Menahga, Wolf Lake and Brainerd Annual Joint Board Meeting, April 27, 2019

We'll begin with song number 160.

Let us join together in thanksgiving and prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, holy and righteous God, as we gather this morning, we first of all want to thank and praise thee for all the bountiful blessings you have granted into our lives, especially for this, which we have just recently observed and celebrated, the last days of

Our Lord and Savior's life here on this earth, his innocent suffering and death, and then above all the resurrection victory where he was able to overcome death and hell, and the enemy of souls when he was able to rise victorious on Easter morning.

We wish to thank and praise you for this great treasure that we are able to own through faith, that we can travel as your grace children in your kingdom here upon this earth, trusting

As Jesus has promised onto his disciples before he departed that he would allow his spirit to come be lowered down to continue to teach and to comfort and instruct your children here as we walk in this

Evil and dark world that we could be able to remain as your children. We know in ourselves it would not be possible. As we this morning gather together to discuss the work of your congregations here in our communities,

We desire to ask, dear Father, as you have promised, as Jesus has said, where two or three are gathered together in my name, that through your spirit you will be present here with us. Keep each one of us as children in your kingdom. Lead and guide even this discussion we have today.

Preserve each one of us in this begun faith, we pray, that we could not begin to grow in ourselves, but that we could remain as little children, as the example Jesus gave. The greatest in the kingdom is the little child who can trust in your guidance and your instruction

We ask, dear Father, that we could remain as grace beggars, personally believing our own sins forgiven in his name and in his precious atoning blood. Dear Father, be present with us this day and bless our meeting. Let's all join together in the Lord's Prayer. Our Father who art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever. Amen.

At this time, I'd say welcome everyone to the meeting. There's coffee and rolls and water and tea and stuff out here, so feel free to help yourself. There's an agenda in the meeting minutes over between Roger and Steve. If anyone needs any of those, feel free to gather them. In the beginning, I'd bring greetings from Neil Waaraniemi. He's still in

Phoenix, he'll be leaving back for Menahga here, I think Monday is what he was hoping. So greetings from Neil. Also, yes, last night, Howard Parks texted me, and I would just read the text that he sent. God's peace, Mark. I won't be at the joint meeting in Menahga tomorrow. [personal medical details omitted]

[personal medical details omitted] Give my greetings to the meeting. That speaks Howard. [personal medical details omitted] So greetings from those brothers.

So at this time I would call the meeting to order. We can begin by reviewing the March 17th, 2018 meeting here in Menahga last year. This is our annual joint meeting that we have. Any discussion at all about the minutes or has everyone had time to go through them?

If whenever anyone is ready, I'm looking for a motion to approve them. Okay, Ron Honga makes a motion to approve. Is there a second?

Carlos seconds. Any more discussion on the minutes? Any more discussion on the minutes? Otherwise, there's a motion and a second to approve them. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Carried. Okay, review the agenda. Does anyone have anything they want to add to the agenda?

Anyone have anything they want to add to the agenda? Joe. There'll be two mics, so we'll just kind of have them strategically put around their table. Green means go, Joe. I got it here. Just like to make those aware that do not know

I know Mark was informed, but our congregation made the decision at our annual meeting that all spiritual discussions involving our board would also involve the congregation and that the expectation shouldn't be real high for involvement in any

Any detailed discussion, but you would be welcome to come to our congregation to visit. Yeah, our board is very well aware of that, and we've visited about it, and we haven't made, we're definitely willing to. The other thing is, is I have been informed there's a number of our guys that would be

Planning stuff for this afternoon that if we could move the business portion first and then the discussion afterward. Okay, that's worthy of discussion. Is anyone opposed to that? Otherwise we'll jump through and then we'll have the open forum after. Anyone want to add anything new to the agenda?

Okay, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Scott, is there a second? Steve Collette? A motion and a second to approve the agenda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Carried. Okay, so then we'll just kind of hold off on

On number five until after. Area publications director presently is Peggy Glynn. I visited with Peggy and she's willing to continue if we so desire and she's willing to give it up if we want to put someone else. But there is a publications director seminar meeting coming down in the cities in the next

Dave's Week. It's right now. Okay. Well, it's right now. They are down there. They were going to go down for that. So the floor is open for discussion on Peggy Glynn as our Area Publications Director. Rayno. I make a motion.

Okay. Motion has been made on retaining Peggy. Did you say? Okay. Joe seconds. Any more discussion? Any more discussion? Okay, there's a motion to retain Peggy as our publications director.

There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Carried. Okay, number seven, the area-wide presentation and discussions. We haven't had one in the last two years. I'm wondering, is it something we wanna keep on our agenda? Do we wanna continue those?

Or what's the thoughts? I look at the last meeting, I believe. It was Wolf Lake's turn to host in 2017, and then they were gonna host again in 2018, and we didn't have it. So I think it's worthy of discussion. Do we want to continue or not? What is that?

Well, the way it was set up is each year a congregation provides a discussion topic and presentation. We've had them in Wolf Lake, we've had them in Menahga, we've had them in Brainerd over the years. Just the three congregations. Well, I don't know. I know for sure the last two.

But I think the three years ago we might have been in Brainerd, I think. Yeah, so it's been going around. But the thing is, if we're going to schedule them, somehow or another we have to try to bring them to happen, otherwise it's not very conductive to just say, yeah, yeah, yeah, and then nothing happens. Steve, wait, can we hear or do we need a mic?

Don needs the mic, so let's start using the mic from now on. I agree, I think they're a good idea, but what we've had difficulties with before is finding a time to fit them in. I don't know how it is with you guys, but it seems like all we have is meetings anymore.

You know, a lot of conflicts, I suppose. There's only so many weekends to fit them in. But, like I say, they were nice when we had them, but it's just a question of whether we can still continue to fit them in. Yeah, I think that

Even in some of the years that we managed to have them, that was a big part of the problem, was trying to find a time to fit it into the schedule. That was oftentimes a struggle. And, you know, between weddings and funerals and other activities, it's just a busy time.

That's been the particular struggle there. And the other thing is, you know, if we schedule them and then I think the general idea, one, obviously the topic is good, but that you'd have participation from all three congregations then. And my recollection is, you know, overall participation

Probably has tended to be pretty weak, other than from the congregation that's hosting it. And so, I agree with that thought that they're in principle a good idea, but if our realities are such that, you know, we're not getting them scheduled, and then if we get them scheduled, there's not much participation.

You know, are we kind of kicking a dead horse there just because we're not, they're not really serving their purpose then. I'm sort of not sure what we should do in my own mind. Who's next?

Oh, one thing I forgot in the beginning I was going to mention. The meeting is being taped. I know other meetings, and maybe it's being taped by multiple people. I don't know. But we figured we'll tape it, and so there will be a taped recording of this. I guess if the chairmen want it, we will send it out to the chairmen. I guess probably my advice is I don't know why it should go all over the world, but that's, I guess, everyone's decision.

So what if we bring this question to the congregations if they want to continue these presentations? And have them on a Sunday. That's kind of what they've been over the years. Steve again. I wouldn't argue about taking it to the congregations either, but I think that's partially why that

We've been selected as board members is to kind of represent the congregation, I would say. And I guess I was a little bit confused in the opening there when Joe mentioned something about the boards not being involved in the spiritual discussions. I also assumed that that was part of the board responsibilities. But I guess to cut to the chase, I know that our congregation, we've talked about this,

This particular meeting before even. And felt that it certainly, like John mentioned, it's nice to have it, but then again it's the participation level that it's hard to fit it in the schedule. And then it seems as if when we did have them, you could almost bank on the same few people showing up every time. It wasn't like there was a new influx.

Okay, more discussion. Dave. Yeah, I think the last where we were at is we were trying to do is have, Brainerd was going to essentially host every time, and then

Whoever was going to present, the topic would rotate between Menahga, Wolf Lake, Brainerd. And it was just to try to encourage folks to get to the Brainerd area. They were willing to say, yeah, we have the facility, and since we have more of the population this way, we try to encourage people to go that direction. And I know

I think way back originally when we started doing them, it was twice a year, spring, fall. Well, that kind of happened, and I think as we got a little track record, we realized, well, it's only happening once a year, so then we thought, well, let's try once a year, and now we're back to no times a year. And I think we had maybe tried, now the last discussion was to try to do it in the summer months. Well, I think that's kind of difficult too, but I just had one thought.

And I feel like, you know, I think back to all the years when Camp Work Youth Work Week was, it was the second week in March. I mean, and that's when it was, and the materials were there, and that's when it happened. And you plan your events that way? Since then, they've given that up. So essentially here, we've, I mean, always in the second Sunday in March, we would have the Camp Work Youth Work

And so, my feeling is, is if it's going to happen, it's got to be on this given Sunday. And that's when it is, and you just go with it. Because, I mean, I'm as guilty as anyone as far as procrastination goes, that if it's like, well, we'll figure it out and get it scheduled.

Time goes by and all of a sudden you look back and you go, oh, man, where did those four months go? But I think we also, like some have said that, we need to be realistic too. If we don't see the participation and the support, I don't think it's not that people don't want to support it, but it's just if they don't have time and it doesn't fit into their life, that's just the way it is. So we can't try to,

Pound the square peg into a round hole, so to speak. Don is suggesting maybe table it for now. Okay, anyone else have anything, or should we? Esa, there's a mic somewhere there.

Okay, yeah, I think this would be a good idea. Maybe you can look into it and not to decide now. I think in Finland they do keep this area wide congregational days or evenings. So I think it would be nice to have maybe some Sunday evening taking turns.

And have some interesting talk on a topic. And also it would be good that in our area believers would get to know each other better. So I can see some benefits by doing this. I'm not sure how it has been done in the past, but I support this idea to look into it anyways. Well, Esa, this has been going on for many, many years.

So it's, you know, it's very well received, I think, but it's just like, you know, Roger, remember, it's just busy, busy, busy. That's a lot of the issue, but I think it's a good concept, and I don't know that we got to research it too much because it's already proven that it's very well received by those in attendance. But could we do it maybe Sunday morning in place of some regular services, so then it would not take any additional time, so. Scott.

I remember having them and I really enjoyed them. And I agree with Esa that to get to know each other better, especially those that have moved here recently. And I would say that personally I'd like to keep trying, to be honest with you. Because I remember back when, I don't know about you guys, but most of my visiting is done at church coffee. And I remember when our Bible classes were together with Wolf Lake and I actually missed them days a lot.

Because those were the times when I was able to have time to visit, you know, and I think if we could have, you know, try to keep something where we can have time to visit, I think it's, I would rather it not just fully go away. Steve [Collette].

Well, that being said, I'm going to say that Brainerd would still be open, that we could certainly use that for a meeting spot, and quite possibly that maybe I could bring the discussion up to our fundraising committee or ladies there or whatever that maybe we could incorporate it maybe that where the Camp Work Youth Work Week used to be in March, have a

Regular Sunday morning church and then a lunch and then have something afterwards. You know, the discussion afterwards. I'd be willing to push that and see if I can get that through at home. It's kind of funny, he just mentioned maybe we could do the pig roast again. And I just had somebody just like maybe a week ago say, hey, we're not coming to Brainerd again until you start doing the pig roast.

Sounds like that'll be in March, then, the next pig roast? Yeah, I hope not. Our annual meeting will be the second Sunday morning. Okay, yeah, so that won't work, yeah. Was Camp Work Youth Work Week, did it start on the second and go to the third Sunday? Yeah. So could it go, then, to the...

Like the third Sunday in March. Part of the thing with the spring schedule, I don't know what it is for 2020, because Easter moves, that could potentially be Palm Sunday. Well, we also have issues with spring break a lot of times.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned that. In principle, I think that, you know, that would be one way to go is let's pick a fixed spot in the calendar. I mean, you pick one now and then hopefully, if it seems to be well attended and goes well, then you just have kind of a fixed date.

And do it. And, you know, if we do it and it doesn't seem like there's much or the level of interest is not high enough that people aren't coming in any kind of numbers, then you can, you know, reevaluate, I guess. But if we get it on the calendar early enough,

And advertise it well enough, inform the congregations maybe. That would help them to plan for that so it's possible for them to attend then. Next year, Palm Sunday, would be the first weekend in April. So there'd be a few weeks in between there.

I was just wondering about next year, the third Sunday, the third weekend, is that the Phoenix Winter Service is at that time? I'm not sure when it is. So that would be a conflict.

The other thing that enters into the March calendar now in 2020 because of the Phoenix services is that in the weeks prior to that, the SRK winter mission trip will be taking place. So it's been bumped ahead about three weeks to a month from its original date. So that's gonna be potentially a busy time that way.

So summer sounds, or March sounds like a summer month, I know, it's so busy. Steve again, you got the mic. How about if we kind of take Don's maybe suggestion earlier, I think we kind of come to a consensus that it'd be good to see if we could continue to try to do it, and let's just kind of see if we can't nail down a time frame, you know,

I think from what Dave said, it'd be nice to do it sometime. The summers are so busy, we can't do it then. Spring and fall is like plugged in with everything else. So if we can find a time in the winter to do it, let's just see if we can work that out. So are you willing to take charge? Yeah. Okay.

Let's set a date by which you have to give back to us the proposal. Or if we can come up with the time right now, let's put it in there and see if it'll make it work. What weekend will work for you, Steve? Weekend in March. What was that?

No, second weekend. Yeah, let's try it. Anyone opposed to that? Otherwise, Brandon will take it and try around with it for the first weekend in March and try to get it advertised and go from there.

So if we do it on March 1st, there's been two thoughts. I guess we used to have it in the afternoon, right? If we were to do it in the morning, that's for all of our congregations, typical communion Sunday. So do we want to do it in the morning or do we want to have it, if you think of, okay, we have

Communion in our local congregations, then people go home and have some lunch and get to Brainerd. That it's maybe like later afternoon and then you have a supper after. That's just one thought.

Okay, well, Steve will be busy planning the hog roast now for first weekend in March. Does everyone agree on it, that we'll put it in Steve's court and see what happens? All right. Number eight, the host of the summer services, and we are the hosts for 2021.

I visited with Eric Jurmu last week about what are expectations, what's LLC thinking, what do we need, and he just said they're in the process of trying to have a committee like a stand-alone committee that organizes and plans services maybe each time they're in the Midwest. As long as we're going to use that facility of Silver Springs,

That maybe he just kind of recommended that everybody kind of watch and kind of look at what's happening this summer and if we got some things that we feel should be improved on or things that work or don't work kind of keep it in mind and then at a later date at some point we'll get organized and we might instead of being the management of the whole thing and the work maybe it'll turn out that we're just the workers which would be probably pretty nice.

So I don't know, Steve or John, you have any input? I know it's been discussed at LLC as possibly having a committee. Yeah, there's been, there has been discussion of that, how

How it ends up being managed and how the local congregations take turns and what those turns, what responsibilities they entail, I think is entirely up in the air at this point. Yeah. Okay, any discussion on that? Otherwise we just kind of be aware of what's happening this summer.

I'm sure at some point we'll get a little more organized. Okay, new business. Anyone have any new business they want to bring out?

How about this meeting? Are we still fine with having it March, April timeframe in Menahga? I'm just covering number 10. Do we want to continue it like this, or does someone else want to host it? What's the thoughts? So continue this format?

Okay, I guess my thoughts are, now we'll swing back into the new business slash go right into the open forum. Joe brought up Roger's text and Steve was wondering what's going on. Roger, are you fine if I read that text that you sent to me? Let's see if I can find it.

Okay, on January 27th, Roger sent me this text. Hi Mark, God's peace. The matter of your request for a meeting with the Wolf Lake Board was discussed at our annual meeting.

The instruction from the congregation was, those with concerns regarding our board, speakers, and our congregation are welcome to meet with our congregation as a whole. The congregation recognizes the weariness of the board members individually, and that these spiritual matters affect beyond just the board and ministers, but also the entire congregation.

May God bless our mutual efforts to restore love and doctrinal unity according to the scriptures as revealed by the Holy Ghost. The practical details of when you could come can be worked out between us as congregation chairman. Roger. So that was the...

The text that Roger sent me and I just responded back, okay, thanks, we'll discuss this at our next meeting and we'll get back in touch. So we've discussed this and talked about it on our board, I guess, a few different times. And like this particular meeting, I don't know, Joe, if you were insinuating that people may come this morning from the congregation, I don't know.

But this is kind of a, to me, a little different meeting than normal. This is a normal scheduled meeting. So I, I mean, I guess if people come, welcome, you know, it don't matter to me. But as far as the discussion that when I initially sent to Roger, it was pertaining the scheduling of speakers, Phil and Darwin.

