|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 4, 2008 22:36:22 GMT -5
Cherie, I confess I've never looked closely at your book, thinking it was a rehash of what was on the website. The table of contents looks pure, though! Do YOU feel it is an unbiased report of the facts, void of religious posturing? Maybe it is exactly what I have wanted. I do. Pretty much--except for Chapter 7--altho I do not believe that ANYONE can write totally unbiased-- At one point I considered what was my ultimate goal in writing my book? Should I attempt to write the book so that even workers could recommend it to the friends? (Sounds like this is what you might be wanting) Could that even be done--especially if it was written by an ex? I asked several people for their thoughts. Workers, ex workers, innies, exes. I decided not to pursue that angle. That it was impossible for me to do it. Someone else can take up that torch. I would be glad to lend them any assistance they needed.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 4, 2008 23:16:54 GMT -5
Are you alleging that I have started polls in which I have requested people to judge other's minds, hearts or souls? I have never started any such polls. Do you have any evidence for your accusation? This one speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Dec 5, 2008 4:19:12 GMT -5
I am fairly new here, but I don't think that this post is appropiate. GIC, I have attempted to contact you and you did not answer. I asked you a question in a post you and did not answer. I did both with respect and dignity. I hate to say I don't see much respect or dignity here. I may be wrong, and if so I apologize. I just don't think that we should vote on a single persons life.
Judge not.............. Hmmmmm
Peace and love to all , Pianoman
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Dec 5, 2008 7:04:00 GMT -5
I am fairly new here, but I don't think that this post is appropiate. GIC, I have attempted to contact you and you did not answer. I asked you a question in a post you and did not answer. I did both with respect and dignity. I hate to say I don't see much respect or dignity here. I may be wrong, and if so I apologize. I just don't think that we should vote on a single persons life. Judge not.............. Hmmmmm Peace and love to all , Pianoman I just don't think that we should vote on a single persons life.Good. I hope that it applies also to the poll on lin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 10:00:05 GMT -5
Cherie, I confess I've never looked closely at your book, thinking it was a rehash of what was on the website. The table of contents looks pure, though! Do YOU feel it is an unbiased report of the facts, void of religious posturing? Maybe it is exactly what I have wanted. I have to say I agree with this assessment DC. I think Cherie's site would be more powerful and valuable if it contained only the facts and none of the religious views. There are plenty of other sites with plenty of religious views. It's the mix of religious views that prevent the site from becoming commonly recommended by friends to explain the history and background of the church. I'm not suggesting the views are right or wrong, just the fact that they are there is an impediment to what is a very valuable resource site. That said, I think Cherie has done a very good job with the facts and hope she carries on her work.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 5, 2008 10:26:03 GMT -5
RE: There are plenty of other sites with plenty of religious views. Q: Are you saying there are plenty of websites focused on 2x2 beliefs/views? If so, please name them. (I'm not aware of any.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cherie, I confess I've never looked closely at your book, thinking it was a rehash of what was on the website. The table of contents looks pure, though! Do YOU feel it is an unbiased report of the facts, void of religious posturing? Maybe it is exactly what I have wanted. I have to say I agree with this assessment DC. I think Cherie's site would be more powerful and valuable if it contained only the facts and none of the religious views. There are plenty of other sites with plenty of religious views. It's the mix of religious views that prevent the site from becoming commonly recommended by friends to explain the history and background of the church. I'm not suggesting the views are right or wrong, just the fact that they are there is an impediment to what is a very valuable resource site. That said, I think Cherie has done a very good job with the facts and hope she carries on her work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 10:45:02 GMT -5
Thanks for asking so I can clarify.
To be more specific: there are plenty of sites which present their own religious views. Thousands of them.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 5, 2008 11:15:33 GMT -5
Clearday:
Unfortunately, there has never been a thorough website which was focused on the 2x2 belief system and practices--however, it looks like that will soon change.
