|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 11:22:25 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 11:22:25 GMT -5
They were still in agreement though,and proved to be right in going to the gentiles. lin! This point is very vital in this discussion for not everyone seems to understand just exactly what was laid on the hearts of the beginning workers (regardless of who they were)........It seems so unfair to want to whittle down the truth's fellowship to one man's name! It is not even correct to call us Cooneyites, for there are Cooneyites...those who followed EC....they are also called the 2X2's....which calling the truth's fellowship 2X2's is unfair to the Cooneyites....that is if "names" are all that important! It seems to rankle some that "truth" is a part of our fellowship....but they fail to see that what is truth to some isn't necessarily truth to someone else because of their individual viewpoints and understandings. Just because some heard that this faith was all the way from the shores of Galilee, they want to run and say liar.....when what was originally meant and this is well documented in some unbiased research, that it was the "faith's working within mankind" not the group the workers were and are speaking to....I, also think that some of the workers did think it was a group from the shores of Galilee and with the time involved, one would think they'd thought twice about that....if they'd known about the persecution and slaughter of the Christians since the time of the Acts of the Apostles....then they should have reasoned that NO it isn't the "group" that is from the shores of Galilee but the working of "like faith" in individuals.......... As to why think I'm trying anything other then to "relieve" Cherie of her angst....think again............as it was in the days of Jesus so I expect it will be over and over again....there'll be those who can not nor will not accept the fact that there are some of us who seek God first and foremost! Furthermore, I really don't care what people call us.....mainly what I care about is "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." This door swings both ways.............folks outside the truth's fellowship, if the people within the truth's fellowship DO NOT want a man's name attached to their church, then so be it..........likewise people within the truth's fellowship please allow others the right to worship their Lord and Saviour in the way that "feeds their spirit." OKAY?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 11:45:10 GMT -5
Post by ilylo on Feb 7, 2009 11:45:10 GMT -5
How hilarious that "what" blames exes for WI starting his church. What a hoot!
...what a crock.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 12:27:36 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2009 12:27:36 GMT -5
What wrote: Of course, Jesse's question underlies everything, but I don't expect we'll get an answer on whether anyone outside our fellowship feels Irvine was moved by God. It is highly probable that they do not, and this is why they need to establish Irvine as the founder, in order to undermine the foundation of our belief.I have never suggested that God was not in this movement. I have great confidence in God's mercy to work alongside human weaknesses. I do not believe there is any perfect way of religion, yet I do believe that God operates in many Christian faiths, despite the divisions, including the F&W's church. We must see the broader picture going on in that there has always been spiritual warfare going on, intensifying until the day Christ comes again. I have stated I have my doubts about God being with William Irvine, which I still hold. However, God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. I do not doubt that Cooney was a man of God, nor many of the others. This does not mean that I accept everything they would say or preach to be true. In fact after my experiences with the F&W's church this is my position with anyone. It does not mean that because I see failings or wrong preachings that I deem God is not with them. I think this is a wise position to be in. In the F&W's the mindset (at least in my area years ago) was that everything the workers said came from God, we were not to have doubts, we were just to accept and do and so on. It is this type of control which causes problems. Good answer, good thoughts. Yes, this is the position I try to maintain myself. And I can't say it's universally thought or held within our fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 12:32:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 12:32:34 GMT -5
They were still in agreement though,and proved to be right in going to the gentiles. Lin, I was only being hypothetical in my comparison. I wasn't suggesting that this happened between Paul and the Apostles.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 12:35:22 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 7, 2009 12:35:22 GMT -5
