"

Hmmmm,

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

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

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

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

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

Justin"