "censored" it hurts one ability to make such a decision. If everyone on this BB was Pro Uamcc and the Mods decided not to let anything negative about the Uamcc be posted here... How many people would be out their membership money? Probably a lot more than are now. I would have been. It was the "negativity" here that made me sit back and take a stronger look at it.
 
As a past administrator and a current moderator, and having been on this board since about a month after it opened many moons ago I can tell you that there are very few posts and even fewer threads that have been censored or pulled. In my opinion I think a few more should have been, but since Mike Hughes left as administrator, there has been much discussion between the admins and mods about when a thread or post gets put in the hidden from view area (yes, they are still all there).
 
Guy's, again I'm not cheer leading here but, some of the things that have happened here this past week were absolutely crazy. That being said I hope that some of the Sane accusations will be addressed, and I think they will be.

I have taken (from the start) a 'Wait And See" attitude, the BOD will be seated in Jan, from that point there should be a large push to get things moving in the right direction and in the proper way, I really believe this will happen.

No Org. is the "Moral Compass" to our Industry, the Contractors are.

I challenge those that don't agree or like the Uamcc to join, be part of the solution not part of the problem.

Grant, as far as Mods go, you guys do a great job!! But I will point out that only a month or so ago, a "Super Mod" his words not mine, started 2 threads, and because he stuck his foot in his mouth and got neg. feedback, closed both of them without proper authorization from the other Mods. Just a case in point.

But really guys, at the end of the day does any of this really matter?????
Of course not!!!!!!

It seems that lately the only negative posts here have been about the Uamcc (of course), and taking a Hack To Lunch, Oh, and stencils. Hahahahaha
 
I do recall that PWNA took some slack a few years ago, and there responses and action were the reason I did not renew. (I never actually joined, but a member that was leaving the industry requested that I be transferred his membership. The PWNA did that transfer and requested that I not mention it, I never did until they publicly announced it....) I have never looked at PWNA seriously since then. Unless UAMCC TT or ED or future BOD can answer some serious questions with some reasonable answers I will never look at them seriously either.
 
Guy's, again I'm not cheer leading here but, some of the things that have happened here this past week were absolutely crazy. That being said I hope that some of the Sane accusations will be addressed, and I think they will be.

I have taken (from the start) a 'Wait And See" attitude, the BOD will be seated in Jan, from that point there should be a large push to get things moving in the right direction and in the proper way, I really believe this will happen.

No Org. is the "Moral Compass" to our Industry, the Contractors are.

I challenge those that don't agree or like the Uamcc to join, be part of the solution not part of the problem.

Grant, as far as Mods go, you guys do a great job!! But I will point out that only a month or so ago, a "Super Mod" his words not mine, started 2 threads, and because he stuck his foot in his mouth and got neg. feedback, closed both of them without proper authorization from the other Mods. Just a case in point.

But really guys, at the end of the day does any of this really matter?????
Of course not!!!!!!

It seems that lately the only negative posts here have been about the Uamcc (of course), and taking a Hack To Lunch, Oh, and stencils. Hahahahaha
except for the FACT that no one knows where your money is going or IF you will have a say without being sensored and kicked to the curb for having a DIFFERENT oponion than the EXECUTIVE DICTATORS oops I mean exective director! sorry bout the typo :sarcastic:
 
Guy,
I had the option of a free membership by virtue of the time I was on the Transition team. I declined the invitation, for what I felt were very good reasons. I like to think that I have a bit of a moral compass, and am more than willing to take lumps at times. If I thought that there was a chance of someone other than the anointed ones to be a person of influence, I would have hung in there As it was, I was being used because people know who I am, I was not being given assignments, even when I asked for one directly, because, "You are just so busy, we don't want to overburden you, and we are just happy to have you on the transition team." Finally, shortly before I left, I was given the environmental area. That was the first assignment more substantial than to write one email, that I was given in 6 months.
It was particularly frustrating, because of all the times that there were unwitting mentions of back room conversations that were deciding policies.
Before I quit, I started the UAMCC Facebook page. I maintained control of it for a month or two. Carlos asked me for the controls, and I gave them to him that day. A month or so later, I was reported to Facebook for fraudulent use of the UAMCC logo. I have little doubt it was Carlos that did it.
For me, with all the involvement that I have had in leadership positions in organizations, I figured I saw a loser, or in this case, a group of losers that I could not afford to be associated with. Mind you, not all of the transition team members are losers, or evil, but enough were to cause me to rethink my position.
There were other leading indicators that also contributed to me leaving as well, but I am not going to list them in public.
 
Thanks for not blasting me, everyone. Good luck to all of you.
 
Back
Top