"When we look at WI's desire to live by the bible, he was just wanting to follow the instructions. If a man was told to follow some instructions about how to do something, does that make him the "founder"? no. Architect? No. Author? No. Father? No. None of those words describe someone who has been told to follow instructions." This viewpoint puts a whole other light on the subject of "founder"! And it is the viewpoint that the workers that I've known anything about have held....they didn't feel that there was any particular one who "founded" anything....they were all reading the same instruction book and interpreting it somewhere near the same as one another. Would it be even "legal" in natural life to consider oneself the "founder" of something that came about from reading the instruction booklet on? Apt to get your socks sued off in reality. I'm thinking for example...we bought an Italian made tractor back in the 70's...though my husband was well versed in working with and operating most American made tractors, this particular one from Italy caused us to have to read every word within the instruction book or it wouldn't operate correctly if at all! My husband was no reader, so it was left up to me to read it out loud for both of us and often explain to him in simpler terms just what the instruction booklet was saying! I wouldn't have dared take the name of "founder" to myself just because I read it to the purpose of operating that tractor correctly, now would I? However, he might properly be considered the founder of the Italian tractor movement in America! Were there any followers? I understand that Italian tractors go really fast in reverse. Is it true? All kidding aside, I'm open to Irvine as founder, provided someone can come up with founder of _________. Or, alternatively, Irvine together with X, Y, Z founded __________.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 12:54:42 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 12:54:42 GMT -5
Just because you dont/dont want to recognize the founder of your church doesnt mean there wasn't one... Wm Irvine is still "out there" and "this ugly serpent" as some call this information, will rise up again and again to haunt you--because it hasn't been dealt with honestly and openly. But you go ahead--fine by me--just keep your head in the sand if that makes you happy. For some their beliefs and "reputation" are more important to them than truth. Meanwhile, people will learn the unvarnished truth from TTT. They were still in agreement though,and proved to be right in going to the gentiles. lin! This point is very vital in this discussion for not everyone seems to understand just exactly what was laid on the hearts of the beginning workers (regardless of who they were)........It seems so unfair to want to whittle down the truth's fellowship to one man's name! It is not even correct to call us Cooneyites, for there are Cooneyites...those who followed EC....they are also called the 2X2's....which calling the truth's fellowship 2X2's is unfair to the Cooneyites....that is if "names" are all that important! It seems to rankle some that "truth" is a part of our fellowship....but they fail to see that what is truth to some isn't necessarily truth to someone else because of their individual viewpoints and understandings. Just because some heard that this faith was all the way from the shores of Galilee, they want to run and say liar.....when what was originally meant and this is well documented in some unbiased research, that it was the "faith's working within mankind" not the group the workers were and are speaking to....I, also think that some of the workers did think it was a group from the shores of Galilee and with the time involved, one would think they'd thought twice about that....if they'd known about the persecution and slaughter of the Christians since the time of the Acts of the Apostles....then they should have reasoned that NO it isn't the "group" that is from the shores of Galilee but the working of "like faith" in individuals.......... As to why think I'm trying anything other then to "relieve" Cherie of her angst....think again............as it was in the days of Jesus so I expect it will be over and over again....there'll be those who can not nor will not accept the fact that there are some of us who seek God first and foremost! Furthermore, I really don't care what people call us.....mainly what I care about is "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." This door swings both ways.............folks outside the truth's fellowship, if the people within the truth's fellowship DO NOT want a man's name attached to their church, then so be it..........likewise people within the truth's fellowship please allow others the right to worship their Lord and Saviour in the way that "feeds their spirit." OKAY?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 13:22:17 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 13:22:17 GMT -5