I'm curious: What items would you, DC and others like removed from TTT? Some were eliminated when the new TTT website went up in July.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 12:19:11 GMT -5
I really haven't browsed the new site, only visited the source documents on history numerous times. That area is invaluable in helping us understand where we came from. On the old site, I recall seeing numerous editorial articles which in effect attempt to refute what was viewed as the commonly held 2x2 views. Your site would be more effective if it just stuck with the facts of the 2x2 church, and eliminated all editorial. That is, posting convention notes, letters, testimonials of what was said, testimonials of what was done, etc. Further strengthening the site would be to post things that are commendable about the fellowship. Let the chips fall where they may. By posting just the facts, good or bad, a site will eventually become a standard reference point for everyone rather than be viewed as a site to convince readers of an anti- point of view, which it is right now. While the TTT site (from my memory) has tons of objective material in it for which I'm very grateful, there is no way it would yet meet my standard of objectivity. Sorry I can't give you specifics right now, but when I have a chance, I will surf through the site and give you some ideas to consider. Clearday: Unfortunately, there has never been a thorough website which was focused on the 2x2 belief system and practices--however, it looks like that will soon change. I'm curious: What items would you, DC and others like removed from TTT? Some were eliminated when the new TTT website went up in July.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 5, 2008 13:07:58 GMT -5
FYI - Before the new TTT went on line, a 2x2 who frequents this board, edited all the articles on the old TTT (but not my book) and made suggestions as to how to make them less offensive to 2x2s. I made changes and used most of his suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Dec 5, 2008 13:27:22 GMT -5
I only wish she was the third generation at this . She has almost had to make this her full time job. So many things have been kept quite for so long. So many rocks to uncover.When we are hit with the Real Truth it hurts. All of our life's we have been told one thing and find out much more of this Way. Now are we upset with the messenger or those who have hid some of the small details. It's easy to get upset with the one who lift's the rug up and exposes that which has been hid from us. Why is this important because it's called "Truth". Now that being said facts are facts. Has she stated anyone that meets this way is wrong? No. History has away of repeating itself if we let it. Don't ever get to the point were your comfortable saying "I believe in the Truth". But rather let your life present itself in that "Truth" lives in you. nitro
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 14:16:40 GMT -5
FYI - Before the new TTT went on line, a 2x2 who frequents this board, edited all the articles on the old TTT (but not my book) and made suggestions as to how to make them less offensive to 2x2s. I made changes and used most of his suggestions. I think that's well intentioned Cherie, but I am suggesting not just tinkering and softening, I'm suggesting eliminating all editorial opinion. If you did, your site would become a reference place that would withstand the test of time. Who would not welcome a site that was 100% fact/evidence/information and 0% opinion? I realize that 0% opinion is impossible especially when publishing personal testimony of experiences, but I think it is achievable for site operators to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 5, 2008 14:37:16 GMT -5
I hesitate to say anything, because I've been through the publishing process, and I know how painful it is to have a reviewer/editor/publisher/whatever say "this section has all got to go." Dammit, I worked hard on that! I have stuff to say! I'm pouring my soul out here!" So I'll just say, clearday reflects my views.
Cherie, I referred somebody in the Truth to your page not long ago. I'm not blowing smoke. Her husband had left the Truth, and wouldn't talk about it, and she couldn't understand what all the hubbub was about. So, I just said something like, "here is a site that will give you all the facts, if you can ignore the religious posturing," or something like that. I DO appreciate your work.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 5, 2008 15:25:02 GMT -5
Here's another idea: Overseers should seek volunteers amongst the friends to put together a history site. Just the facts. That group could seek Cherie's cooperation (if she was interested) as she has already done most of the work on it and it is already on the TTT. Then, when the history question comes up, the workers or friends could simply refer people to the site. I would be willing to help as a consultant. My goal is that the 2x2 history become common knowledge, and that fits with my over all goal. However your own church has an avid worldwide historical group with tons of 2x2 historical data about the church. Looks like they would be the logical ones to put together something neutral about the church history. Coming from a source like them, it would more likely be endorsed by the workers...if that is your goal. (I'm not sure they could be neutral tho...) I feel pretty sure that nothing written by an ex about the history or any other 2x2 subject will ever be endorsed by the workers. So I dont think I would be much help beyond being a consultant and giving direction to information, sources, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 16:02:42 GMT -5
The historical group can't be too avid because their enthusiasm hasn't reached me yet, and I'm always watching for activities like that.
You're right, they probably couldn't be neutral.
Obviously the ideal solution would be for all interested parties to supply raw information to a professional historian who would put it together in a readable format.
Probably true. And probably no ex could be truly neutral either.
I was thinking that you have compiled a huge amount of information, a lot of it original source. It would save a lot of time for anyone doing history to have access to it. You've done a great job pulling together so much information.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Dec 5, 2008 17:08:24 GMT -5
Clearday, First before the F&W's could be part of something like you're suggesting wouldn't they have to admit to a lot of deception and lying? They believe they are the only right way, right? I and others believe they are full of it. You'll always have that when discussing this volatile subject. Many still deny that any of these things on Cherie's web site ever happened!?
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Dec 5, 2008 17:16:39 GMT -5
By the way as far as the vote goes I voted yes, her motives are pure. I would also like to add that of course she has an agenda. She's trying to help as many people as she can get free of the subtle spiritual twist that is the 2x2's. I'm glad some folks have the stomach for what she and others have done by shining the light of truth into that dark hole.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Dec 5, 2008 18:44:15 GMT -5
Untrue.
It was intended to be a reprisal personal attack for the one she launched on Lin. Here's a guy opening up himself to the vultures on the TMB, thinking, probably, "Hey we're all human, let's get along." A genuine expression of fellowship began to form.
Then within the space of a few hours, the spectre of the online world - Cherie Kropp - floats into view and attacks his mental acuity. There is no secret about my intense antipathy toward Cherie; I know what she's like behind the scenes; and I have found that to deal with her, the best approach is for one to roll up their sleeves and get both their shoes dirty and their hands bloody.