We had that meeting in January, first part of the 12th of January, I believe, here. We probably didn't touch on it on an individual basis like we were hoping to visit about. It kind of was a huge, big meeting, and it went maybe a little bit different direction, so we wanted to kind of visit about just that topic. And I think we still want to visit about that issue.

So now you're aware of what Joe was alluding to in his comment. Any discussion? The floor is open. Let's just start on our open discussion now.

You want to go see if that coffee pot's giving a hassle? Oh, okay. Dear brothers, my heart is troubled. We have enjoyed for years and years and years, we have enjoyed open and frank discussion at these meetings.

Even as the minutes from last year say that after all this discussion we had together, dear brothers from Wolf Lake and Brainerd and Menahga, it says we have much reason to thank God. And I just don't know what to say, but I'm troubled. It seems like the Wolf Lake congregation has dampened with their requests somehow.

The freedom for you Wolf Lake brothers to speak. I don't know what it all means, but I really am troubled. We have had meetings and we have had meetings and we've had meetings and it seems like nothing changes. And now the congregation is telling you brothers that don't speak.

Or whatever, I just don't understand it. God needs to help us in these things and I don't know how things will work out. Don Nutty. So feel free to raise your hand whenever and I'll try to catch it.

I guess I don't know what to say either. I agree with Ron here. God is a God of order. I think that kind of action by the Wolf Lake congregation is contrary to God's will. God has allowed throughout time

Those to serve in different capacities, whether it be a speaker, whether it be a board member, teacher, whatever. And I think when I heard the decision of the Wolf Lake congregation, all I could do is shake my head. I am puzzled. I don't know what else to say.

Bruce. I don't know if it was so much a decision. I think it was more advice. I mean, you know, we're getting weary. And our fear as a board is not to dry up ourselves and lose that love. And I'm puzzled too. I said at that meeting here in January.

Our meeting last spring I thought was great. Myself personally, it was one of the best meetings I've been in in four years. I thought we cleared up matters, we blessed each other, and we went away with, I felt, love. I don't know hardly any of you guys. I've got no beef with you. And then it just keeps turning around. It feels like there's this attack, attack. That's what it feels like to me personally.

So, you know, I don't want to dry up myself and become bright-eyed. So I don't think it was a decision, and I don't think it's fair to condemn the Wolf Lake congregation for that advice to us.

John. Yeah, I wasn't here a year ago. Neither Steve or I were able to be here. I remember that. I remember talking to my brother-in-law, Randy, after that. I was really happy to hear his report of that meeting.

It seemed like, I guess the way Bruce characterized it, a sense that maybe there wasn't necessarily fully one mind on some spiritual questions, but still it had been a good meeting and an open meeting and that

You know, the gospel was preached, and it really warmed my heart to hear that. I was so encouraged by it. And, you know, one of the questions that I have, and actually I remember, this would have been 2016 speakers meeting, visiting with Darwin,

At the end of the camp, me and I think it was Randy Herrala. But like Darwin said at that point already, it's hard to understand how we kind of got to this point. And, you know, I've searched and I guess all of you or most of you have also in your own minds how did we kind of get

Where we're at. And, you know, I can say I don't have any kind of definitive answer to that. I don't know if I even have really a tentative answer to it. I think that, you know, I like, I suppose most of you, you speculate or try to

I don't have to understand, but I don't have any sort of sure conclusion of that. I understand the thought there in Roger's text to Mark. I think we all, all of us here, understand

The weariness part of it, for sure. We're weary. And we, of course, have been and are still willing to meet with your congregation.

I have felt and I have tried and I'm still trying to arrange just some personal visits because I think like we've all seen in bigger meetings you know you get a speaking term but

You can't really engage in a conversation and have a dialogue so easily, even in a meeting of this size. And when we're visiting on a personal level, maybe that's more possible. And maybe help us, for example, who are involved in these meetings,

To better understand where the other guy is coming from, what he sees, and that they can understand what you see. And maybe at that point you can recognize that, oh, yeah, now I can understand where they're coming from with that.

And it's important for us, I think, to understand how our communication comes across and is perceived by others as well. And, you know, I have to go through this at home all the time because I'm not good at it. You know, my kids are reminding me all the time, Dad, you know.

So I met recently, a couple weeks ago, with Phil and Carey and Anne and Esa, and I told them that I really want to hear what's your perception of things and how we got here. Well, of course, they had a bunch of questions for me, so that's where that afternoon went. We didn't have a real long time.

But we promised that, yeah, we're gonna try to get together and continue that. I really do want to hear what's your perception? How do you see things? I look at some of these doctrinal questions. That's one thing. But I think the other thing that I see that's been,

Maybe a part of how we have gotten here just has to do with our humanity, if you want to put it that way. Our human failings maybe in some actions that we've taken or something that we've said that has nothing to do with our doctrinal understandings.

On the doctrinal issues, those are things that I would hope that we're able to agree on. I'm not sure in the discussion of some of those issues, however, how much this

The humanity part of us makes that discussion also a little more difficult. And we need to be able to talk also, of course, about the doctrinal issues. But I think

It's important, and we've discussed, like we did, it came up in January, this question of spirits, for example. And I think that that's an area that I would feel very, very cautious and timid to draw any kinds of conclusions.

About that, and I think I tried to explain how I have understood that or thought about it in that meeting. I think it's clear that we're all, as children of God, the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts.

But we all carry flesh and blood and a lot of it. And those two are at war with one another. And, you know, in our discussions, there can be things that we say that I think we can say, well, that understanding even doesn't come from

The Holy Spirit or God's Word, but it maybe comes from our flesh. That doesn't mean that the person who made that comment doesn't have the Holy Spirit. I think so often of, it took me years pondering it to quite understand how to think about it,

When Jesus was traveling through Samaria with his disciples, they wished to stop and asked the place to stay in one Samaritan village, and they were refused. And a couple of the disciples, I think it was James and John, but I'm not precise on that, but they wanted, they asked Jesus if we should call down a fire from heaven

And Jesus said to them, you know not what manner of spirit ye are. Well, at least my thought has been that he was telling them that that did not come from the spirit of God, but it came from your flesh. On another occasion, Jesus said to Peter when he had described his suffering,

The coming suffering and death. And Peter said, not so, Lord, this shall never be. And Jesus said to Peter, get thou behind me, Satan. And I don't remember the precise framing of it, but that, you know, I don't think he was telling Peter that he's not a believer. But that didn't come from...

The understanding or prompting of the Holy Spirit in Peter, that came from his flesh. So I think in that, you know, we want to be careful. When Paul writes to the Galatians about the fruits of the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh,

When he speaks of the fruits of the flesh, he speaks of things like strife and envy and seditions and heresies, not just adultery and fornication and those kinds of sins. So we recognize that that can happen. And if we as individuals are at war with the Holy Spirit, at some point the flesh will gain the upper hand.

And I suppose at some point then the Holy Spirit will say, this isn't a dwelling place for me anymore. And then we lose our faith. But I guess those are kind of the scripture portions and the thoughts that have...

Guided my thinking about that and I want and hope that we can be maybe not so abrupt in making those kinds of conclusions and decisions or words. But we have to speak clearly and we can't surrender right doctrine.

You know, we excuse that which isn't right, but that we try to be patient and thoughtful and clear in trying to recognize what's really in question.

And I still would like to see some more personal level visits. A visit with the whole congregation, of course, I think at some point, and it can happen, and personal visits can happen after that, but it's like,

Other, you know, big meeting. You're gonna end up plowing a lot of the same ground and it takes hours and you'll have to, we'll have to all answer questions that we've already discussed and answered in these kinds of meetings many times. And so, my own thought there is it would be nice if we could

Make some progress to a point where we're able to say, here's what we see and what we understand. Because if you're weary from these meetings, those meetings, I would say based on my own experience, you'll be even more weary because of the amount of ground you have to plow.

Simply. But maybe it's time for that. I've had calls from or text messages from some members of Wolf Lake congregation and we've agreed, yeah, let's sit down and visit. And like

We all experience when we have regular jobs in a busy life, sometimes it takes a while to get that to happen. But I want you guys to know that I and I think all of us brothers here, we want to hear and to try to understand

Kind of your perspective, where you're coming from, what you see the situation to be, because then maybe we can have a dialogue that helps us to get somewhere with that. Esa.

Yeah, I'm kind of a new board member, so I'm kind of still catching up here. Actually, I was assigned this tag while I was gone, so an annual meeting picked me up. I'm not sure why I was picked. Or who did it even? I don't know that. Yeah, I think we can still have these kind of small discussions, of course, in small group or one-on-one.

And I would actually welcome them. Any kind of discussion we can kind of engage together would be very, very healthy. So keeping the [lines of communication] open, so we would kind of understand each other better and better. And I've been thinking these small discussions, we could

Again, these small discussions are kind of good because we can go back and forth. We don't have to wait for half an hour before we can even reply. And these kind of small discussions, I would say that we would do it in such a way that there would be no pre-con conclusions, nobody's right, nobody's wrong. You could just sit down, take a cup of coffee, and discuss.

See where the scriptures take us and this way to understand each other. There could be a lot of maybe misunderstandings or also in these issues. So I would like to promote this kind of discussions in peace and love. And again, so I think at the end, we are all sinful, we are all

Nobody's perfect here, so again, I would like to promote still small discussions on these issues. One of our suggestions, we could even sometimes use some written material. There are a lot of great presentations and books and

We could, there's a new SRK doctrinal book, actually I'm going to working on to translate that into Finnish, very interesting book, a lot of interesting material. We could example take some presentation, maybe introduction, some book chapter and go through together. Hey, let's, do we believe this way?

And I think we would find that often we do really believe and understand in the same way. So I would again promote this kind of very free discussions. Again, no accusations, no labeling. See who is wrong, who is correct. Let's talk about more these doctrinal issues.

Less people, so I will really welcome this kind of exchange. And again, personally, I would welcome to discuss these issues. So please talk to me or call me or whatever.

Okay, who's next? Al.

I guess I would agree with Esa on that, that I too would welcome personal discussions. My door's open. I'd love to visit. One thing to John's question as to perceptions or what seems to be behind a lot of these things, I will say the rumor mill is horrible.

Absolutely horrible. There's an awful lot of people who are deciding what people believe. And I hear some of these things, and I'm not part of any group of rumor people. I guess I don't do a lot of talking, but I can say that when I hear what people tell me that I believe, it's very disappointing.

Because I know what I believe, and yet I'm being told that I believe something different. And I've heard this out of a lot of people. I think that is standard. I think I could speak for almost everybody in this room that there are things said behind our backs, deciding how we believe, and it's just not true. We don't know unless we visit in person.

So it's part of the rumor mill. I think it's a total waste of time to go down that trail, but that's where a lot of this goes to. I think if we stick with doctrine, the justification by faith, when we can agree on doctrine, as it says in the Augsburg Confession, when we agree on doctrine and the proper use of the sacraments, that's enough.

And so then all the rest of these things can be taken away.

Who's next? Josh. What are these other things that can be taken away, Al?

Have you felt lack of love here in our meetings? In this particular meeting, no. A year ago, it was a beautiful meeting. We had an open and free discussion. I've been to an awful lot of meetings where there are demands made, a lot of wrong things said. These speeches condemning doctrine,

I have a real problem when somebody opens their mouth, and this has happened on several occasions where the comments are made that that is wrong doctrine. Stop and study this a little bit. Don't be saying wrong doctrine if you don't know what you're talking about. That's a bad deal, and there's been accusations of false spirits,

Wrong doctrines, wrong understandings. I don't have a problem with a wrong understanding. We can sit down and visit about that all day long. But when somebody accuses me of wrong doctrine, it really is difficult to discuss. When it's just the statement is made with no visiting about it. Many of you realize, and I'll talk about the robe of righteousness for an example.

John mentioned at our last meeting, he doesn't even know why that topic came up. Well, it doesn't make any difference as to why it came up, but it did come up in one of our meetings a long time ago. The reality is I spoke about that at MBMAC two years ago. There were 20 plus people that spoke against me, but I was right. It's according to scripture. And now I've heard statements saying that that's wrong doctrine. My stance on it.

Well, my stance is correct. And there are people that are incorrect on that. I don't mind somebody being wrong. I don't mind wrong understandings. We can discuss that. But don't tell me I'm in wrong doctrine when I'm correct and according to Scripture. And Wolf Lake has been accused of an awful lot of things, not just me personally. But so far, concerning doctrine, we've been 100% correct. And we can go back to the Bible and discuss this. There's a lot of people sitting here right now

Who are fully aware that most of these things have been correct. And yet there are statements made all over Zion where people do not have an understanding of correct doctrine. To me, that's a bad problem. That's a very bad problem. We need to focus on doctrine. And once we're in agreement on our doctrine, in accordance with scripture, there is no lack of love. Forgiveness is preached.

To each and every one. And as a matter of fact, I personally forgive everyone anyway. I'm not upset by those who feel that I'm in error. That's not a big deal to me. I know where I stand. But I forgive those who don't understand and pray that they would come and talk and we can square this away.

Who's next?

I have to say that my thoughts this week have often gone back to these meetings and these issues that we've been discussing for some time. And today I catch myself here at this meeting wondering, why are we here? Why is it that we wound up today at this meeting in front of an open forum discussion?

My thoughts drifted back to a few weeks ago. Why did we have that meeting there in Monticello? We did have an awesome meeting here a year ago. It was very, very beautiful. It was nice. We had very free discussion, open discussion. Then I've thought about Speaker's Camp a couple weeks ago and the thoughts and why we were discussing what we were.

And I think we all know, we can't, I can't say, Al, I can't speak to, you know, I'm not going to say that, I think someone can have wrong doctrine and still believe. Faith comes simply by believing. One time a dear brother, I'll just say his name, dear brother, Uncle Kenny Arvla,

He brought a Finnish minister to Cokato. He served in Wolf Lake and Menahga. He came over the next day and he was so happy. He said, Randy, I forget who the Finnish minister was, he said, I asked whoever this Finnish brother speaker was, he said, can I be a believer but I don't have to read scripture? And the Finnish minister correctly said, yes, you don't, you can just believe.

Faith is that simple. We only have to believe, you know. And Al, I think there's, I don't need to speak to you directly, to all of us, you know, there's some that can understand doctrine better than others. Even though I'm a servant of the word, I feel I have little understanding of doctrine. I try study and whatnot. But I think that faith comes by hearing and by believing.

And we're justified through Jesus Christ. And we can talk about a lot of these discussions. But the other thing I've thought about is Christian love. And I have to remind myself a lot, or often, that I do have this Christian love. I love Esa. I love whoever. You know, I just looked up at Esa. I love everybody, and I hope everybody

And I speak to this as I hope that this love is still warmly burning in all of our hearts, and I don't doubt that it is. But I just, I've thought about this a lot this week, and I appreciate Bruce's comment how I don't really understand the directive or the thought from the congregation that you wouldn't speak to these matters, because I feel it's personal faith.

You know, and I'm not sure why the congregation came with those thoughts. I can't really grasp that yet, but we have, as believers, freedom to personally just open up and speak how we believe. It's that way that it's not the congregation doesn't believe for the board. It answers to it. Nor does the board believe for the congregation, right? But we believe for ourselves.

And in that way, when there's a collective group of individuals who believe correctly in Christ and in doctrine and in God's way, then that brings the group of, or the congregation. So I don't really understand those thoughts, but maybe I don't need to as well. And I've prayed and other members on our board have prayed also that we wouldn't dry up in these issues, because they are.

They are consuming. Think about them all the time. You know, when we have these meetings together, I myself, I pray that God would open it up to me, first of all, and then he would open this meeting up to all of us. I think it's important that, and I try to remember this also, that we remain in a place of a child not so confident in our understanding

But that the gift of living faith is, or the greatest child in the kingdom is, the greatest in the kingdom is a child as Jesus is taught. And I get troubled when we wrap ourselves into understanding this stuff fully. I'll speak to you directly in that way. I hope it's not that way. And I guess I shouldn't assume it's that way that you think that, and I hope not.

We would believe as little children. I guess that's all I have. I think it would be very important to recognize what childlike faith is. It is complete trust in the Lord. And I do that, I believe.