What today's workers say/think doesnt have any weight re WmI's role over 100 years ago. They werent there. Their comments are irrelevant. Most speak opinions from hearsay and hand me down information. What matters is: What did the workers who were with WmI at the inception of the church he preached in consider his role to be? The workers on the 1905 Workers List? The ones who gathered around him in 1897-1903? Did THEY view him as the founder? Who did they see was the founder of their group? THAT is the question. The Judge asked Cooney were you the founder? He said NO--Wm Irvine was "the first." EC was answering the Judge's question WHO WAS THE FOUNDER? There was nothing to cover up at that time in 1913. WmI hadn't yet been excommunicated. EC said, in essence, NOT ME--Wm Irvine was. Saying WmI was "The first" meant the same as saying he was the founder...in context with the Judge's question. Another worker on the 1905 list, Wilson McClung, is quoted saying Wm Irvine "STARTED our mission" (reported in the IMP newspr). Now we have Two Witnesses...but I dont suppose that is sufficient for some of you tho? Accurate or not, many others interviewed by reporters had to have believed that WmI was the Founder for the Impartial Reporter to give him that title in their newspaper so many times. Quote of Wilson McClung who entered the work in 1903 along with his wife, and are shown on the 1905 Workers List; McClung became the overseer of New Zealand for many years. OOps - there goes your WmI was our leader theory.... "We have no name,’ he replied, ‘but the ribald multitude give us many. Some call us Cooneyites, some call us Tramps, Faith Missionaries, No Secters, Women-Thieves, and so on. Well, we are Cooneyites. We are also McClungites, for Cooney is no greater than I. We have no established leader in this world. ‘Our mission was started by William Irwin, a Scotchman, seven or eight years ago. Others followed him. I myself was a Civil Servant in Dublin. I resigned my post, sold all that I had and gave to the poor, and went out to preach. The mission has grown gradually. Fifty men and women are now carrying the Word to the unenlightened in eight counties in England—rural England. There are as many in Scotland, more in Ireland." (Impartial Reporter, June 21, 1906, p. 3) "When we look at WI's desire to live by the bible, he was just wanting to follow the instructions. If a man was told to follow some instructions about how to do something, does that make him the "founder"? no. Architect? No. Author? No. Father? No. None of those words describe someone who has been told to follow instructions." This viewpoint puts a whole other light on the subject of "founder"! And it is the viewpoint that the workers that I've known anything about have held....they didn't feel that there was any particular one who "founded" anything....they were all reading the same instruction book and interpreting it somewhere near the same as one another. Would it be even "legal" in natural life to consider oneself the "founder" of something that came about from reading the instruction booklet on? Apt to get your socks sued off in reality. I'm thinking for example...we bought an Italian made tractor back in the 70's...though my husband was well versed in working with and operating most American made tractors, this particular one from Italy caused us to have to read every word within the instruction book or it wouldn't operate correctly if at all! My husband was no reader, so it was left up to me to read it out loud for both of us and often explain to him in simpler terms just what the instruction booklet was saying! I wouldn't have dared take the name of "founder" to myself just because I read it to the purpose of operating that tractor correctly, now would I?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 13:31:29 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 13:31:29 GMT -5
What wrote:
For your blank, I submit the term: "a sect."
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 15:20:52 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 7, 2009 15:20:52 GMT -5
Cherie, thanks for these two quotes. Yes, they seem to indicate there was no cover-up before William Irvine's ousting. To be fair, who can blame them for keeping quiet about a man whose immorality had become a disgrace to the movement?
The following quote from Wilson McClung is interesting. It seems to indicate that WI was recognized as the man who started "our mission" yet he wasn't recognized as leader of the sect at that time (at least by Wilson McClung in this interview).
I suspect these men would do things differently with the benefit of hind sight looking back from today. It seems they initially avoided mention of William Irvine because of his immorality and in the process the reality that "our mission was started by William Irvine" was lost to a lot of people. Over time it probably got harder and harder to 'fess up about it and they chose to let sleeping dogs lie.