The feeling is not mutual.
I already largely ignore you, so this doesn't bother me at all. Do it. And we'll all be happier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2008 19:00:47 GMT -5
Clearday, First before the F&W's could be part of something like you're suggesting wouldn't they have to admit to a lot of deception and lying? They believe they are the only right way, right? I and others believe they are full of it. You'll always have that when discussing this volatile subject. Many still deny that any of these things on Cherie's web site ever happened!? Personally, I'm not about to jump on the workers and hold them down till they say "uncle" (sorry about the pun) and admit the errors of the past. All I care about is that we get it right now. The vacuum of knowledge about the history is one of the pillars of the exclusivity. Coming clean about the history will remove that pillar but that does not necessitate the removal of exclusivity. Already many f&ws subscribe to the "God raised up men to restore it" theory. In a way, by coming clean about the history a new more insidious lie could emerge to underpin exclusivity.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Dec 5, 2008 19:37:56 GMT -5
To get it right now, they would have to come clean on the history and give up exclusivity. Then I think they would enjoy a new beginning, even if they kept buns and skirts and tea-totalers.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Dec 6, 2008 2:26:15 GMT -5
The question is about Cherie's motives, are they pure. If attempting to document and disseminate the truth about matters is not a pure motive, I don't know what is. I appreciate her encyclopedic knowledge of the history of our church group. If you don't like any of Cherie's commentary on something, that is a matter of choice. I definitely value Cherie and her efforts.
|
|
|
Post by pablo on Dec 6, 2008 5:55:11 GMT -5
Thank you freespirit for your post above. It is well thought out and presented with the necessary evidential references to support your position.
I must say that it is very engaging and appears to be unbiased. I have enjoyed it. Well done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2008 7:26:41 GMT -5
In my opinion Cherie is compiling an extremely important historical document about the Friends and Workers sect. It is all the more important for the strange reason the F&W's deny their heritage and beliefs.
Some criticise Cherie for her theological and personal interpretations which accompany the historical facts she records. I must say that I have only really been taken up with the fascinating historical data on her website.
I now realise there is a clear imbalance between the theology and interpretations which she expounds and those of the Friends and Workers' Sect. To rectify this glaring failing on her part, Cherie should, in relation to her own interpretations and opinions,
1) Preach these are the "only way" to Heaven
2) All other interpretations and ways are wrong and are of man.
3) Unless you believe that she is the mouthpiece of God and accept what she says, you will end up in Hell.
4) All other ideas and ways are simply of the Devil or the world.
5) You must hear these things only from her or her duly appointed representatives.
Once Cherie adopts the above we will have true parity between her website and the proclamations of the workers.
After all, what's good for the goose..............................!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 6, 2008 10:09:39 GMT -5
I find it constantly amusing that I am slammed for not posting my personal theological thoughts. And Cherie is slammed for posting hers.
Make up your mind, Jason, freespirit, et al.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 6, 2008 10:13:26 GMT -5
Pablo: It is well thought out and presented with the necessary evidential references to support your position. Freespirit: What Cherie has on hair mangles scripture
Excuse me, but the loaded term “mangles” is your idea of a thorough refutation of “What Cherie has” on hair with no quotes as to what it has reference to in particular—from an unidentified article about 17 pages long? Hmmmmm............
My personal choices have nothing to do with the truth or validity of information I present. Even a talking donkey can speak the truth, as the Bible shows. FS is entitled to her opinion.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Dec 6, 2008 10:30:30 GMT -5
IMO, Cherie goes waaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the history of the fellowship and delves into theology and Christian living. Regarding hair, for instance: A woman can look at this verse: I Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.And say “It’s cultural and I’m not going to follow that” (as LAG does) OR she can say, “The bible is timeless and a guide for modern Christian life.” (my position) While I disagree with LAG, I do not think of her as dishonest or underhanded. I will point to bible verses, but in the end, how she chooses to wear the stuff growing out her scalp is between her and God. What Cherie has on hair mangles scripture as badly as the worker who claimed that we have three emblems (the bread, the wine and the hairbun.) ... freespirit For some reason this post does not sound like you. Do you have an axe to grind with Cherie? Actually it sounds completely catty.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Dec 6, 2008 10:40:59 GMT -5
You bet there is axe grinding going on. They can't stand the fact that Cherie tells the truth about their church. Maybe they are upset that the workers themselves refuse to do it and those outside are picking up the slack... who knows?
The fact remains that people like freespirit have a problem. And Cherie isn't it.
Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Dec 6, 2008 10:44:17 GMT -5
You bet there is axe grinding going on. They can't stand the fact that Cherie tells the truth about their church. Maybe they are upset that the workers themselves refuse to do it and those outside are picking up the slack... who knows? The fact remains that people like freespirit have a problem. And Cherie isn't it. Think about it. Agreed!
|
|