I believe the word. I believe God. I'm very confident that Christ is my salvation because he's promised so. This is not a self-confidence. I think you need to be aware of that. It has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with what I've done. It's got everything to do

With what Christ has done. That's childlike faith. And as far as understanding, as I stated previously, I don't have a problem with a wrong understanding. That's one thing. Every single one of us errs in understanding. When we're teaching a wrong understanding after having been taught

What is correct, that's teaching wrong doctrine. There's a big difference here. Every one of us makes mistakes. Nobody understands everything perfectly. But to teach something that is incorrect after being told that it's incorrect, now you've moved down to a new level altogether. That's wrong doctrine. One more thing.

I was, my thoughts often stray as I'm speaking it seems, but I was, I brought up the fact that we've had many of these meetings and it is because, and I've had discussions with some of you brothers, it is because in the end, you know, we seemingly can't come to a line or it may be really close, but it's seemingly we're a little bit different.

And I've left discussions that way, that, well, hey, we can still preach the gospel, but let's continue the discussion. Today, we don't quite agree on this matter or not, but I think it's important that it is real. We know that. It's before us. There's this little bit of difference that's real in seemingly many different issues.

Yeah, I think we need to have a correct doctrine. That's very important. Let me read, this is Anna Luther's comment. I cannot say often enough

That we must carefully differentiate between doctrine and life. Doctrine is a piece of heaven. Life is a piece of earth. Life is sin, error, uncleanness, misery, charity, must forbear belief, hope, and suffer all things. Forgiveness of sins must be continuous so that sin and error may not be defended and sustained.

But with doctrine, there must be no error, no need of pardon. There can be no comparison between the doctrine of life. The least little point of doctrine is of greater importance than heaven and earth. Therefore, we cannot allow the least jotted doctrine to be corrupted. We may overlook the offenses and errors of life,

Where we daily sin much, even the saints of sin as they themselves confess in the Lord's Prayer and in the Creed. But our doctrine, God be praised, is pure, because all articles of faith are grounded in Holy Scripture. So I would... It is very important to go to the Scriptures and be a doctrinal correct. At the same time,

Obviously, we need this simple life, I mean, faith of a child as well. So we need that as well, but I would say that let's stay on a scriptural basis, even in these discussions. It was interesting, I was reading, there was a reconciliation meeting in 1911

In Finland, in Oulu, between new awakenings and believers, and the first thing when meeting started was the believers proposed that at this meeting we can only appeal to the scriptures. Let's use scriptures only at this meeting to kind of base on our discussion.

Steve. I kind of feel out of place to speak to this, but I came from the world and from a Lutheran church. And to put it in context, and I certainly want to be corrected if I'm stating this wrong,

I would almost have to say that their doctrine was, if you're going to go by the doctrine, which to me kind of is almost like, how would you say it, not a law, but their understanding, I can say that I think their doctrine was pretty correct. I'd be here to state the fact that if I was going to try to debate with some of those

Lutherans that were there, as far as doctrine, I would have probably come in second place. Just because of the fact that a lot of those had been to theology schools, colleges, whatever you might want to say, that they were very learned in the scriptures. But I can also say that when I was converted, what seemed to me the difference was that Holy Spirit that was guiding the kingdom.

And it seemed as if the understanding of doctrine, so to speak, or the understanding of childlike faith was here in God's kingdom. And it wasn't based on how much you knew, so to speak, but on actual personal experience.

And I don't know if that's kind of pertinent to what we're discussing here, but maybe I can say that in all humbleness, I think that's what we need to hear is humbleness. It's hard to be maybe defensive towards a lot of things without looking at the humble side of things as well.

Certainly it's been stated that as we all carry that flesh, that's part of us. The rumor mill was mentioned here, and I gotta say that that is a nasty thing. I mean, I can tell you that within less than 20 minutes of when I had spoken with Darwin on the phone about serving in Brainerd, or not serving in Brainerd, my daughter called me and had a,

I got a phone call or a text message or an email already from Detroit within 20 minutes of what did your dad do? It wasn't what her dad did, it was what the congregation did. It seems as if there's maybe

A preconceived idea, or maybe it's not even preconceived, I guess, but I would have to say that we've heard the comment that we need help from Finland or we need help from outside help. I'd like to be under the firm belief that we also have the Holy Spirit here and that that's guiding in our own congregations. And that Holy Spirit here would be the same as it is in Finland or wherever.

I'll take a mic down here, John. I had a thought and now I know where it went. You know, there's

There's a couple of things, I guess maybe if I go back to Al's comments about, for example, the robe of righteousness. I think part of the problem there, and I don't agree with your description of the rightness or wrongness of that. During that EMIMAC meeting, I was sitting at home, I wasn't there, but I was listening

And you and I talked about a year later, was it the next year? And I mentioned to you that, well, maybe some have said you were misunderstood. I said, I don't know, maybe you were, but this is the way what you said came across. And what I had told you was that at least the way it came across to me, and I suspect that that was the case

Other brothers there was that you were rebutting or refuting what they had said in their speaking terms. And you said, yeah, I was. And I think where the problem comes, and I don't think it's just part of the problem, I don't know for sure, but with that and some other issues is

What I would call a mis-framing of the issue or when you start getting down to terms, Robe of Righteousness, confusion about this terminology and mixing two different things around one term. Robe of Righteousness is this kind of kuva kieli, this picture language, okay? But

If you go back to that MDMAG meeting, brothers there spoke to their own experience, their endeavor to keep faith in a good conscience and to care for their conscience. And that's one thing, and that's a kind of washing that is

Scriptural. And they're not by that meaning that somehow we have in any way defiled or damaged or injured or diminished what Christ has done. His righteousness that he's obtained. And you're

Buddy Joe sitting right next to you, I think he saw that very clearly. He made what I considered one of the most lucid comments of the whole day. He said, we're talking about two different things. I don't know if I got it in the right order in just the way he said it, but one, we're talking about care for the conscience, and in the other, we're talking about the righteousness of Christ. They're not the same issue. And I think that

When we, was it two years ago, we had some discussion of that rope of righteousness question here. And, you know, I remember I asked or suggested that let's for a minute just forget about this term. And I'll share how I believe. And I did.

And brothers said, yeah, that's the way we believe too. And the robe of righteousness, I can't remember in any of my reading or study where this has ever been like some kind of a doctrinal point. It's just, I don't know why,

Why we're going round and round on that term. There seems to be, from what you're saying, and this confession of faith, a doctrine that's circulated, that what we've been teaching is wrong. But we've never taught that somehow

We can defile the righteousness of Christ. That's not accurate. I've never heard that in the years that I've been believing. When we talk about defiling our garments, we're using a word picture in a different sense. We're not talking about defiling the righteousness of Christ.

If that were the case, what would we turn to anymore? Why do the same people say that we should take refuge in Christ? We couldn't do that anymore if we've somehow destroyed or damaged, defiled His righteousness anymore. So, I don't, to me, it's, this would be what

Paul would call a foolish question to keep going around and around about the use of this language robe of righteousness. If I believe that when I fall into sin, now I've stained or marred Christ's righteousness, then I need a new Christ. Because the old one isn't good anymore. He would have to come and die

anew for my sins. And that's not been taught in Christianity ever. And so to me, that's why I don't understand. Why is this a question?

Sometimes we don't understand what people mean when they use these kinds of word pictures and maybe how they're applying it. But like I said, I think Joe sat there and listened to that discussion. He understood. These are two different questions. So that's one. And I think that it's true on a number of these

Other doctrinal questions. When I read that confession of faith, there's a lot of things that are stated there that I can agree with. That's right. And yet there are other things that it seems like it's...

I can't, okay? And maybe the thing that strikes me the most about it is that, at least from my perspective, it misframes a lot of these issues a little bit. Esa's been reading

From, I think, Kullervo Hulkko's book, I send you. He's written another book called Invincible or Unconquerable Kingdom. And in that one, he writes about the minister's heresy. And there,

He actually speaks kind of the same thing. The claims that one man was making about the teaching in Christianity. And he said, well, before dealing with this annoying and troubling or kerfuffle-causing comment, it would pay first to go back and look at what Christianity

Actually teach us about this. And I feel like, again, when I read that document, for example, and I consider some of these other discussions, I feel like that's what's happening. And maybe, I suppose it just seems like,

I don't want to say that it's disingenuous or intentional, but maybe that's the prism, the lens through which some people see these things. But I don't have the same vision that Christianity would have taught what they seem to be

They seem to be thinking Christianity as taught, and now we need to correct this. I don't see that. One of the other things that he speaks of, I didn't have to translate it on the fly here, and this goes back to something else that was mentioned here,

Earlier on, Steve was talking about doctrine. You know, the one, I would say, most distinguishing features of our Christianity, if somebody asks you how do you differ from other Lutherans, it is right in that area which

Steve pointed to, and that's the congregation doctrine, which we understand is also central to our understanding of the doctrine of justification and our understanding of God's word. And one of the things that Hulkko speaks to, and I'll translate it, he says,

Further, it is believed and taught that the Bible is the only guide or authority according to which all doctrine is to be examined and judged. Nothing can be placed alongside or rise above

The scriptures in its authority. For that reason, it is to be [inaudible]. Kind of like quite forcefully rejected this claim that in conservative Laestadian congregation

Or that in the conservative Laestadians, the congregation would be raised above the Bible. And we're hearing that said and suggested some nowadays. And I can't accept that to be the case. I don't believe that's the case. I think that

It could be said that maybe some have a different understanding of some scriptural portions. But that's a different question. And both Luther and Juhani Raattamaa and Hulkko talk about that in here. You can't separate the congregation and God's Word.

And you can't separate justification and God's congregation either. They belong together. It's central to our understanding and the office of the Holy Spirit. And for me, I'm like Steve. I came from the world. Through the struggles,

The battles, the mistakes, my own mistakes, the mistakes of others in the 1980s and everything that's happened after where mistakes are made, I still believe this is God's kingdom. And when we have that understanding,

It affects how we see the Holy Scriptures also. There's a man right now, his name is Jean-Claude Maniragaba from Rwanda, a Lutheran pastor who received the grace of repentance, and he's in Togo in Ghana right now with the brothers. And I've been getting some really interesting messages. Since he received the grace of repentance, he sees the Scriptures like a new book.

He knows them well, but he hasn't understood them in the way that he understands it now. And during this trip, he has seen how God's children live of the gospel, and he finds that he lives of the same thing. It's a very amazing thing. So,

I hope that we can have this kind of, with humble minds, discuss these kinds of issues. I would say, Al, that one of the things I think that troubles a lot of us is that you seem here

I'm pretty ready to teach all the rest of us how we don't know nothing. That's kind of the way it comes across. That we need to understand. And you know, we can speak those same words, but if it comes across in that way that I know, and with this kind of pride in my learning,

It's not gonna go very far. And I can say that for me, life has been pretty humbling. I've read a lot, I've studied a lot, and the more I read and the more I study, the more I realize how much I don't know. And during these last three, four years,

I've taken inventory of how I believe about these various questions and asked myself and checked other sources and visited with many brothers and sisters. And there were times I had a lot of doubts. But I am convinced that I believe like

The children of God in Finland believe and how God's kingdom has believed and still believes. If you think of understanding on a spectrum, you know, here's zero and here's 100. You know, every believer somewhere on that spectrum

In terms of how much we understand, it doesn't mean we can't believe. Everybody doesn't have to be a doctor of theology. And I can say in all honesty, if I could trade what I know now for the faith that I had when I began believing, when God granted me

Warm feelings and able to believe so childlikely. I'd trade in a heartbeat. And I think that we can talk about these things, but there's this Chinese proverb about

Those who don't know that they don't know. They're fools. And I think we all have to recognize that there's a lot we don't know. But if we understand that we don't know, then we can learn. So,

Some examples there anyway. I guess I would suggest to you, John, that you probably should go visit Al on a personal thing. I mean, he's invited you, and maybe you guys can come to an understanding or whatever. Yeah.

Who's next? Raynall. John, you want to hand it down? When I think of childhood faith, that comment was made here earlier, that what is that childhood faith, I remember

How Jesus picked up a little child and he says he's the greatest in the kingdom of God. And then also when we think of a little child, each of us who are married and have children probably have recognized, like I have, that the mother understands the child's problems. If the child cries, the old man doesn't really know why he's crying.

But the mother knows. The mother knows and knows what to do. And when I think of that New Jerusalem that was lowered down from heaven, it is the mother of us all. It is that mother that understands the cry of the child and knows what the child needs. And so as a little child, not knowing anything,

When we think of a little child, as we baptize a little child, they have no knowledge. They don't know the scriptures. And I don't know the scriptures very well even now at 80 years old. But we still have that Holy Spirit teaching us. And when we think of knowing the scriptures, which of us could know the scriptures that well of our own self?

We remember that Ethiopian Enoch, who was reading the scriptures, he knew the scriptures, and he knew he was reading Isaiah, and he had a desire to believe, so Philip was instructed to go and join a chariot, and Philip asked the Enoch, do you understand what you read? He says, how can I understand unless someone explain it?

What Enoch knew, he knew the written letter of the Scripture. But without the Holy Spirit, he could not comprehend what God wanted to say in that Scripture. And that's something that we also need to remember when we think of the Holy Scriptures.

That unless the Holy Spirit reveals what is God's will, we do not understand. Certainly the scribes and the Pharisees knew the scriptures very well, and yet they persecuted Jesus. So when we think of these things, number one, we have the spiritual mother here upon this earth, God's kingdom, the mother which cares for her children.

And then we are encouraged to hear what the Spirit speaks unto the churches. As John writes to each of those angels of the churches of Asia, when he ends each letter with those words, hear what the Spirit speaks unto the churches. And the Spirit speaks through the mother. The Heavenly Father reveals unto the mother what the children need.

And may God always grant us that desire to hear what the Spirit speaks. For it is that way that we are led along this narrow way. And it is that way that we can remain in living faith when we are led by the Spirit of God, which teaches us every day along this way. None of us can, of our own knowledge,

Reach that heavenly goal. But with the power of God, through the gospel, we can one day see what Jesus has prepared for us. I kind of hesitate to speak. I haven't spoken much at these meetings. I think I spoke in January that I hadn't

I've been directly involved in a lot of these conversations. It was true, although we had been informed from our church board and the speakers and our congregation has discussed these matters, these spiritual matters. Since the January meeting, I've had opportunity, even real recently, to speak with

Several people, and I can say that we're not of the same understanding on all these issues, and some of the discussion was, I guess, less than fruitful in this. It seemed on some things there was no common ground, but I don't wish to, I guess, tread the ground. We've already tread or stirred more things up,

In my simple mind, after visiting with a dear friend, we spoke about the matters of confession and how we've lived our life, being encouraged to put sin away, and putting sin away for this purpose. Christ has paid for that sin. We need not travel.

We need not travel with that burden of sin on our conscience. For me, this matter has never... I've struggled in faith, but this matter has always been. The grace found has been there. I've fell into sin. I've been able to go to a confessor, father or mother, and have my sins taken care of, and I've been able to believe. And I believe it's of grace that God has even

He called me to be a believer and all sorts of grace that he's given this gift of confession. What I mean to bring out is this dear friend, he agreed that he had the same understanding as me until recently. And I don't know very specifically if it's who he was speaking with, if it's you brothers or other brothers,

He said he had been of the same mind until he started to visit specifically around these matters of justification and matters that other brothers have understood and this matter of confession. He sees it in a different light now. Now it seems like the teaching in God's kingdom was

More previously it was, you must confess your sin. More of an order that you need to take care of this sin. And that the emphasis was on this, that you have to confess your sins and not unbelieve in them forgiven. After discussing it, we visited and

I guess for myself, I can't argue if someone says that they had the wrong understanding, even with regard to confession. But when we talk about these matters, if I personally have had this understanding, that doesn't mean that God's kingdom is taught incorrectly. I remember as a little child, even in Wolf Lake,

I remember the older speaker brothers, Ruben and Pete Nevala, John Vadaniemi. I remember the gospel was spoken and I remember even very specifically they lived their life asking for the gospel and they encouraged also to confess sins.

And I don't think it's ever changed, but I think what's happened now that there's this unsaid, I haven't heard it flat out said, I guess, and maybe I understand it. It seems like there's this insinuation that God's kingdom has taught incorrectly with this matter of confession and the robes of righteousness. And I don't know that anyone's flat out said that, but that's the way I've perceived it, that some have been

Sowing seeds of discontentment and mistrust even in these things. I don't, like I said, I don't know that this has been very bluntly or specifically stated like that, but I think that's how it's come across and it has served to cause some to question to the point where they believe they were of the wrong understanding before.