The sooner workers and friends acknowledge the history of our church the better. We need to do that in order to better appreciate what truly is from the shores of Galilee.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 16:09:21 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 16:09:21 GMT -5
"When we look at WI's desire to live by the bible, he was just wanting to follow the instructions. If a man was told to follow some instructions about how to do something, does that make him the "founder"? no. Architect? No. Author? No. Father? No. None of those words describe someone who has been told to follow instructions." This viewpoint puts a whole other light on the subject of "founder"! And it is the viewpoint that the workers that I've known anything about have held....they didn't feel that there was any particular one who "founded" anything....they were all reading the same instruction book and interpreting it somewhere near the same as one another. Would it be even "legal" in natural life to consider oneself the "founder" of something that came about from reading the instruction booklet on? Apt to get your socks sued off in reality. I'm thinking for example...we bought an Italian made tractor back in the 70's...though my husband was well versed in working with and operating most American made tractors, this particular one from Italy caused us to have to read every word within the instruction book or it wouldn't operate correctly if at all! My husband was no reader, so it was left up to me to read it out loud for both of us and often explain to him in simpler terms just what the instruction booklet was saying! I wouldn't have dared take the name of "founder" to myself just because I read it to the purpose of operating that tractor correctly, now would I? However, he might properly be considered the founder of the Italian tractor movement in America! Were there any followers? I understand that Italian tractors go really fast in reverse. Is it true? All kidding aside, I'm open to Irvine as founder, provided someone can come up with founder of _________. Or, alternatively, Irvine together with X, Y, Z founded __________. The Italian tractor we had pivoted in the middle that is between the steering column and the seat part of the tractor and it was one good upgrade crawler....my husband was brushhogging on top of our acreage where a lot of cedar trees were and he was looking back to make sure the brushhog followed in between some narrow spaced trees and the next thing he knows, his steering arm was pinned between two trees and the front end of the tractor was climbing them! That was a very tight spot to get caught in! Broke his wrist.....didn't challenge that tractor again that way! And no, he didn't found an Italian tractor movement in the US! No one wanted one after our experiences with it! Though a friend borrowed it to brushhog his pond bank...the grass was wet and the tractor slid backwards into the pond(the brushhog was about as heavy as the tractor)...course killed the engine....but later, he waded back out to the tractor and it under water, started the engine and it climbed right straight upward out of that pond...no other tractor would have done that and kept on running!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 16:28:08 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 16:28:08 GMT -5
Just because you dont/dont want to recognize the founder of your church doesnt mean there wasn't one... Wm Irvine is still "out there" and "this ugly serpent" as some call this information, will rise up again and again to haunt you--because it hasn't been dealt with honestly and openly. But you go ahead--fine by me--just keep your head in the sand if that makes you happy. For some their beliefs and "reputation" are more important to them than truth. Meanwhile, people will learn the unvarnished truth from TTT. Cherie! If you're honest you can not truthfully say my head is in the sand about the truth's fellowship's beginnings........as I've said before WI could have had all the visions in the world but if he had not had some other people who saw what he saw it would've never hit the ground running! My "belief" or "faith" whichever you want to call it is in Jesus and ONLY JESUS! If that isn't important in this whole mess, then it won't be important in a 100 more years BUT it will be important in eternity! Cherie, what I'm trying to get you and others who keep trying to poke an immoral, dishonest man down our throats as "founder" when there was truly more then one is this this: No other denomination, though they recognize their founder(s) are recognized by the general public by that name(s)....thus making the founder(s) of minor significance to the majority of people within that belief system! Live in peace together if and when possible.....you should know, Cherie, to force people to think or to do as we'd like them to think or to do isn't right either. It all comes down to live and let live in this life. WI is a gross embarrassment to the truth's fellowship because OF HOW HE ENDED IN LIFE....THAT IS THE PART OF HIS LIFE THAT IS HIS TESTIMONY IN EFFECT! Cherie, the Bible teaches us that! That's not to say that even Judas Iscariot didn't have some "words of life" during his 3 and half years as Jesus' first hand Apostles, now does it? But his testimony stinks now that he is dead...doesn't it........no one denies that he was one of Jesus' apostles and a very privileged man but how he ended up in life is what has tainted his testimony. Now lord it over everybody about WI and him being the founder and you will do nothing to help people come to terms with the history.....don't you understand that? Or is that what gives you strength to keep on doing it? The fact that it is a gross embarrassment, a stink within something that others were so historically doing well at?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 16:50:48 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 16:50:48 GMT -5
I just do not see a problem identifying WmI as your Founder. IMO you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. His faults and failures do not have to be mentioned at all. Nobody expects you to discuss his sex life. Just tell the plain facts.
