Tuesday, May 13, 2014

UCG Has No Ethical Issues To Report......................

UCG has no ethical issues to report, according to its latest COE meeting.  The questions that need to be asked of these men are:

Where were the ethical standards for these men as they plotted and schemed, while still in the employ of the Worldwide Church of God, to form their new splinter group?

Where were the ethics when most of these men were trumpeting the changes and disfellowshipping people who disagreed with the changes while they pretended to agree with Tkach Sr's changes?

Armstrongism has a distinct reputation of being unethical across the board.  How and why are we expected to believe that the current UCG has no issues with ethical values right now?

There are many more questions that can be asked.  Add them in the comments below
Ethics: Members: Mark Mickelson, Roc Corbett, Carmelo Anastasi, Mario Seiglie (chairman)

Mr. Seiglie reviewed the scope of the Committee’s work, as directed by the Council of Elders. The committee’s work extends to all matters of ethics and ethical conduct within the church organization.

  • The Ethics Committee recommends policy that defines conduct standards for all members serving on the Council of Elders of the Church.
  • Recommends policies that define standards of conduct for the elders and employees of the Church.
  • Monitors and recommends revisions of the policies and procedures concerning ethics and standards of conduct within the Church.
  • Oversees and administers, as directed by the Council, policies and procedures dealing with alleged unethical behavior within the Church.
  • Develops procedures for dealing with unethical behavior in the Church.
  • Recommends and monitors ongoing education programs for the maintaining of ethical standards throughout the Church.
  • Other tasks consistent with the scope and responsibilities set out in the overview and as directed by the Council.
Presently, no new tasks have been remanded to the Committee.


Anonymous said...

The ethics committee in UCG has always been looked at as a joke by the members. I was in UCG for ever 15 years till I had the sense to wake up. UCG is just as corrupt and maybe even more so than they all were while in WCG.

Assistant Deacon said...

HWA used to love posing the question, "WHY so many denominations?"

The fruit of his own denomination provides the answer. It's the nature of people, and the organizations they choose to affiliate with, to sooner or later split, splinter and be on their way.

It also suggests that falling in line with one way of thinking is futile. Division has happened over and over to churches and religions the world over, and continues to do so. The COGs were not, and are not, immune.

Anonymous said...

The Ethics Committee isn't usually going to have anything to do.

The time they spring into action is when someone finds a loophole in UCG policy, or when someone is caught in flagrant violation, such as in Nov 2012 when none other than the top dog himself, chairman of the council, Melvin Rhodes, was caught covering up sexual misconduct from six years prior, but "decided" not to tell anyone about. When this sort of information does come to light, that's when the Ethics Committee is going to be handed the "issue" of reexamining existing policies to see if they need to be patched or revamped.

There's an old saying that you can't legislate morality, which is exactly what the Ethics Committee is tasked with doing. That doesn't mean someone on the council or in the general conference of elders isn't engaging in or covering up misconduct of the type deliberately specified as disqualifying someone from being an elder ever again. But UCG is a very political organization, and even the ethical policies they do have are often disregarded.

In 2009, the same thing happened with Paul Kieffer, who was also on the council and had also been guilty of covering up past sexual misconduct. The ethics policy says sexual misconduct disqualifies a man from being an elder, à la 1 Timothy 3. Rhodes played this off as, well, I "repented," therefore I thought the matter was behind me, as if he had never read the organizational policies that as chairman he was supposed to be overseeing the enforcement of (or the bible). In the Rhodes case, the manner in which the information came to light (as a hand grenade lobbed from COGWA) made it impossible for the UCG old boy's club to hide it from the UCG members, so he was not only asked to resign from the council, but was also fired from the general conference. What was different about the Kieffer case was the way the dalliance came to light. The old boy's club could keep it concealed, so they did, allowing Kieffer to resign from the council but remain being an elder in good standing, in contravention of policy. But the COGWA guys (who may have reviewed Kieffer's case and let him get away with his misconduct at the time) revealed Kieffer's real reason for stepping down as a parting shot while walking out the door the next year. At any rate, the only reason why Kieffer got to keep his job and UCG paycheck while Rhodes got fired is politics, not policy.

It doesn't matter whether the Ethics Committee has anything to do or not. It is trying to do the impossible from the start, and in practice those policies are just suggestions anyway. The information needed for the enforcement of ethical policies is information nobody admits to if they don't have to, and even when they do, they're going to claim they "repented" and didn't know that doesn't wipe the slate clean, if not their weeping sores. But still, if you're "in favor" and if it can be covered up, then even the authorities will cover it up.

So, why even bother having an Ethics Committee? It's part of how you put on a good show for the members so they'll keep writing UCG a check every month. That's all that's important. And where is the god they supposedly worship in this political machine? You know, the one watching the members to make sure their checks are made out for the full amount? That's not a convenient question to ask, now is it? The bottom line is, god, the bible, ethics, they always can be construed to say whatever's situationally convenient. The only ethics are situational. The only thing that's important is the show and the money it leads to.

Anonymous said...

Yep, that's the thing about ministers. It's their job to tell you what example you're supposed to be setting, not to set one themselves. I mean, if you've already got a congregation of dogs, why bother barking yourself, sexpecially when there's all that fun to be had that the dogs don't need to know about. Don't ask, don't tell!

old EXPCG hag said...

Sounds like the Catholic Church to me.

Black Ops Mikey said...

So there are no more stalkers in United? They did an abominable non job actually having senior ministers promoting stalking and covering it up. They refused to do anything about it.

Are we to assume that the UCG resolved the problem at the split with CoGWA? Did all the stalkers go there?

I know my wife was stalked by someone in the CoGWA this past year, so, yeah, maybe all the stalkers have gone there.

I have my doubts....

And that's just one issue.

What about the ethics of preaching British Israelism when they know it is false?

Byker Bob said...

Actually, there are several ways in which the ACOGs deal with accountability issues. One way is for the leader to declare himself an apostle or prophet, and then claim that it is not members' prerogative to hold them accountable, as they are only accountable to God. Reality is they are servants, not some kind of super police guarding the gates to the kingdom. II Tim. says they are accountable!

The other way is to establish an ethics committee designed to evaluate the soft, foo foo stuff, as opposed to anything meaningfully deviant about individual ministers, or the evenhandedness of church policy.

I believe in holding any and all ministers accountable! At a time when one must write a check for taxes amounting to 1/3 of one's annual income, any organization wanting a portion of my tithes damned well better practice good stewardship and make themselves accountable as to how tithes are talleyed and spent, or I'll find an organization that will!


Black Ops Mikey said...

OK, Byker Bob, I've got it!

If the Apostle / Prophet is unaccountable to the membership because he has a line directly to God, then...

Since I have (in theory) a direct line to God, I have no accountability to the Apostle / Prophet.

Besides, if the prophecies of the false prophet do not come to pass, I'm not to have one whit of discomfort dismissing him as a kook and mocking him (not as good as the death penalty pronounced by Scripture, but it helps us get by).

Anonymous said...

"UCG Has No Ethical Issues To Report..."

Notice carefully the clever wording: "UCG Has No Ethical Issues To Report..."

The UCG DOES have MANY ethical issues to falsely deny, to try to cover up, and to make shameful excuses for.