Who's next? Al. I guess I'd like to respond. John mentioned that, and now you did also, Mark. The correct teaching has always been in God's kingdom. Always.

God's kingdom cannot err. There are people that do err. And presently, I recognize exactly what you just spoke of there, Mark, but people are publicly teaching today that there is only one way to salvation, and that's by asking for the gospel. It's being said publicly. I cannot agree with that. It's contrary to scripture.

The just shall live by faith. That's the only way we're made acceptable. Believing. And so the statement that the only way to be heaven acceptable is to ask for the gospel turns it into a work. And yes, that is being taught publicly. And you guys have been at meetings with me and we've heard it said. It was said at MBMAC just this past year.

One of the speakers took that turn and said that's the way he's always been taught, you have to ask. But the correct message has always been taught at the same time. There are people who are giving a different message. Yes, I can name the guy if you want me to, but I'm not going to. And just to further on his,

Are you Roger Alajoki? Go ahead. I'm his twin. I'm just a better looking twin. But that statement was made at MB Mac. I don't suppose Bruce and I are twins. He's got short hair and I need a haircut. But maybe some thoughts have come to

First of all, I think if I remember right, at the year ago meeting at this location, I did speak to the origin of this Robe of Righteousness question, which is not the NBMAC meeting in which Al spoke.

During one of the meetings between the Wolf Lake Board and the Pastoral Committee, which was held at Brainerd, during that discussion, the early part of that discussion, which at that time was kind of limited to different matters that had already been discussed, I had

I felt that that meeting was going well and there was agreement and that I had made such a statement that, well, let's just go home. A certain brother then said that, no, the matter is deeper.

To which I had asked him that if you feel that it's deeper, what is it? And he was unable to respond to that. I don't recall his exact words, but something to the effect that he didn't know. It was at this point then that, perhaps it was Al or myself, I don't recall, but anyway,

Issue of justification by faith alone. And in conjunction with that justification question, this robe of righteousness then was discussed. In that we felt and still feel that the robe of righteousness is perfect. This is Christ's merit work that is given to us by faith. That it covers our sinfulness.

And a certain brother there then did make it very clear, John. I want to refresh your memory where he said that we stain the robe of righteousness of Christ. It was very clear. Later, another brother in a sermon in another location made it very clear as well.

That we by our sinfulness stained the righteousness, the robe of righteousness, which we had explained to be the righteousness of Christ. And so that's where the origin of that is. Subsequently then, a Finnish brother did preach on this matter at the summer services in Howard Lake, which many of you remember, where he said that

The rope of righteousness is Christ's righteousness and it is impossible for us to stain it. I had opportunity then later to discuss this matter with this Finnish brother and we had a very nice conversation. I don't know what he knew or how he understood the situation but he did tell me this way that he did not

Preach on that subject by accident. I suspect he had some reason. Also then, Rayno correctly does say and speak that congregation of God, Holy Spirit, which dwells within the kingdom of God, instructs

Sometimes we should be a little careful as to ascribe the Holy Spirit to some group so quickly. For example, as I said in the meeting that we just had in Monticello that I was very disappointed by the Spirit talk, ascribing some to not have the Spirit of God.

It's very difficult to deny that those statements were made. They were made. And that was not right. What we heard at that meeting in Monticello was not of the Spirit of God but rose from the flesh. Some of those speeches. Not all.

But there arose out of there a strong kind of insinuation that some even lack the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. That is incredible boldness. And it was wrong. It was not right. It rose from the flesh.

It can be this way that in a larger group that a certain type atmosphere develops that the majority feel one way. For example, it was pretty clear from that discussion that there was broad condemnation of the letter that had been written or whatever you want to call it from Phoenix.

As well as the actions or towards Wolf Lake, it was pretty clear that there was much spoken there against us. And in those statements were then made these kind of very strong that the Spirit of God indicates or the Spirit has, but perhaps it was from the flesh. It's my opinion that it was.

And also, I think Tom Stewart might have mentioned it, I don't recall. But it is easy to get, as he described, wrapped around the axle that sometimes in these meetings they can take on a life of their own that is not necessarily intended. I'm gonna speak a little bit about

The confidence that we ought to have in our salvation. We all have different personalities. Some are timid. Others are more bold by nature.

When love is broken, then we begin to focus on how something is said instead of what is said. This can happen. But the Bible tells us of our salvation that we ought to be confident in it. This is difficult when we carry flesh and blood and our faith is

Weak or small, our faith is small. But Bible always gives the instruction to be confident. In all confidence believe that what the scriptures say. So it would be good to, in love, overlook perhaps people's natures.

I know that Al has a particular nature. To someone who is perhaps timid or not of that nature, it can come across as something that it is not. Let's take an example just off the top of my head. I'll try to remember it from the Bible. There was Caleb. He had gone

Moses had sent him in wilderness journey among the spies. There was 12, one from each tribe. And they had spent 40 days in that promised land that they had yet to possess. And he came back along with Joshua

And they said that, let us go right now and possess this land. Seems a bit cocky. The others were full of all kinds of doubts. They said that they're like giants, these men. And we feel like grasshoppers.

And when a report was given of the other ten, and Caleb and Joshua began to say that it is a good land, let's go up right now, we'll defeat them. What was the reaction of the people of Israel? They were going to stone him for his confidence. We are instructed to be confident. Why? Because we're so strong or that we know so much?

No, but Caleb was confident in the promise of God that you shall own this land. Later, after 40 years more or however long in the wilderness they were, Joshua and Caleb have a conversation. Joshua, Moses as you all remember, had already died and Joshua was leader.

And he says, Caleb does to Joshua, that I'm now 80-some years old, but I feel like I'm 45. I feel like a young man. Send me. I want to go to that spot. They hadn't yet crossed the River Jordan. Another picture for us also that when God has promised us, what has he promised?

That when we believe on merit work of Christ, we shall not be ashamed. And we shall inherit eternal life. We can believe this with all confidence. Boldly, not half-hearted. That's what Bible encourages us to do.

I had something else yet, but maybe it'll come back to me. But those are some of my thoughts in here. I did feel that the meeting that was at Monticello, there was much talk that the Spirit spoke, but I think it was in many cases the flesh. It was the flesh. It was not of Spirit of God. But having said that,

There are, because we carry this flesh and blood unrepentant, all of us have this. And this kind of a cross of bearing this flesh and blood, we will not be able to relinquish until death. If it is so that

We have in this kind matter fallen and spoken in the flesh, which we all have as we can get wrapped around the axle, that we can believe even those even at this moment forgiven. I want to talk a little bit, I know that during a year ago or so when we had a nice discussion here about confession

And so it is that we can believe in confidence as the scriptures say that our sins were bought and paid for. It'll cross up Golgotha. Bible also gives us instruction and we could maybe discuss this at some point when he says confess your faults to another. What species of confession was then this Bible speaking of?

I'm of the opinion that it speaks of faults when we have between ourselves and other brothers and sisters fallen into matters and things have not gone well. And it remains as it always has that our faith is small. Enemy of the soul can come to us and say that

How can you believe so simply that by this merit work of Christ your sins are covered? The Bible told David that, I believe it was David, maybe I'm wrong, that blessed is the man whose sins are covered and his iniquities is not remembered. We're slow to believe this. Flesh and blood is slow to believe. We have then permission to

Use grace gift of confession one to another. We can approach and speak of individual matters that have happened. We have freedom to speak also of our own trials and difficulties, even of this life. And be assured, reassured, whatever the word you wish to use, again and again, and as often as is necessary.

The gospel message that son and daughter be of good cheer. Thy sins are forgiven. We want to, I think together, believe it this way that we can even at this moment believe that our sins are forgiven. And thus believing then love is restored.

Sometimes it is very difficult for our flesh and blood because of pride to admit any error of any kind. And certainly all of us have experienced this. I know that I have. And I know that you have. It's hard to humble ourselves if we have erred.

But we can nevertheless believe it, forgiven. And if God, many times I've had this kind of experience, particularly in my younger years, I'm sure all of you will also say the same, that we have become angry or lost our first love. And someone in that case years ago, it was usually my parents,

Would say that, well, now went in the flesh again. That didn't come cracked out, but it came from the flesh. And even without asking, my asking, they would preach freely the gospel. And you can believe even that forgiven. Miraculous thing can happen that upon hearing that good message, God can

In his love and mercy soften our cold and hard hearts to then confess that so it has been that yes I did go into the flesh or whatever the matter may be. I think if we could simply believe in this way and we can quietly and nicely try to talk about these matters and doctrinal matters even but if

If the love is broken, as it appears that it in many cases has been and is, it makes these doctrinal differences, if they are, very difficult to discuss. That's what has been on my mind. Roger, I'm going to ask a question. When we had our chairman's meeting in Brainerd, you made a statement that

The only way these issues are going to be cared for is with a continent-wide meeting. So we had the continent-wide meeting a couple weeks ago in Monticello, but at that meeting you said the way they've got to be cared for is to bring Finland brothers here. So it's kind of shifting just a little bit. You want to just comment a little bit on that?

Maybe I'll try to think of it, how to answer that on the spot. In order to, when the situation has gone as far as it has, there needs to be, it's not going to get solved without repentance. There has to be a change of heart.

What I felt and experienced on previous Saturday, there was plenty wrong there. And I think the main thing that bothered me a great deal, as I had spoken already before, that there appears to be, come into American Zion, this kind of congregation spirit doctrine that begins to imply

A large majority feel one way that that is then represented, that would represent Holy Spirit. It's not necessarily so. And so it would be important then when to go to the scriptures that what do the scriptures then say about some specific matter.

But, and those big meetings are, and all of us know, they're very difficult. They're cumbersome. People say that, well, I had a thought in my head, you know, four hours ago. Well, you know, a lot of water goes underneath the bridge. But I don't, I have felt that these large meetings and the continuation of them without some sort of,

Maybe for a lack of a better term, probably isn't the right one, but a third party or Finland or somebody would be constructive. And I have asked for that, and it hasn't happened for whatever reason, but I guess I don't know how else to answer your question.

Scott. I don't want to try to rebuttal or anything because I don't want to. I've had some thoughts on my mind and I, even before you spoke Roger, but I thought of some of the meetings that we've been at and I've had visits afterwards with some about the meetings and

And some have asked me what I've thought about certain particular speeches of certain people. And yeah, I understand where they're coming from because, you know, we all carry flesh. And it's really close to us. Every one of us. Our pride is probably one of the first thing that pops up. But I felt like

From poor, humble people speaking, it may have come across as harsh and may have been in some situations in some speeches. But I felt like

I felt like the concern was there and it was real and it was from love. But that's because that's what I feel inside. I would love for this to be open to us and we could be free from it and the love could be restored. And I agree that my dad used to teach and just tell me all the time

Love can't be restored unless forgiveness of sins is preached and believed. I've just been in several conversations. Many times they turn to personal issues and people and things people have done. And the rumor mill is terrible, I agree. It's one of them things that has

It's affected me because it's brought many doubts. And when I'm visiting with dear loved ones, and they mention something that somebody else said about somebody else's conversation, I'm just like, I wasn't there. It's not my deal. But they bring doubts, is what they do to me. So I want to know

Am I still in God's kingdom? That's where I go. And I often think that, you know, these issues will be resolved in God's time. And I heard some speeches at that meeting that I know where your flesh was feeling it. And I know that

I think that there's... I remember, I think of my dad sometimes, and I know I don't want to raise him up because he is flesh just like we were. To me, he was one of my teachers and definitely somebody that I trusted. And he told me that when he went through

Some difficult times. He was even right when he was being told that he was wrong. And I am not saying that, I'm not saying that he, that it was right to, it's not right to say that false caretaking or wrong caretaking is okay. But my dad taught me

He said one time he was trying to figure out where he was wrong and he couldn't see it. And he realized that these brothers that were caring for him still wanted, he realized that God still wanted him to be in his kingdom and that's what he was thankful for. And the rest of those issues,

Once they were cared for, they preached the gospel back and forth even after those meetings, and he hasn't dwelt in it. He just is thankful that he's still able to believe and be in God's kingdom. And sometimes I've been in these discussions, even personal discussions, and I feel like

It turns to this many times, like these faults of others or this discussion that they heard about so-and-so. And oftentimes I just have to remember that it's even about confession or whatever they are that, oh yeah, so-and-so says that you have to have your sins forgiven. And when I hear this, it may have been said in such a way at that meeting that a brother

The brother states that for himself, he felt like he had to hear the gospel to believe. But from my understanding of it and how I heard it, I believe it was in such a way that without it, he would have a hard time believing. It would be impossible to go on for himself without hearing the gospel.

I often think of this thing about confession is like, it's not that we have to, it's we get to. It's such a grace gift, I don't want to have to doubt whether I should be able to use it or not. It's one of those things that it's so part of our endeavor

It's been such a part of our endeavor to be able to confess not only those sins that personally affect me and bother my conscience, but even those that don't, that I don't know of. We can still confess that we're sinful and even hear and ask the gospel for those things to strengthen our faith, but to

I think that there's no doubt that in these meetings we carry flesh and we speak and some people speak more and their flesh is right close with them too but I also believe that in that meeting that we were at the overall consensus or feeling that I got was that it was directed by the Holy Spirit and

The congregation felt the unity there. And I know some of the speeches were direct, but I think of Hannu Jananen's speech when he said that he didn't know where he was wrong until he

Till he repented and then he could see. And that was such a, for me it was like one of those things that taught me that I can't be, I can't be something. You know, we're just part of God's kingdom and that God's kingdom can live without me, but I can't live without God's kingdom.

That was the message that I came away from that meeting was so that God's kingdom is here and his spirit is teaching. And if we hear in such a way that it's harsh and I worry that it's, you know, if we can't see that brothers speak with, they have their flesh connected with them also,

Trusting that the intentions and desire are to help. I think that's what I heard. I hope that's how it was taken, but sometimes if we're already in a situation maybe of, maybe we have mistrust or something in there, and I felt like that letter or that document that was wrote, I felt like

The intention for it came from some mistrust. That's how I personally felt and others that I've visited with. Especially for the LLC board or boards in particular. And I think that this trust can be

Can be cared for. I think it's a mistrust that needs to be cared for. And I worry that that's, sometimes I've often wondered if that's where the, maybe a lot of the origin of these issues are, is maybe from some mistrust. And I could be wrong. If I am, I want to be corrected, but it feels to me sometimes that if there's a

Like this, I don't want to say spirit, but spirit of mistrust and going into something, then it's hard to overcome that.

All right, let's see. Randy.

Yeah, just a few thoughts. One is regarding that feeling or sentiment, Roger, that you experienced at Monticello. I guess I don't know that feeling, and how you felt is how you felt, you know. And it reminded me, actually, of a couple of experiences in my life, and I don't...

Bring this out to say this is a situation you're in by any means, Roger. But one time when I was, I didn't even know I had offended a sister, a dear sister, and she tapped me on the shoulder and she said, hey, can we visit? I said, sure, and we had a long visit. And for a long time I felt

I was really offended or felt like my almost like the hair on the back of my neck had risen and I was in a defensive mode and you know I've also felt this way and sometimes in our marriage relationship how my wife has said hey Randy you

You know, you've erred here or whatnot. I haven't realized it when they've first brought it up and it's taken some time. Like, was it Scott mentioned? Or was it someone else? Maybe you mentioned it, Roger, when the gospel is preached, how the love is restored. But I couldn't see where I was wrong and I had to be shown and taught of my errors

My pride had risen and thankfully I was able to care for those matters. And I agree with Scott too. I guess I was at the meeting for maybe half of it. I wound up going to a wedding. But maybe some of the comments were a little bit harsh or I don't know how to explain it. But someone recently said, you know, in God's kingdom is grace and truth.

The truth comes from God's kingdom and may it be so that we always listen to the truth and we hear of where God's word is and we place ourself in front of it. And I think, especially at this time, we take inventory of where we are and it's a time of

Much strife, I would say, in God's kingdom. And I would say even two different minds in a lot of matters. And as we've heard in other discussions, if this continues, where might it lead? And sometimes when I think of that, I'm fearful. But as I was visiting with the brother here in the bathroom, that I want this love to be restored and to continue.

And also another thought I had when I read that document, and I was turkey hunting this morning, I pulled out my phone and I read that document that was sent out. And I've heard this in some speeches here maybe today of the implication that the teachings of the kingdom have maybe gone astray. I guess personally I don't agree with that.