To the question: "Who was the Founder of your Church?" Why not just answer simply:
The founder was a Scotsman named Wm Irvine. He started the sect around the turn of the 20th century in Ireland and it went worldwide. The church split in 1914 and he went on to start a new sect. We stuck with the original church.
What’s wrong with that? Whats shameful about that? Whats not true about it? Whats omitted that could come back and bite you down the road?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 16:56:21 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 16:56:21 GMT -5
You know, Nathan, when one thinks just how delusional WI was at the end of his life, one has to wonder just how delusional he was back in the beginning of the workers' movement! But you know, that kind of delusional pyschosis can not be evident to others around the delusional one until over a period of time....that was my point in saying that WI found it very convenient to his well-being to be on the constant go, the constant changing! It did 2 things for him, it kept his fellow workers from really knowing how delusional he was by nature and also kept them from knowing just how immoral he really was. Now to be fair, most of them thought that they should give him a break and let him prove that he was "over" that immoral life. But I think someone posted on here, Willie Jamieson's take on his visit with WI in Jerusalem and just how immoral he was at that time!
I think that WI was allowed to stay within the movement as long as he did because they all were trying to live as well as preach about the love and mercy that Jesus showed during His years upon the earth!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 17:03:39 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 17:03:39 GMT -5
I must have missed that - what was WJ's take?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 17:32:05 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 17:32:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 17:45:58 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 17:45:58 GMT -5
People who equivocate here regarding this topic appear ignorant of what equivocation is, and what it means. While in the work, I did not know what it was, nor what it meant even as some do not yet. Further, I did not know until much later that I was simply being taught to at least try to be very good at equivocation, as some prove themselves by their posts to this forum even yet.
If people were to accept that Irvine was indeed at least one of the founders if not THE founder of the 2&2 ministry group/cult/sect, they rightfully believe they would be unable to continue all of the group's teaching (doctrine.) Why? Because then they would have to abandon the myth that the teachings they believe are the exact same as occurred 2000 plus years ago.
This, Cherie could well be the reason why they cannot admit to what you propose. So, people good with words among the group will continue to equivocate, to obfuscate the issue for as long as they can deceive others by that practice. It justifies what they believe in the face of historical light.
We should well remember the epiphany that resulted in our own awareness being expanded to see beyond the 2&2 ministry beliefs and teachings. Doctrine, which some, because of not being indoctrinated into those beliefs completely, are fortunate to never have known. Surely it will take the same type of experiences for the devout 2&2 ministry group teachers and followers to rethink and reach a different conclusion, even asd it did for us.
Dennis
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 17:57:00 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 7, 2009 17:57:00 GMT -5
What do you think he wrote Nate? If you dont know the answer to that question, then I recommend you get yourself a copy of the SS book and read for yourself just what Doug said. You can order it in USA from Daniels/RIS.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 19:57:33 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 19:57:33 GMT -5
People who equivocate here regarding this topic appear ignorant of what equivocation is, and what it means. While in the work, I did not know what it was, nor what it meant even as some do not yet. Further, I did not know until much later that I was simply being taught to at least try to be very good at equivocation, as some prove themselves by their posts to this forum even yet.
If people were to accept that Irvine was indeed at least one of the founders if not THE founder of the 2&2 ministry group/cult/sect, they rightfully believe they would be unable to continue all of the group's teaching (doctrine.) Why? Because then they would have to abandon the myth that the teachings they believe are the exact same as occurred 2000 plus years ago.