As you all know, I lived through the 80s and my dad was a chairman in Wolf Lake there and there was lots of strife and there was some errors that happened. But yet the teachings of the kingdom are constant. It's these teachings that we need to listen to and to hear as one of the brothers says, to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Yeah. Roger mentioned the meeting in Brainerd. I remember the meeting, but not a lot of the details. And I don't challenge what Roger said, that somebody said this or that.

I think it seems to me that this robe of righteousness question had come up already earlier and was out there, but I guess that's neither here nor there. And you mentioned the brother in that meeting made a statement, we stay in the robe of righteousness of Christ and somebody else has

Apparently in a sermon, and then there was reference to the MBMAAC meeting and statement. I have a vague recollection of that. It was about forgiveness, what this person had said. Yeah, sometimes there are those, like you kind of, like I've put it that way, I'll flinch or I'll wince a little bit that, ooh, you know,

But in some cases, there's reason to speak up and speak to those things. And in other cases, maybe you visit in private or if you know that the brother, even though he spoke poorly, is believing correctly, you overlook that.

And not to condone wrong teaching, but one of the things that I have said on several occasions during these discussions is that

Sometimes when I hear, for example, about confession, somebody express something in a way that at least can be interpreted in the wrong way, that the emphasis comes on the confession rather than on the believing. If they haven't warred against the right teaching when they hear it, then I haven't been that concerned.

I hope that they would learn to articulate it in a better way. And you know, the same is true with those who are of a different mind in things. Sometimes, and you know, Al left and all that. It's too bad, but he had to go. But like at that MBMAG meeting, when I was listening from Menahga,

He made one statement, it made me sit up straight. And I thought, wow, based on that statement, you would conclude that Al doesn't believe in the resurrection of the body. But I thought, well, I don't think that's the case. I don't believe that. So we do speak with weak words. And that's why it's important, I think, that when we're listening

We don't just focus on particular words, but what is it that the brother is trying to say? What does he mean? And I think that that's, you know, something that we all hope as individuals that others have a gracious attitude towards our words, but it is the case, too,

As James says, and he says, you know, that we don't want to, don't long to be, I don't know exactly the words, but to be masters or teachers, which we find ourselves in sometimes with those kinds of responsibilities because we will be judged more severely.

Because when we're speaking in public situations, our words reach many ears and we have reason to be careful. I missed the evening meeting. I was gone to the wedding as well. I agree that there were some turns of speaking

I felt we're a little bit, like, too far, maybe. And one of the things that I think we all realize is, on the other hand, is I haven't been in the conversations that that person's been with in, so maybe he has some justification to go further with his thought.

In spite of that, I have felt that it's better in those situations. And that wasn't the first time to be maybe a little more cautious with our statements or our thoughts. But like these other brothers have said, my overall sense of the meeting was that

Many brothers spoke with sincere love and concern. And for the most part, I thought that, and again, there are a lot of speaking turns, and I don't remember them all, and I miss some, but for the most part, I think that the brothers

Avoided using this two spirits. They said two voices or two understandings. And I think that we can all agree that that was the case. And so I hope that we can exercise some, you know, restraint in that still I think that

I'm content that God will reveal those things. Maybe after the fact, if that's the case. I want to go back then to what Roger mentioned when he referred to Joshua and Caleb and the other spies. I think that's a different issue

than what I was referring to, for example, when I spoke to Al. Joshua and Caleb were not confident in their own understanding. They believed that God would deliver the land to them from even the giants in the land, just like he had brought them through the Red Sea. Those are two different issues.

I'm also, and I think these other brothers here with us are confident in God's ability, His power, His love for us. The place where my confidence begins to wane and waver is if I'm relying on my own understanding.

If the rest of the brothers have a different understanding than I do, I feel like, you know what, I've got some reason to stop, to listen, to consider again my understanding

And like I said, you know, the last three, four years I've had to take inventory of how I have believed. And I guess many of you have as well. And it doesn't mean that the majority is right. We know sometimes those who have the right understanding or who have spoken may be in the minority.

I guess many of us have been in meetings where a certain perspective has come up and numerous others have supported that. And we're sitting there on the bench thinking, I can't agree with this. And at some point, somebody will have to be the first one to speak up and say, I'm sorry.

That's not how I understand this and speak. And I know when brothers have done that, I've been flooded with a great sense of relief. I'm not the only one who had some questions about that. And on occasions when maybe I've been the first one to speak up and say, I've had a different understanding on that,

I've been so relieved when other brothers have come afterwards and said, I'm sure glad you spoke up. I feel like in these struggles, I know what I believe. I don't know if I know what others believe always.

And I'm not sure I understand how did we get here and what are the real issues here. I don't have that kind of confidence. It's my hope and prayer that God will help us. But again, like I said to Al, I can say the same thing

Roger probably comes from you on some occasions. I didn't feel it that way today, but I know other brothers have felt that, that they've gotten in a meeting with you and they feel like you're there to teach them is the attitude that comes across. I don't, like,

And I'm just being honest, Roger, about that. Some of those brothers are here. Some have been in other congregations. They have just been stunned the way that, for example, you and maybe some of the other brothers in your board have come across in some of those meetings with them.

I hope that you take that to heart. I don't know if you don't recognize it. Like, we don't sometimes. We don't recognize.

That has come up. I've thought to give you a call, but I have reached out to Phil. I feel like he's kind of reluctant, but we got together with Anne and Esa, and I'd still like to be able to visit with him one-on-one. I should call Darwin. I just don't know Darwin.

To be perfectly honest with you, every conversation I've had with them has been very friendly, and I don't think we've ever exchanged an unkind word, so I think it'd be a nice, easy visit. And I know, Roger, you and I, over the years, we've had some really nice visits about spiritual things. We've discussed some of the things from

The 1980s. And like I told your wife when I was in Wolf Lake the last time when she came to talk to me, I feel sorry for you in that I can see and I understand that you're feeling a lot of stress. It's a difficult time.

Like it is for many of us, I can't tell you how many sleepless nights I've had. I get something going in my head and I can't shut it off. I have to tell Sarah to clobber me with a two-by-four or something with help. I know, for example, it's been said

That suggested that, you know, we're basing our understanding on opinions and not God's word. You know, if we go back to like the discussion about forgiveness, would be one. And many a confession, okay, I think that our positions have been scriptural.

It's not accurate to say that our understanding on those issues is based on opinion. Like the forgiveness question, again, if you take the spectrum, the question came up, is there ever any situation in which we might not be able to preach the gospel? That's the question that I heard.

And the answer that was given at that MBMAG meeting on the basis of, for example, Esau and Saul, church law, those were scriptural answers. They were rejected by some. But they were scriptural answers, and those I can find

Many places in Luther's writings, Kehon Nissel's book when he writes about Esau, many sermons, other places. That is the understanding that has been in God's kingdom. We can't say that never. But like this confession of faith document out there, it basically is

Saying that we're teaching to withhold forgiveness. Again, on one end is, is there ever a case is, you know, that's here. And to teach, I suppose, the other end of the spectrum is never forgive. There's a lot of distance between forgiveness

There may be an occasion. And then suggesting that we're teaching that you withhold forgiveness. That's not accurate. It is not accurate. And it's very much like this, you know, Kullervo Hulkko's statement about this kind of inaccurate and turmoil-causing statement.

Let's review what we teach. For example, often referred to in that discussion is Jesus' statement, If you forgive not your brother, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you. What's the context of that statement? And what is it that Jesus means when he says that?

My understanding, he's referring to offenses between brethren. And it ties in with the parable, for example, of the unmerciful servant who had received abundant forgiveness of his sins, but didn't forgive his brother the debt he had to him. But as children of God,

We're not always dealing with situations where it's a question of personal offense. Sometimes we're on God's business like Samuel was. It wasn't a question of personal offense. And so we need to understand the context and use those words in the right sense of their meaning.

We want to help those who have fallen. And the words, you know, words mean something. To ask is not the same thing as to repent, for example. They're two different words, two different concepts. Esau asked with tears.

As the scriptures say, but he found no place of repentance. He wanted the blessing, but he wasn't penitent. And that reflects the understanding that you find in Luther, in Johannes Ulius' introduction on confession and the keys, and many, many other places. That's what we've taught.

That's always been the understanding that, I can't say I always understood, but that's, as far as I can tell, that's how it's been believed and taught in God's kingdom. And like this, again, this confession of faith document suggests otherwise. And what does that do? And to keep hammering on that for four years now, or three years, whatever it is,

It sows discord and turmoil and arguments. It's not right. You know, there are many things that maybe I have a question about. I don't understand it, or maybe I have a little bit different understanding.

I can think of an issue where I agree, but I don't understand the arguments that are often used to support the position. I question them a little bit, okay? So those are my questions, and they belong in conversations with individuals who might be able to help me understand those.

I don't, as a servant of the Word, I don't want to drag those out and make it harder for other people to believe. When I have questions, I don't want to rise up against the understanding of God's congregation that has been for decades. And I trust

I trust that other brothers and sisters, that God's congregation has given thought and consideration to these issues in the light of God's Word. And that God's Spirit has guided them and taught them. And so I have reason to listen

And to try to understand and not challenge that just sort of on my own hook, so to speak, doesn't mean then if in the end our conscience requires of us that, you know, this is wrong in my understanding, then you bring it up and let's talk about it. But, yeah.

I don't have answers, brothers. I am so weary. I am so weary. And I know you are, too. And that's my prayer, that God

It gives this weary Zion rest. If I'm wrong, I hope that Heavenly Father will be patient and reveal that and help me to accept it and to believe.

I hope he gives every one of us that kind of heart and mind that he gave David, who said, search me, O God, and know my heart or my thoughts and try me, and if there be any wicked way in me, lead me in the paths of righteousness. I believe that here

North America. Holy Spirit's here and it works. Doesn't mean that we as individuals don't err, speak with weak words. And I know that here's the same spirit that is in

Finnish and Swedish Christianity. I have an awful lot of contact with believers in Finland and Sweden. I know how they believe and I know they have testified many times. You know what? Holy Spirit's working there in North America too.

I ask you, dear brothers, to remember me in your prayers. I want to get to heaven. I want to ask, can I believe all my sins and faults forgiven?

Okay, as you guys probably can smell and have heard, lunch is available. Should we take a brief, maybe a 10-minute respite and then come back to the meeting for a little bit? Is that agreeable? Okay, let's take a few minutes and let's try to get back shortly.

Well, should we get started again? I realize some are eating, but maybe they can talk between bites so we can get rolling. Okay, anyone? I guess I don't have no one's name on the paper yet, but feel free.

Leslie. During the last heresy, the SRK board sent a letter to the American Mission Board. And I don't really remember much of the contents.

But this one thing, there was one statement in there that has been left clearly in my mind. And it was this, that nobody can escape to a no man's land. Everybody must bring forth what their heart contains. And just because this happened during the last heresy, I'm not implying that we're

By no means in the midst of a heresy, but I feel like those words are speaking to me right now. I need to bare my soul, right or wrong. I'm not wanting to defend anyone. But we know that we've had a lot of issues over the last few years. There's been the robe of righteousness, the withholding forgiveness, continual forgiveness.

And all these are important doctrinal matters. But the issue in my mind that for me has come to be front and center is the disinvitation of the speakers. And like I say, I do not willingly want to defend anyone, but I just need to speak my heart.

When Apostle John was on the Isle of Patmos and he spoke to the seven angels, the seven churches, and five of them needed rebuke and instruction and they were exhorted to repentance. And he spoke to them. He had a different message for each one. He clearly and explicitly wrote

And told what their fault was. And I think that he didn't say that you're causing confusion or there's a cloud or I have this feeling about you. But he spoke clearly to them.

And also Martin Luther writes that man causes offense in two ways, either by his life or by his doctrine. So if Martin Luther's words are true, I would trust that his two brothers from Wolf Lake, I would almost dare to say that none of us feel that they're causing offense by their life.

So if it's not their life and Martin Luther's words are true, then it must be the doctrine. And I guess my question, what is the offense? I know there's been controversy, et cetera, but I guess to this day I still don't know what the offense is.

When we had our meeting on January 13th, that was a congregational evening. That was the follow-up of the meeting that was held here the day before. John was moderating the meeting. He gave an update, and he said that we don't know for sure what the problem is, and I agreed with him 100%. So, like I say, I don't want to defend anyone wrongly.

Because that's not right. But I guess I'm wondering what the offense really is. I had a couple of notes before this lunch there, but one of the things that came to my mind when John mentioned the robe of righteousness

I don't know if it was a misunderstanding there. I mean, Roger had referred to a meeting in Brainerd there. But, you know, it's kind of interesting because I got a phone call from a guy that it lasted for probably a couple hours. But one of the concerns was about this robe of righteousness. And I think

We've talked about this before probably, but it seems as if the confusion maybe could lie, and a lot of it I think could be in terminology, but there seems to be a confusion around Christ's robe of righteousness and our own righteousness. And I don't think anybody, to my knowledge, has ever stated that we could possibly stay in Christ's robe, that his robe is spotless.

But certainly our robes, I mean, I'm not a, like I said, I'm not very good with remembering, we're in scriptures, but I can remember hearing a lot of different sermons where, I believe it's in Revelation, where God is asking Jesus, who are these people? And he said, these are them that I've cleansed, or that have had their robes cleansed in the blood of the Lamb. So, certainly,

I'm assuming that would mean that our robes get stained with sin, and they do need to get cleansed. So I think there's some confusion there. You heard this term, continual forgiveness. This person called me up and brought it up, and I said, you know, this is a new one to me. I've never heard of continual forgiveness before, and it was kind of almost like it was shocking. But to me, that's as simple as what, okay, so,

If you claim to be a Christian, of which there, don't quote me on this, but I've heard somebody say that there's two billion Christians in the world today that call themselves Christians. And I would be willing to bet that those people that call themselves Christians like that, using the term loosely, I guess, that I would be willing to bet that every one of them believes that Christ died on the cross for our sins.

But I don't think that there's that much looseness in that term that that's all we need to do is believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins and we're continually forgiven and we're heaven acceptable. If that's the case then I would guess that there's the vast multitude of Christians and that would be heaven acceptable and I don't believe that's according to scripture either.

In this same phone call, this person asked me about, did I trust the LLC, the office, the board members? And I had to answer that question and say, why wouldn't I? I mean, I certainly don't have any distrust there.

But then it continued that he felt that there was those people there that were trying to cause a heresy, and that they were trying to cleanse the kingdom, were his words. So, and I asked this person for names. I said, hey, who are you thinking of? I didn't get any. All they would say was, who's antagonizing things? Better see who the antagonizer is.

Follow the sources. I still don't have any answer for that, but I guess I'd be bold enough to say that I don't have any mistrust of the LLC. I think those brothers are serving in a position that none of them asked to be there. And I guess I would place complete trust and confidence and be in accordance with what I've heard.

One of the things that just happened just recently was, and I'm just going to use this for an example, but there was a person that I know that I'd gotten a phone call from somebody that was distraught about this person about something that they'd seen happen. And rather than talk about it to anybody else, I called that person up direct.

And explained to them that I wasn't calling out of animosity or spying on them or whatever, but that it was out of love and concern. And by the time that conversation was over with, this person was very grateful that I took the opportunity to call them direct rather than ask this person or ask that person or, you know what I mean, kind of go around the circle.

I think there's a lot of that that's going on right here, too, that you maybe hear something about the issues, but we're not hearing it firsthand. We're hearing it indirect. And I'll just answer Mr. Lehtola here just because of the fact that I was the person that made a phone call to Darwin

And I guess I wouldn't say disinvite. I guess it's a word that I'd prefer to use, but it doesn't make any difference. You can call it whatever you want to call it. I guess is that, told them that we were be going to canceling the rotation services for that Sunday. And what I was doing was listening to the congregation as a chairman. And I guess I feel that's our duty. If they had concerns of which

They got brought to me, and they were legitimate concerns, I thought. So that's what the decision was, and it was made on a board level and also on the congregational level. So I guess I don't know where to go from there, but that's what happened there. It wasn't a personal, like I said, I got a phone call within 20 minutes. What did Steve Collette do? That wasn't what Steve Collette did. It was a board,

Decision, and then also a congregational decision. I think how the first came up was when Cokato asked Phil not to serve there. And if I remember correctly,

John, you might know better than I do, but it happened because of what happened at Speaker's Camp. And I think, Leslie, we've visited about this, how at Speaker's Camp, when was that, was it last fall? A year ago, last spring, there was a, from three o'clock Friday to sometime Saturday afternoon, there was a,

What happened was I think Jim Frantti gave a presentation on these topics of today and confessed how he believes, right? And there was a long line of speakers who from, I would say, six o'clock Friday evening until 3, 3.30, I don't remember what time, that raised their hand and said, I agree, amen, my heart answers to

Your presentation. And then the question was raised, I believe it was my father-in-law, Ray, was moderating. He says, are there any here that believe differently? Please feel free. Speak. Let us hear. And there was a lineup of six or seven that raised their hand right after that request from Ray, and they spoke.