This, Cherie could well be the reason why they cannot admit to what you propose. So, people good with words among the group will continue to equivocate, to obfuscate the issue for as long as they can deceive others by that practice. It justifies what they believe in the face of historical light.
We should well remember the epiphany that resulted in our own awareness being expanded to see beyond the 2&2 ministry beliefs and teachings. Doctrine, which some, because of not being indoctrinated into those beliefs completely, are fortunate to never have known. Surely it will take the same type of experiences for the devout 2&2 ministry group teachers and followers to rethink and reach a different conclusion, even asd it did for us.
Dennis Apparently Dennis, you fail to remember that there are some of us that were never told that! So why would it be equivocation when we weren't told that....we're having to accept your word that your were told that, so the fairness is that you'll have to accept some of us were not told that! I've admitted that the truth's fellowship is nothing more then another sect of religion...most likely a splinter off of the Faith Mission as that seemed to be where a number of the early workers came from. Now does that satisfy you? I've had nothing but the Bible taught to me for nearly 60 yrs. I have had nothing but Jesus held up to me as the ONLY WAY for nearly 60 yrs. That is not to mean that I haven't heard someone speak words they had NO IDEA what they were speaking as in regards to the scripture....but so have I heard the same in other churches! NOW why would I necessarily change the sect of religion I'm content in for another one that I know has similar if not worse problems? Go ahead and leave the truths' fellowship...I do not cotton that everybody has to worship the same....I do not hold to the fact that you're lost if you leave the truth's fellowship! That is your choice, your right and your privilege! Don't knock other people's faith just because you cannot see their faith for yourself...all right! It is not a set and dried thing in this world. Fact is if it was set and dried in accordance to God's Will, there would be NO religion organizations in this world because all they are are the commandments of men made doctrine! If you cannot see that for other religions but see it for the truth's fellowship, then it is you who is blind and do not understand....but I strongly suspect you know that!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 19:58:24 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 19:58:24 GMT -5
Hi Sharon,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts concerning the Italian Tractor, and I have a few comments about it.
This allegory needs to take a few more things into consideration to compare it to the f&w. First, you would have to imagine that your understanding of the instructions were accepted as correct by a few others as well. No, you would not be the "founder" or "author" of the instuctions, but you would be the "founder" or "author" of your interpretation that seems to be working alright. It would not likely be too difficult to find others to agree with you if the tractor is at least running.
But, what if someone else reads the instructions, and finds he can operate the tractor a little differently, but still with success. He may gain a following as well. So, now he is also a "founder" or "author" of another interpretation of the instructions. Perhaps his methods cause the tractor to run even better than your instructions. Of course he's still not the original "founder" who designed the tractor and knows the real importance is about the tractor running well, rather than whose instructions are best.
Sometimes, with really bad instructions, the tractor won't run at all. Other instructions may allow it to run, but not without some difficulties, that may even cause damage to it and reduce its producivity. Of course the very BEST instructions are those made by the true original "founder," the designer of the tractor, and ALL other interpretations are not quite as good.
Anyone who claims to have the total correct instructions must be equating themselves with the original "founder." Even if he has somehow managed to keep the tractor running, and maybe even running pretty well, perhaps he is unaware of how much better it could be running, because he hasn't come across better instructions .... yet!
Sharon, I know that you recognize the faith of others outside of the f&w, but many f&w do not. Your post about the tractor made me think of those who insist that they have the only set of instructions that compares with the original. (Although I don't think that's what you were intending to say.)