They seemingly confess that they believe a little bit differently. And it's hard. I don't have anyone answer any words that would say, yes, it's black and white. This is why the request was rescinded or whatever. But I think Cokato's decision was based on that, if I remember correctly, those speeches that followed. And Phil and Darwin were two of those brothers that spoke.

After that, so. There might be more if others have. Who's next? Randy. And I think to be clear, like, the Menahga board has requested that we would just

Not use Phil and Darwin until we can meet. Is that accurate? We'd like to meet with them, discuss this situation. I don't know, I mean, I can't tell you what Phil and Darwin's situation is today, but I'm a little bit sorry they're not here today, but maybe they're busy.

I guess I'm usually kind of slow to speak, but I was thankful that I had the strength to say what I had on my mind anyway, and I guess I'll leave it at that.

Joe, you forwarded that letter from Phoenix on, and you had a little editorial in the beginning. You want to comment on that?

I'll just read it. The reader attached is an open letter regarding concerns of our time. I was asked to send it to any that may wish to read it, may be directly impacted by it, or be implicated in it. After reading it, I believe it contains much of what I have tried to call to attention regarding actions and concerns of our time. It is put together much more clearly than I have been able to express myself. I'm sending this

To at least one congregation board officer and each congregation in hopes that they will share it with their board that they may ponder these matters in the light of God's word before the upcoming board members workshop in Monticello April 13th. And I believe that's what I was looking for is that these matters would be discussed on each and that these are what are the issues that have been floating around and running around in Zion.

It does not say whether I am in agreement or not in agreement. And I expressly did not put that in there. I said it calls to attention what these issues are. Explain as much more clearly than I could or something like that, you said? It brings these out more clearly, the actual issues, what they are more clearly than I have been able to. Okay. Okay, next.

I had two thoughts came to my mind. One is the mention earlier about the love of being broken. When we think of

Restoring the love. We know that it can't be restored through carnal knowledge. It can't be restored through discussions. Because the bottom line, what causes that love to be broken is, the bottom line is sin. And unless that is taken care of, that love cannot be restored. That love is born

From the spirit, not from the carnal mind. And so when the spirit is the same, that love is restored. I had another thought also concerning remembering when Jesus was eating the feast of the Passover with his disciples.

And he commented, he says, one of you is going to betray me. And they all turned around asking, is it I, Lord, is it I? None of them were able to boast of their faith. But each was, each knew that they would be, could be the one who would be betraying him. And we remember that it was Judas Iscariot. But the fact remained that they were

They found themselves all possible of one who would betray their Lord and Savior. And I think it shows us also that when we are rebuked or when we are advised, that it'd be good to look into our own hearts and say, is it I? Is the fault in mine?

In me. And when we are cautioned and when we are instructed, it's important to accept that instruction from the mother, God's kingdom. Because so it can happen that we don't recognize ourselves. I think somebody mentioned that earlier here, how we don't see it in ourselves.

But we know that the spirit that governs in the congregation, we know that that spirit is the spirit of God. And we know that it can see into our hearts by the fruits of our faith and so on. And when we are obedient children, it is amazing how even after we've come onto repentance,

How even later we say, oh yeah, that's right. That's why I said what I said or that's why I did what I did and so on and so forth. So God reveals this sometimes even later if we are obedient to the voice of the mother. So those are the thoughts that I have.

Okay, who's next? Don.

Just a little more on the question that Ashley had earlier. I've heard it from George Koivukangas himself, so if I can remember all he said. But when the Cokato board and congregation decided not to have Phil come there, he had such a great love towards Phil

That my understanding from what he said that he drove to Wolf Lake to visit with Phil. And I guess he just missed him by a certain amount of minutes or something and then he waited there and sat for a couple hours from what I recall. And anyway, finally they did have their discussion and he said they were on two different wavelengths.

That is the story that George Koivukangas has given on that. As for myself, I'm not, I guess I'm just a simple believer. I believe simply, and I believe my sins have been forgiven. Christ paid for them on the cross, but there is that endeavor of faith.

In my lifetime, I cannot boast of my own life as a believer, but because I have been able to put those sins away and have it, and I have not felt it as a work, but I have felt it as a duty to clear my conscience that I need to confess those sins that have bothered my conscience, and I have had to do that. So that's how

I simply believe. I have a hard time in meetings like this really to be eloquent or to articulate clearly. I guess my nature is such that I don't like to beat around the bush. I like to come to the matter quickly.

And I guess that's part of my nature, too, because I'm perhaps a little bit too impatient at times. And that has reflected in my work ethics and everything. When I get an assignment or I need to do something, I want it done now. So that is one of my, you might say, deficiencies when it comes to even

These spiritual matters, I guess I'm a little bit too impatient, and I perhaps in my speeches come very direct and very strong because that's the way I feel, that's the way I believe, and I guess I have no animosity toward anyone. It is my hope and prayer, first of all, that I would get to heaven, but I would not want anyone else to be lost.

But perhaps in my speeches I come out a little bit too strong, and perhaps even at that one first speech I kept in Monticello, I was struggling for a word, how to describe that document that we just spoke about. First of all, I'll tell you that I thoroughly disagreed with everything in it because I felt that there was an underlying

Motive for writing that document. And I could talk about each one of those items, but let's let that go for now. But I was struggling for a word how to describe it. And the first thought came to me was what I had heard so often how Peter Nordstrom described something when he disagreed with it. He said, that's garbage.

And that's the word that came to my mind. And I know it has offended some, but I also feel that we have to understand, like we have heard here, that what is the intent? We want to make ourselves clear. In olden times,

There have been ministers that have used similar type of language. I'll give you a couple examples. My understanding is that Antti Koukkari, in a sermon in Duluth, used this one word, which I'll tell you in a minute. Also, Paul Heideman, in a sermon in Calumet, used this word. And that I can document, because it is, I have the

Copy of the Rauhan Tervehdys, which was the Finnish version of the Greetings of Peace, where that article is. And when he was trying to describe something, he said, and you will probably understand this word, the Finnish word, and that's the word that's published even in that paper. And he was trying to make a point.

And so was [Antti Koukkari]. I don't have documentation of that, but I have this article of Paul [Heideman's] that was a sermon kept in Calumet. So sometimes we are a little bit too offended by some of the language we use, but I guess I was trying to make a point also at that time that

That's what I thought of that document because to me and to many, many others, it did not answer to the spirit. It came very clear. In fact, I haven't even looked at it in a long time because I felt it was not worth the paper it's printed on because it just, it distorts everything.

Even with these problems of the 70s and 80s, it seemed like it was talking from both sides of its mouth. And about putting the spirit by the congregation ahead of God's word. And I think John Bloomquist very clearly explained that.

We cannot separate the Holy Spirit from the Word, from the congregation, from the body of Christ. They're all co-equal, and that comes out very clearly in that Harri Vähäjylkkä's presentation when he uses that Athanasian Creed. It comes out clearly in the Apostles' Creed in the third article.

But that one really comes out clear when it says they're all co-equal, we cannot separate them. So, it seems like we need, as John has already implied and suggested, we have these further conversations and meetings on a smaller level, and maybe,

They can come out to some understanding. I don't suggest we come to any compromise because we cannot compromise God's Word. But we need to have an understanding that we are believing the same way. But even for my many weak words and my own

I would just say, you know, Don, I didn't hear the beginning

Of your speech at Monticello, I was in the dining room visiting with another brother about something, but I heard a part of it, and yeah, that was one of those speaking turns that I think made me uncomfortable, and I know it made numerous other brothers uncomfortable, and actually,

I go back to two years ago when we had the same meeting and Howard Parks read Jon Stewart's introduction and I would just say, and I say it with, you know, timidity, I shared afterwards with our board that I felt

A little uncomfortable with your speaking turn then, just in that maybe, for me at least, a little too quick to reach some conclusions. But one of the things, of course, that's difficult for me and I think for others is, like I mentioned earlier, we haven't been a part of

The conversations and so on that you have, so, you know, we understand that maybe you're aware of something or know something that, for example, for me that I don't, but I hope that, you know, God would give you patience and all of us patience to

And wisdom to not, like you said, compromise on matters of right and wrong and doctrine, but still to try to be patient and wait for God's time in things.

So I just wanted to share that. I was a little bit uneasy on that and maybe some other occasions. I feel like I've had to say so many times, there's a lot I don't understand.

Right now, I understand and know what I believe, but I don't know and understand always what others believe and how we have gotten to this place. But there's a reason that we

I have to pray for and watch first for our own part and one scripture portion that's been much on my mind in recent weeks is this advice that Paul gives to Timothy when he says,

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient in meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves. If God

Peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil who are taken captive by him at his will. All easier said than done.

As far as this situation with Phil and Darwin goes, it's just, I think, a very difficult and awkward situation for congregations, and I understand for Phil and Darwin as well.

It's unfortunate, I think, that, for example, at the speaker's meeting, that the brothers maybe didn't speak a little bit more to the issues that were discussed there as to what the

Disagreed with and why, although Phil, and I don't remember exactly when we were visiting recently, he said that, he said a little bit, I think, about this continual forgiveness question.

And, you know, again there, we end up focusing on a term, just like with this robe of righteousness thing. And, you know, I don't think terms in and of themselves cause the problems. It's the way terms are used.

And the meaning that they're used to convey. And sometimes somebody may misunderstand. It's good then to try to clarify that. I've had some text messages recently with one individual who, you know, we talked and they said, well, you said this. I said, no, that's not what I said at all. You know, so people are hearing through their own filters sometimes as well.

I don't think that in and of themselves terms are the issue, but what do people mean when they use terms? But if a term comes up and it's not been used much and not part of our common, I guess, lexicon, it can, especially if it's used

Without any sort of clarifying context, then maybe it's going to cause some alarm in the places in the past where a term similar to that has been used. It hasn't caused alarm at all because of the way it's being used and the context in which it's used.

I don't know how long we're going to stay today. I hope that we can have some visits.

Also, you know, on a personal level, I know at least for me, there are some things that, you know, I could visit with on a personal level that they just don't fit in this kind of a situation. And then, again, there's more of a chance for a dialogue. But, you know, I put myself...

In congregation's place, I put myself in Phil and Darwin's place with this issue. And there is, because of, I would say, at least in my mind, not only the minister's camp, but maybe this kind of this cloud of unrest and

I guess that's the best word, whether it's this forgiveness issue, robe of righteousness, that has been out there. And I think, rightly or wrongly, they're at least, I'm not saying they're agitators in stirring that, not at all, but maybe some who are more active in that are,

Associated with them. And I told Phil that, that, you know, if one of these brothers speaks up and says something that's off course like that, you know, it would be helpful if you could, you know, disavow it then and say, well, you know, I'm sorry, but I have a different understanding than my dear brother does about that. Or to say that, yeah,

I'm of one mind and my spirit said amen to the presentation. However, on this item I do have a different understanding. And when that doesn't happen, you know, it kind of gets left with a question mark there. And when we have this rotation system kind of locked in now for many years when we've had this

Time of peace and unity. Guys are scheduled a year in advance. Sometimes it's over a year. January to the next December can almost be a two-year period. And things can happen during that time frame. In the past, when that wasn't there, if there were questions around some brother, a congregation just wouldn't call him.

So, you know, some new situation that we're dealing with on account of some practical reasons as well. But it creates an uncomfortable situation when members in your congregation are hearing things. Maybe they've listened to sermons. I personally have not listened to sermons, so I can't answer on that regard. But here in Menahga, we have had individuals who have been

Concerned, some of whom have listened to sermons. And so what do we do about it? And it's hard to know what to do about it. When sometimes it's like says about these and I think their names were among others.

He speaks to that very issue. He said there's not anything directly or obviously wrong in their sermons, but there are these other things. And so that is not unprecedented. That joins to the question of life then. But it doesn't mean that there was this kind of open ungodliness or something.

But like I said, you know, this warring against the understanding regarding forgiveness. I mean, if that's happening and you're associated with that, of course, you know, it raises questions. And then I put myself in Phil and Darwin's shoes. I understand they'd like more clear answers, but then, you know, in these kind of discussions, you need to speak up also so that

If you're understanding about these things, if it's different, let's talk about that. And then again, when I think of it from this perspective, as a servant of the Word, there's a cloud of question around me. You know what I want to do? I would just as soon sit down and listen and not push on this. It's not about me as a speaker.

It's not about my congregation. I don't get to heaven by speaking. My congregation is not insulted, I guess, if that's the term. I hope you guys don't feel that way. I think the letters that you sent kind of raise that. I understand there's some similarity to what happened

The 72, 73, whenever it was 73, spring of 73. But there are also some dissimilarities. And I think you heard from the Cokato brothers when they were here, you know, their concern was sincere. And they're trying to serve their congregation in the best way that they knew how.

And they were very willing to discuss. But, well, don't shake your head, Joe. They weren't willing to put things in writing and debate. But... And what?

Well, did they visit with you at the MBMAG meeting? You had a meeting there. Well, I can't speak to that, but they made a trip up here and they came again on April 12th. I mean, April, January. But, you know, these aren't the kinds of things that, we're not Martin Luther and Johann Eck

Going to Heidelberg to debate something, we ought to be able to sit and have a brotherly discussion. And I understand their concerns and that they were sincere in that. So I understand that. I think, you know, you can question, argue, debate, whatever.

The wisdom was at the right step to take at that time. Huh? Well, I don't know, Phil, or Roger, if it was wrong, morally wrong. They had a sincere concern. We asked them, John, in very simple language that, okay, explain it. You know what the answer was?

That you are, this was the answer. It was absolutely bizarre that Phil has associated with so-and-so who's with so-and-so and there's concerns around so-and-so. That's the best they could come up with. We don't disinvite preach. We could make the same things if we wanted to say that you're associated with so-and-so and so-and-so. That's not right.

It's like Luther says that you have to have two things. One is they are preaching incorrect doctrine. The other one is that they're living an incorrect life. Neither of which in our opinion is true. So then how is this done? Well, again, as I mentioned, there's been this, for example, take that forgiveness question.

There's been battling against that. The forgiveness question, if you recall, is also slightly tweaked. It's not a question of whether God, we don't put ourselves in God's stead to when something is preached forgiveness or not. In 2011, the whole reason why the forgiveness question came to be is was the withholding of forgiveness in the dry time of the 80s correct or incorrect?

And it has been our understanding and position that that withholding that happened then was 100% wrong in every case. It wasn't right. And it's been turned ever so slightly that somehow now it's a question of whether or not is there a time. That's not the original question. The original question was about the 80s. And I asked you, John, specifically in the Brainerd meeting,

Yes, I did. It's on tape. I'm not saying no. And I asked you, do you believe that the withholding in the 80s was wrong? And you wouldn't answer that question. You ignored it. And I asked it another way to Keith, and I'll give him credit that he said, I will not answer your question. I guess that, you know, I don't recall that. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but that was the original question.

We're not talking about, we're not putting ourselves, and nor can we, put ourselves in God's stead in that is there a time or not a time. That's not our business. We don't need to worry about that. Whether God closes our mouth, for example, we've had, and you've certainly experienced this, that there are times when we're visiting, let's say, with an unbeliever, and we have this thing that we should say something, but God didn't allow it to come out.

That we would have, let's say, rebuked or other times, then he gives strength to say something to a person. We've had many unbelieving employees that have had immense kind of problems. I mean, the kind of drugs and on and on. And sometimes felt that we should say something even to this type of person. And in one case, the only thing that Phil did was he bought a book, one of our Christian publications.

He gave it to this man. He had a month of drug rehab. He had lots of time to read. And so he gave the book. But see, and he said that he read it. But God didn't give the increase. He didn't awaken. So we don't put ourselves in God's stead in those questions. There might be a time where someone may ask and we just don't say or something comes up. I'm not disputing that. But the original question

Which originated by Joel in the second meeting October 2016 at Wolf Lake was, was the 80s withholding correct or incorrect? And in our view, it was incorrect. That was the original question also in 2011 at the MBMAAC meeting which Darwin asked. And it's being turned a little bit. Somebody's turning it to this other question and it was never originally that.

Well, the question that I'm... I wasn't referring to Brainerd. I was referring to that first discussion when we discussed at that meeting, the 1980s. Which meeting was this? The MBMAG meeting. That's 2011. Okay. So we discussed that there. And there was a train of thought that was being stated there that always, in every case,

I believe that. There's no reason why we can... I mean, the Bible tells us, and it has long been understood in Christianity, that we don't begin to examine the penitence of one that is asking for forgiveness. If we're going to make such a case that there's even this possibility that we'll reject to speak to somebody, how is that done without the examination of somebody's penitence? It's not possible. And so I would say,

That I would rather err on the side of caution and preach. Sometimes we might have someone that's even flippant. That they may kind of mock it. What is the harm if we preach to them that God through that power can awaken their conscience? There's no harm in doing that.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit, Josh. Just hang on here, hang on here. At this point, it's becoming a debate, and I promised my wife to be gone a long time ago. Well, Roger, I think that, again, obviously you see this differently. At that 2011 meeting, that train of thought was going, and then several of us spoke up, and we sat.

And we use scriptures to show... Will you answer that question publicly, that do you believe that some of the withholding in the 80s was correct? Some? You know what, I can't answer that question, Roger. Well, no, but you have privately to others. I've understood that you've answered that you felt some of it was. Is this correct? I have said that there may be cases, I think, that I can't say that it was wrong. I don't know. There's many places I wasn't present. Well, that whole time period was not right, John.

Roger, Roger. Let's not go back into that and defend that. That's my concern. Roger. There were many right things that were done in the 1980s as well. The whole time period was not wrong. We can't make that kind of a blanket statement. Okay, I agree with you, but what was given for example

A certain brother, I'm not going to mention him, but in a public meeting began to give examples of the 1980s being good. Camps were built, songbooks were done. Those would have happened anyway. So those type of statements made there are, that's not what we're talking about. That's not what I mean, Roger. I mean also in soul care. And there may have been situations where somebody was bound

That it was not wrong, okay? I can't say that. I have no reason to make that kind of a blanket statement. What I can say is that I'm sure you agree that there were many cases and maybe most of the cases in that time period that were wrong. But I can't, I wouldn't dare to say, and I don't have knowledge of it even,

To say that every case was wrong. But when I made the statement at the Brainerd meeting that as far as I'm concerned, and you took it very wrong, you started to say that I was rebellious, that I feel, myself, that if somebody asks me for forgiveness, I feel an obligation and a need to preach it, period. You did not like that. You took great offense at that, John. Roger, I don't take offense at it. I disagree. Well, you said I was rebellious.

I mean, these were your words. Perhaps these discussions would be best taking place privately, I agree. You're making statements that I disagree with. The second one that you're doing here is that you're implying that situation between those three Finnish brothers in the 1920s as being, you're applying that Phil and Darwin are somehow in the same position. They're completely different matters, John.

Let me make it clear, I'm not implying that at all. Well, then we shouldn't mention it. Because what happened there was those people were, they were told by the SRK to not associate with the new awakenist in America, and they went anyway. That's blatant disobedience. Right. And so to make that insinuation is dangerous, John.

Roger, I was not insinuating that. What I was pointing to was that sometimes these issues are not always clear in sermons. That was the point that I was speaking to, okay? If I somehow gave another impression, I'm sorry. I was just giving that this is the place

These meetings were about, but that was the point that Vaino Havas made, and that's who Hulkko is quoting, okay? That even though it wasn't evident, [inaudible]. So we should be careful to use this, and this was also used

By an individual in the meeting a couple weeks ago, the same insinuation was made. Most people probably don't understand the history good enough to make that connection. I'm not insinuating that this is the same history, but if you say that unless you can identify something in somebody's sermon, that's not necessarily the case. Sometimes it may be evident and sometimes it may not.

I thought it was a dangerous track that many congregations began on, particularly, I mean, it was started by Cokato, and then later started to spread out, and then finally when it got to Longview, it was like, we don't know the problem, we don't know the man, we've never listened to his sermon, we don't know his life. However, because five others have done it, we should do it. That's dangerous business. Well, I think that, Roger, there's some wisdom in that,

If this is a point of some division and contention, why not wait until it's resolved? That's what I would call just being wise. Even common sense would dictate that. My understanding about forgiveness is that we can't say never, and in that EMIMAC meeting,

That was then the other perspective that came up. And the perspective was that we have to trust that the Holy Spirit will lead and guide in that. We don't have to make a law, a rule that says never. And this document that's been circulating says we shouldn't even open the door to that.

Like I told one brother, I said, you know, nothing would be easier and nothing would be more pleasing, the world would even applaud that, that we say always, whenever somebody asks, we preach the gospel. But unless we

Then remove from the scriptures these portions that show otherwise. And they're rare cases. Then I can't in good conscience accept that kind of a teaching. And it doesn't mean, when you say penitence, nobody's teaching or has suggested that we would begin to measure how sorry somebody is. But

And we don't have to start digging in somebody's heart. But if by their words and actions they plainly indicate that they don't intend to repent, that is to turn away from the sin, reject the sin that the congregation sees that they're in, then that's not repentance.

Repentance and ask are not the same thing. Esau asked, he didn't repent. Saul asked, he didn't repent. And they're very rare, and they're these kinds of soul care situations. And that is the understanding that has been, you find it in Luther's writings,

And other writings, and so I don't, I can't in good conscience accept that kind of position that rejects that. So, you know, that's, that 2011 EMBIMAC meeting, we talked about the 80s.

But then we also talked about this, and that's what I know I responded to there, and Jouko responded before me, but that's what we were responding to. We weren't rejecting that, that in the 1980s there were mistakes made, but we were rejecting that kind of doctrine

He teaches that basically the keys of binding have to be thrown away. Well, but Roger, if you take that position, then that you always, when somebody asks, have to preach the gospel, you have no key of binding anymore. Well, I can't.

You know, I mean, do you recall that time, John, when a certain brother that used to be on our board and is now in your congregation had a misunderstanding on that binding? Do you recall when he walked out of this meeting? I don't want to mention the brother's name, but certainly you remember it. No, I don't. Well, I don't wish to, you know, I mean, he's a dear brother and I don't want to. But I explained that he had a wrong understanding on this binding, if you remember.

And we spoke about it nicely that, you know, if in the congregation somebody, for example, decides that some matter that they're partaking in, let's say, I don't want to use examples, but we can all think of them. For example, let's say somebody has a homosexual tendency in their life. I mean, the unbeliever takes that to be that, well, God put that in them. Well, that's true. I mean, he created them that way, but it doesn't make it right.

And let's say that that person wishes to live this way. Okay, and then children of God instruct according to scriptures that they cannot do so in good conscience. And they say that, I don't care about that. I'll just keep coming here, but I don't see it as a sin. Well, there's a place then when the congregation would say that this is not so, that if you live in this lifestyle

Don't turn away from it or repent, like you said, that we cannot hold you as a child of God. And this has happened. It's a very rare case, or I remember during that discussion that we had back then, you don't remember, I don't want to use his name because he's a dear brother and I don't, I mean, he took care of those matters, but there was the, you know, Brainerd was here also at that time, at that meeting, where this, Mark, do you remember what I'm talking about? Okay, so Brainerd

Brothers brought up a case in their congregation where these keys of binding were necessary to be used on an individual. And it was correct and right. And I can't remember how this brother had it. He had a different idea. I don't remember what it was exactly. But I remember we spoke of it right here. And he didn't accept it at the time. He took a hike, you know. But anyway, those would be like binding. But if the person asked for forgiveness, why wouldn't we preach it to them?

With the hopes that they can understand. I don't see any error in that. I don't want to debate. It's probably not the right... But you can have that case, which also happened with Esau. He asked for the blessing.

Even though he didn't wish to reject his worldly lifestyle. And it was not given. So, after what you said, I wonder what is it you're saying? Why do you disagree with what I've said? Because that's basically what I'm talking about.

I don't want to prolong this any longer than it needs to be, but I just, I guess maybe I have to comment a little bit. First of all, I think that the discussion we just heard, I was kind of confused back and forth there, because I mean, in one instance we're saying that you can't withhold forgiveness, and the other time they're saying that, well, certainly there's places where you can. I mean, Jesus gave us both keys. He gave us the keys to loose and the keys to bind.

But I don't need to get into that part of it. One of the things here, I guess, that became pretty obvious to me, I guess, was that my son went to his first minister's camp. He came back from that camp, and I asked myself, how was it? It was great.

Well, he got a call from somebody from the Wolf Lake congregation and said, hey, how was your first minister's camp? He said, it was wonderful. He said, it was great. I mean, I got to tell you, and this is that same minister's camp that's been referred here to in numerous times. But anyways, this person told him that, well, that's not what they'd heard.

They'd heard that that minister's camp wasn't very good at all. There was a demanding spirit there and that it was very disruptful and forceful and that it was very, I guess demanding was the word he used. So what his comment was that whoever you're getting that information from must have been at a different meeting than he was at because the one where he was at was good. And I guess,

When I think to that same line of thought, when I was in Monticello a couple weeks ago for that meeting, I would also have to say that I thought that was a good meeting. And I certainly didn't feel any kind of demands being made towards me there, nor did my spirits feel any of these demands. Yeah, I guess

It seems as if that, maybe if those feelings are, if that's what you feel at those meetings, maybe we need to look closer to home and find out what, I mean, I don't know, I sit here and I think, what is all these references to the 80s? I mean, and certainly we can use those in context for discussion and for history purposes, but what do they have in real,

After Brainerd did what, you know, to use the term disinviting, we also got a letter from the Wolf Lake board, and it said that, I mean, I could read the whole letter if I could pull it out of my email, but I don't need to, but anyways, it basically said that Brainerd was trying to start heresy in his actions. I can certainly personally attest to those who were not

Our intentions whatsoever. And to even think that that's what we were trying to do, to me, that's kind of a pretty bold and rash statement. There was a meeting that was, it's kind of interesting how things take place, but the week before that, when I called Darwin, the week before that, I'd been approached by

Different people in the Brainerd congregation about do we feel comfortable with the services that were scheduled for that weekend. And I gotta tell you that personally I hadn't been involved with any of this at that point, so I couldn't hardly say one way or the other. But coincidentally, and I guess I'm not gonna say coincidentally, I'm gonna say that God's direction was such that I ended up speaking about a business matter with

A brother from Cokato that same morning. And that meeting, when the meeting was going to be, was that on a Thursday that meeting was up here? Anyways, I was speaking with somebody and he said, hey, don't you have Darwin scheduled to serve there this weekend? And I said, yeah, and we went and discussed it a little bit and I said, I don't know what to do because I've had some conversations from our congregation members. And he said, well, we're having a meeting in Menahga this afternoon, why don't you come there?

I was pretty timid to just show up at a meeting that I wasn't involved with at the time. And I ended up calling Mark Skoog, and he said, hey, come on up. And then I called back and talked with this brother from Cokato, and he was on the way up, and he said, well, I'll tell you what, I've got four other board members with me right now, and they're all saying show up. So I did.

And while I was here, I noticed that at that particular meeting, there wasn't... There was, I think, one person that participated from Wolf Lake, I think. And all I felt at that meeting was love and concern, and certainly there was no animosity there. And I'm not questioning... At that point, I wasn't questioning why there wasn't any more participation there, but it just seemed strange that there wasn't.

In the ensuing weeks afterwards in different conversations with people and in one of those conversations I guess I was told that there was no, I asked somebody was there any, why didn't the Wolf Lake members show up? And basically I was told that there was all these different personal things that were there.

Which I didn't have any question to doubt. But then I also was speaking with somebody else that actually called me on that Monday afterwards, first of all, and told me that I'd done something that no other person in Zion has done before. I took down a speaker that wasn't even a member of our congregation. Well, I certainly didn't look at it as taking down a speaker. And I still don't. And we had a

Ensuing conversation where I told them that that's not at all what took place and I kind of gave them the details about it. And one way or another the thoughts or the conversation got around to was there some reason why all the Wolf Lake members didn't show up at that meeting. And I said, well, I was told that they all had to work. Well, then they said that there was an impromptu meeting at the church that basically they decided not to show up.

So to this day, I don't really know which took place. But if it was a board decision or a congregation decision or whatever not to show up, then I wonder what would be the reason behind that.

I guess I first would like to say, I guess give an apology directly to you, Roger, but to the rest too that I should not have interrupted and spoke up and just feeling poorly even about my own actions, ask that I can have my sins forgiven.

Secondly, I guess I would like to say, Roger, that it was good to hear you speak more openly and more freely and maybe more directly about some of these issues than what we've heard in the past. As far as the question surrounding forgiveness being framed in that way, this is the first time I've heard it framed as such. And I trust that that was the

Original framing and direction of that particular question. But since then, it has maybe evolved into something different. The discussions that I've had with individuals, and it has not only been with individuals that I can say that we believe the same way, but some of those that have had

Different understanding on matters. When they have raised this question, it has been that very broad question that is there ever a time when the gospel would not be preached? I trust that as the way that you related that framing of the question,

Pertaining directly to the 80s, I trust that that was the origin, but since then it has evolved into a much broader question. I think it has exposed a much greater questioning and maybe incorrect understanding pertaining to the matter of forgiveness than what the original intent was.

I was not around during the time of the 80s, at least not old enough to be involved or remember any of it. I was still in those innocent years of early childhood. But my understanding has always been pertaining to that time that there was incorrect doing by many individuals. There were times when

There were those that had incorrect understanding. There were times of turmoil. There were times of caretaking that happened, and some of those caretakers that went in innocence dried up, fell into the flesh, the same as those individuals who had originally had wrong understandings. Both sides were incorrect.

There were cases where there were individuals that needed caretaking. Rightfully so, the caretaking was done correctly. But the overall resounding message that I've always heard concerning the 80s was not that any one particular individual or any group or any congregation or any board was condemned, but that God, by and through the power of the Holy Spirit,

was able to reveal to all that were involved at that time the error of their ways, their own particular sinfulness, and that they were able to care for those matters and that the love of the Holy Spirit was restored by and through the power of the gospel. And that when those things happened, eventually perfect caretaking

Eventually took place through imperfection, through imperfect people. There were many, many bumps and bruises and trials along the way and I think a lot of deep scars for a lot of individuals. But in the end, God's work was done and there were many that were involved in that time frame that have gone to their eternal resting place

And they left a testimony of a dear believer, a dear child of God. And for me personally, that's where I think it needs to be left. There are questions and there are concerns and there's good reason, I think, to remember some of what happened

That we don't want to fall into that again. That we don't want to go into that direction again. But I think there's also great danger in us examining too deeply what this individual said and what that individual said and how this individual is wrong and to condemn the whole time period.

To condemn that whole time period because of some incorrect actions, and maybe I shouldn't say some, but a lot of incorrect actions. Because in the end, the work of the Holy Spirit was still done. Maybe not to perfection, but there's a lot of flesh and a lot of man's mind and a lot of man's pride that became involved in that. I guess to me, the other

The other thing is I sat here and I listened to the discussion going back and forth. It began to just boil up in me to the point where I had felt I had no choice but to blur it out. It reminded me so much of one discussion I had with a sister some time ago when she had called me and she said, it's my understanding that the Menahga congregation has, or the Menahga board has,

Has discussed this issue of forgiveness. And it's my understanding that the Menahga board and speakers are of one mind that there are times when the gospel would be withheld. And I said, yes, that's correct. We had that discussion and there it's scripturally clear and correct and has been

The understanding I believe in God's kingdom forever. That there are those times when the Holy Spirit leads and guides and directs and closes the mouth of individuals. That is not what I personally want to do. My heart as a believer, I want to preach the gospel

Constantly, and I do not ever, ever, ever desire to be in a position that I would not be able to preach the gospel. That's my heart's desire. What's clear in God's word, with many of the examples that have been discussed already, and we know with the two keys that Christ gave

The keys to loose and the keys to bind that there are times when the gospel of the forgiveness of sins will not be preached. My humble desire is that I can be obedient to the power of the Holy Spirit. What was interesting in that

Discussion with that sister said as we discussed these things and discussed the examples in scripture and even related some present day stories, events that have happened where individuals have been in situations where the Holy Spirit has closed the mouth of the believing individual to where they cannot preach the gospel.

She said, well, yeah, I believe that that was the power of God. And that was God's doing that he closed the mouth of those individuals. But I will always forgive. To me, I was really left with the feeling that this person no longer trusts in the power of the Holy Spirit to open the mouth and to close the mouth.

But this individual now has placed her own understanding and her own mind above the teaching of the Holy Spirit. To me personally, I've always felt that we have the Holy Spirit and the flesh reside in us and they battle continually.

We as believers desire to continue to put our matters away so that the power of the Holy Spirit is able to work in us, dwell in us, and reign over our minds in every way. It doesn't mean that it's easy.

Faith is a simple matter, but it's difficult for our minds. Faith is very simple, but our minds make it confusing. The mind and understanding of man is in constant conflict with the teaching and understanding and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I guess it's been my experience that the only way for me to continue on living

In this faith that I've been given is to continue to put my own personal matters away, to use that gift of confession that has been offered so that I can lighten the footsteps because my faith is not so strong. My faith is like that flickering candle. My faith is not so strong that I can just simply believe

I need to be able to confess those matters when they beset my conscience and be able to ask for that gospel. That my faith can be uplifted, my conscience can be cleansed, and I can be strengthened in that and be free again of those sins that have continued to beset me.

Yeah, I guess as the discussion has been going on for some time now, I certainly had a lot of thoughts on a lot of these issues, and I don't want to start speaking to every one of them, I guess. I thought maybe just for a moment I would touch briefly on what Leslie commented and how

He was, if I understood him correctly, what's kind of come to the forefront in his mind now has been this, what we've referred to as the disinvitation of speakers. And I guess Steve mentioned how it took place there.

Reservations, I guess you'd say, to the board. And they're making this decision. And I don't know exactly how it went in Cokato. And it's hard for me to say, well, is that exactly the way it should have been done? Or was the timing right? I don't know. But I think the concerns were right. And I don't have any reason to, I guess, dispute

That decision, we've heard it, that some have compared it to the time of the last heresy. And I guess I don't see that these are at all equal actions. At that time there was obviously concerns over

In particular, a couple of the speakers in Upper Michigan. There was concerns in the North American Zion. There was concerns in the Zion of Finland. And there had been discussions with those speaker brothers there in Michigan. And from what I understand,

The action that was taken by the central organization in our church at that time was that the message went to Finland that the mother congregation of these two speaker brothers is their home congregation.

And we will take care of them. And we don't basically want interference from other places. It seems like that's the gist of it from what I have understood. And so, making the decision not to

Not to invite or not to even allow those to serve who may have been in this country at that time from Finland. In other words, disinviting hundreds of speaker brothers from Zion to come to this country and preach is quite different than concern over

That has been expressed from the congregation to the boards regarding some of the discussions that have been taking place and asking that they would not come. And in fact, I don't know if those brothers would feel any better, but I kind of had a little bit similar situation, Brainerd, on the tentative schedule

For this year, my name was there in March. And I received communication from Howard that because of the ongoing discussions that are taking place, would you consider maybe coming sometime later rather than in March? I didn't take offense to it, I guess.

If they felt that was better, that was fine. But yeah, I guess these other things, I think in the interest of time right now, I think I'll pass this mic on, but it seems like I have sometimes a hard time articulating my thoughts, even if I have clear understanding.

These things, it seems like my understanding is so weak that it's especially hard to clearly state what I'm thinking and feeling. But I find myself to be weak and sinful, and I ask that, can I believe my sins? This is the first time I've attended a meeting like this.

I have to say, even though we don't all seem to be on the same page, it's been good to be here and hear all the thoughts that have been expressed. I've heard it said that at the other meetings that kind of go round and round,

As a first-time observer, I kind of feel the same thing here again today. You know, it's kind of round and round. Somehow we need to work on or try to find out not who is right, but what is right. And I guess my question is, where do we go from here?

As far as discussing these issues, I don't have an answer, but I do have an answer that this is an annual meeting that we have once a year, so we will go to 2020 with this meeting next time. But as far as the individual issues that are on the table, yeah, I don't know where from here, but... Hunt's, hand it to Hunt's.

I don't know if I can put all my thoughts together, but I kind of heard at the beginning of this meeting maybe we need some more one-on-one discussion with people. It kind of feels like there's some terminology that's not really defined between people. It feels like there's unforgiven sin that was brought up from many, many years ago that maybe individuals need to talk about those matters and put those matters away. And I think we can all be very careful when we talk to one another that if we're talking about terminology,

Let's get on the same page for what it means so we're not fighting each other as far as what one terminology means to one another that we stop and ask the question like, hey, can you tell me more about that? What do you mean by that comment that you made that I think is really the enemy of the soul that's just trying to drive a wedge into God's kingdom. And we're kind of playing along with it with different ways of doing things that I think we need to kind of step back.

Wait another year for this meeting to see, okay, what are we going to do now? We need to start kind of reversing where we got to, slowly backing this up. I think the only way we can do that is through the forgiveness of sins. I think there's matters that are between brothers. We need to have those forgiven and forgotten, and we need to move forward.

So I think smaller meetings have been talked about several times. But is that, Roger, I'll just ask you, is that what Wolf Lake would be agreeable to? I understood that Steve had talked about some smaller meetings and they didn't want them.

First of all, I'm not the chairman anymore, so I don't feel like I should speak too much other than perhaps my own thoughts. So I don't want to speak on the behalf of anybody else. But first of all, as was mentioned in the communication that I sent to you, that the board from Menahga, again, is welcome to come and we can

Discuss these matters. I had received a text message also from Steve at one point where he had, I was flying back from someplace, Los Angeles, and I didn't get his message until I landed. And he had a request and I had answered him also in that way that individually more than happy to visit. And perhaps like John and I's discourse here would have been

Best left to private discussion. And certainly it wasn't of my mind to start to argue with John. And I know John wasn't, I can trust and believe that he wasn't in the flesh arguing with either. It's just that when we, it would have been better. I think we would both agree that sometimes, but it was meant to be so that it was here. So, you know,

Another matter is this, that recently, and I haven't seen it quite, I haven't read it all the way, but Steve would probably know about it, is that the LLC board, I understand, has informed us that they wish to meet at a certain date, and we haven't had a chance to talk about that at all. It just came maybe a couple days ago, and I haven't,

I don't receive those anymore. So maybe, I guess from my own perspective, I feel that it would be good to visit individual bases. It's okay. And it wasn't that the congregation was trying to muzzle the board in meetings, otherwise we wouldn't be here or wouldn't have even gone to the other one.

But it's tiresome, and all can concur with that, that it can get very difficult mentally. And there are a few members of our board, one in particular that does not have the mental strength to withstand this kind of thing. And it was for that reason that the congregation felt that maybe it would be better to visit in that setting.

Obviously, Joe, he's left, but, I mean, in the beginning, he kind of, and that's not a hard and fast rule. Otherwise, I mean, this meeting, for example, was scheduled, and naturally, we can discuss, or other meetings that have been or will be scheduled. But anyway, then there's also this that,

I'm sure the Menahga board and perhaps even Brainerd, you end up in a position where if only the board is listening and discussing that the congregation doesn't really know what's going on. And then you have a situation where people are curious and they wish to know, and it can get rather cumbersome in that way. And so I suppose the thought was that

That if the discussions would take place with the entire congregation then it would eliminate this kind of situation where people come privately or then you know back when I was chairman sometimes you would have to sort of update and I don't know what has happened in Menahga but I'm sure someone has been sent to the front to say something about something and so

You can't really give a flavor 100% about what happened. And then the other thing is too that each of us, if somebody, I've been asked to speak publicly a few times about what has happened or transpired at some meeting, and certainly in other places this has happened also, where maybe a chairman or speaker or somebody

There's always this danger and I've worried about it a great deal myself that we can kind of put our own flavor on it. That's not always good either because we might have wrong flavor. We might not have heard quite right or we make assumptions. So that's kind of that. That certainly

Welcome to come and visit as individuals. You know, that's good and well. And also, welcome to come to congregation as a whole to discuss. This would be good. And so that's kind of that. And I'm going to try to, for Steve's question there, where he had made a comment that, and I've tried to explain this a million ways,

I guess people can believe what they wish, but the situation with that first meeting that was scheduled here, and I knew that it wasn't going to work. And I had called Mike Forsty and I said, Mike, we got a little bit of a problem here now that I know that the majority of the board is unable to be at this meeting on that notice.

You could call it a perfect storm or whatever it was, but I felt that at the time, being the chairman, I should have been there. And obviously my brother and I worked together and we were pouring cement late into the night. So we worked until two in the morning. And I knew that already ahead of time. And I had told Mike that I wanna, I hope you can speak to our behalf there because in these kind of situations, when there is

How it has been, people get wrapped around the axles and begin to very easily, and this can happen to all of us, where we can make assumptions about something that is inaccurate. And so I told Mike, I said, I'm a little worried that there's gonna be very many of us that are not going to be able to be there. And I'm concerned that some

We all carry flesh that we can start to make some incorrect assumptions. And could you speak to it? And he had promised to me that he would do so. And I don't know if he ever did or didn't. But anyway, that's how it went. And ultimately, what was desired was a larger gathering, which happened. So it all worked out.

In the end, Steve has also in his speech mentioned something about some meeting which had somehow decided not to go. This is a false statement and rumors get started and the situation was this way that I had received the communication from somebody, I don't recall, might have been Mark, I don't remember anymore, doesn't matter.

And there were several board members that were not around even, and I felt I should do something about this in that the meeting had been scheduled already for the next Thursday. And so I just asked, there wasn't the whole board there by no means. And so I had decided to ask a few just elders from the congregation say, okay, we got this request here and I already know ahead of time

This is not going to go. And so there was a discussion there about how to handle it. And so the decision was that I would tell Mike that. Maybe it was Mike who had informed me. I think it was. But anyway, that's how that went. And so that. I know I don't have my phone with me and it's a very good thing because

I had promised my wife that I would be home at 1230. So when I get in that car, oh boy. And you'll remember me. God has blessed good wife much better than the husband. But yeah, I don't know if I should get in that car. There's going to be a long list there. Anyway, it was good to be here.

And discuss these matters and it should continue so. And there's faults when we say, when we try to discuss these and the difficulties have gone on for as long as they have, that we can easily end up in the flesh and this is how it is. We as human beings have

These kind of faults. And I thought maybe it'd come to mind now, my father used to say, and there's not very many of us here that are old enough to clearly remember the heresy that happened 45 years ago. There's a few, Don and Reno probably, and Leslie, and that's about it. But he used to talk about that a little bit.

And even then, back then, it wasn't that there wasn't impatience. There certainly was. And my father one time told me that it was meant to be the way it went, but it would have been better had the believers even showed a little more patience. Amazing statement.

He was friends, I suppose, with this Peter Hendrickson who went in heresy. And he had this kind of thought in his head that if only he would have had a little more time, just a little more time,

Maybe he could have seen. And so I think it would behoove us to try to be patient and in God's good time. If there is division of the nature that many fear, that it will be corrected if it is will of God that it is so.

And the fact that thus far the Heavenly Father has kept us as individuals yet inside the house of God is only the grace of God. And in the same vein then when my father had been friends with this Peter Hendrickson,

He said that this later in life, this son of theirs was a very close friend of mine in high school. His name was Peter Mark. And we had laid in the same crib at some discussion. There was discussion about these matters back then and we had laid in the same crib, him and I. Neither of us knowledgeable about this.

The question can sometimes come to a person's mind that, well, then how is it that this Peter Mark went that away? And I, by the grace of God, went this way. It is only because of God's grace and mercy that it went so.

Even though in high school we had a very good friendship, it was unfortunately a friendship that ended that schoolhouse door. And it's good that it ended that schoolhouse door in that sense that we don't unequally yoke ourselves with those that are of outside the house of God. But nevertheless, over all these years,

I've lamented my weakness that I was never able to say to him that, do you realize that once upon a time as infants we were in one household of God, but not anymore. This similar situation

If the enemy of soul is successful, it could repeat itself. May God grant us help. May He grant all of us patience. May He grant unto us forgiving hearts, one towards another, that His will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

I got to go now, and so the eating is about over, and we can remain believing, I believe. And I don't wish to, particularly when John and I got into this kind of back and forth, I am fully confident that it wasn't his intention and certainly wasn't mine.

And so I wish to ask that weakness, words, and faults, many come. Could have said different. Could have done this, could have done that. But love covers a multitude of sins, Bible says. And preach yet also to me this good message I want to believe.

And you dear brothers also, sins are forgiven. And if we can continue in this way, perhaps God can straighten out what appears to be in awry. And I'm fully confident that it'll be so. So, I gotta go. I should have left long time. Roger, will you hand the mic to Steve? Yeah. He might.

Two minutes, Roger. I got just, just not deep subjects. I just, just, you know, addressing a couple of things you mentioned at the beginning regarding that meeting that Hans was the only one at. I think Mike did relay, you know, what you had told him. And, you know, being in construction myself, not in the concrete business, obviously, I understand. The weather at that point was just, winter was here, or coming,

Right around the corner. And at a short notice like that, I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought, well, I mean, it's feasible that a lot of these guys, it just didn't work out. And then regarding the request I had made, this was the end of January. I actually tried to call you and left a voicemail for you. And then you texted me back. And I guess the request that I was asked to make was that maybe three of us,

It was suggested that John, myself, and possibly Jim Frantti, if it worked into his schedule, would try to meet with you, Darwin, and Phil as a smaller group that we had, I think, talked about at the bigger meeting. Your response, I guess, was after talking with Darwin and Phil,

That we think it would be better to start with individual meetings rather than having this meeting with three individuals together or six total. And then I guess after that, John talked to Phil and he wanted to meet individually. And Phil didn't want to meet individually. He wanted others involved.

And so, I guess it's been a little bit, a question, why is it so difficult to get together? I know personally I tremble myself. I don't enjoy debating. But anyway, that's kind of the,

History from this winter when we've tried to get some smaller gatherings. It just doesn't seem like they still have worked out. And then also, you mentioned the letter that was received by your chairman recently. And that came from Jim Frantti, the chairman, and Randy Herrala, the secretary.

With the request that after the five brothers travel to Finland and Sweden to meet in this annual meeting that takes place and rotates from country to country, that after those discussions, the hope was that some at least would be

Able to come and visit with the Wolf Lake congregation. That's basically the gist of that request. No firm date was even suggested, but after they returned from that trip. You had a minute and 59 seconds. You got a two-minute response if you want. All right. Okay, anyone else?

Anyone else want to speak? Is there a mic somewhere? This afternoon I find that

I was just trembling here, sitting here, and I don't know why. Maybe it's my doubts and I don't trust that God will help us anymore, I don't know.

I want to believe and get to heaven. Can you forgive me?

I guess over all these discussions in the last few years and I have to ask again that I've had a lot of negative feelings and I just want to ask if you can forgive me for all these again. Could I also hear that gospel?

Can you just...

I came quite late, so I'm a little hesitant to speak, but earlier, lastly, you had mentioned about what was the offense. And I guess in my mind, when we were at our board meeting and we had heard that Phil and Darwin were of the six or seven or however many spoke that were of a different mind for whatever reason,

I don't know if I would call it offense, but I would say it's a great concern. And I think it's the Menahga board's hope and prayer that we could meet with those, with Darwin and Phil specifically, that what did you mean by you believe differently or you think differently on this? Nobody's ever said, you know, and I've never heard, but I'm concerned that they said that and it's like, well,

And I can understand these other congregations if they've heard the same thing. They would be hesitant to call someone who they don't know how they believe. And I think that's the biggest thing is we just want to hear from them, how do you believe? I had other thoughts, but I can't remember them now. Okay, anyone else?

If not, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. But if someone has something, feel free. Reno makes a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Don seconds. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Meeting adjourned. We will now have Mark with the closing prayer.

Dear Heavenly Father, we, your children, gather here today. We wish to give thanks that we have been able to again gather around your word and discuss these matters which are of great concern

We ask you, dear Father, that you would give each one of us humble, humble hearts, that we could hear the voice of your Spirit, and we could hear that message which comes from your congregation. With our carnal minds, we know, and we ask this question, that where do we go, where do we go from here?

Give us understanding and give us believing hearts that we could place our trust in you, that this be in your kingdom, that you would know what's best. We pray that even these conversations would continue and that all would be preserved in your kingdom and love and peace would again be restored

We also pray that during this time of strife that your work, your work would continue in calling sinners to repentance so that those even on the outside of your kingdom would be, if it would be your will, they would be called and they would have that hope of salvation.

We all join together in reciting that closing benediction. The Lord bless us and keep us. The Lord make his face shine upon us and be gracious unto us. The Lord lift his countenance upon us and give us peace. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.