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 20:01:39 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 20:01:39 GMT -5
I just do not see a problem identifying WmI as your Founder. IMO you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. His faults and failures do not have to be mentioned at all. Nobody expects you to discuss his sex life. Just tell the plain facts. To the question: "Who was the Founder of your Church?" Why not just answer simply: The founder was a Scotsman named Wm Irvine. He started the sect around the turn of the 20th century in Ireland and it went worldwide. The church split in 1914 and he went on to start a new sect. We stuck with the original church.What’s wrong with that? Whats shameful about that? Whats not true about it? Whats omitted that could come back and bite you down the road? No, Cherie, I'm trying to take the mountain you want to keep poking down people's throat into smaller bites and pieces to where so much unrest is the result of it! I can not seem to get it through your head.....live and let live...it is not your place to force people to accept what you call the history of the truth's fellowship! You only end up creating rancor! Let it go..........if you want to call WI founder and that gives you some sort of peace...live with it and let others live with what they well choose to live with it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 20:09:32 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 20:09:32 GMT -5
Hi Sharon,
I simply must state my disagreement with this accusation toward Cherie. Her efforts to restore truth to the group that calls itself the "Truth" in no way, shape or form can be equated with emotional and psychological abuse. If people find truth difficult to deal with, that is not Cherie's fault. As believers we are required to bring light into darkness, truth where deception reigns. Cherie obeys the Lord and is then condemned for it because people find it hard to take responsibility for their own errors. (Not you personally, but those f&w who insist on perpetuating the "no founder" story.)
No, Cherie and other exes are not gleefully poking WI down the throats of the f&w. We are simply presenting the side of the story that needs to be heard.
The rancor was not created by Cherie, but by the unfortunate deception that continued to be built upon by those who followed the early workers example of hiding the truth. Most didn't even know it wasn't the truth after awhile. But now they CAN know...thanks to people like Cherie.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 20:15:40 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 20:15:40 GMT -5
Hi Sharon, I enjoyed reading your thoughts concerning the Italian Tractor, and I have a few comments about it. This allegory needs to take a few more things into consideration to compare it to the f&w. First, you would have to imagine that your understanding of the instructions were accepted as correct by a few others as well. No, you would not be the "founder" or "author" of the instuctions, but you would be the "founder" or "author" of your interpretation that seems to be working alright. It would not likely be too difficult to find others to agree with you if the tractor is at least running. But, what if someone else reads the instructions, and finds he can operate the tractor a little differently, but still with success. He may gain a following as well. So, now he is also a "founder" or "author" of another interpretation of the instructions. Perhaps his methods cause the tractor to run even better than your instructions. Of course he's still not the original "founder" who designed the tractor and knows the real importance is about the tractor running well, rather than whose instructions are best. Sometimes, with really bad instructions, the tractor won't run at all. Other instructions may allow it to run, but not without some difficulties, that may even cause damage to it and reduce its producivity. Of course the very BEST instructions are those made by the true original "founder," the designer of the tractor, and ALL other interpretations are not quite as good. Anyone who claims to have the total correct instructions must be equating themselves with the original "founder." Even if he has somehow managed to keep the tractor running, and maybe even running pretty well, perhaps he is unaware of how much better it could be running, because he hasn't come across better instructions .... yet! Sharon, I know that you recognize the faith of others outside of the f&w, but many f&w do not. Your post about the tractor made me think of those who insist that they have the only set of instructions that compares with the original. (Although I don't think that's what you were intending to say.) Blessings, Linda Linda, thank you! I do not take every word spoken within the confines of the truth's fellowship for gospel! Likewise I do not take every word spoken within the confines of any denomination as gospel. The only GOSPEL i take as gospel is available to one and all and that is within the Bible...whatever version so well fits one's intellect! I also know full well how the scriptures can speak to one person while they may well mean something else to another person..........except when it occasions into anything that is not of LOVE AND MERCY! That is very apparent that is what Jesus showed us how to live when he lived upon the earth! I do not always agree with others from any denomination including the truth's fellowship....reserving my right to study that which is at stake within the confines of the Biblical context and much prayer! There are many times I do not always get the answer I'm seeking very quickly but it usually comes when I do need it to be put into practice in my own life. In that light I can no more be responsible for anyone else's life or manner of life other then to show them the love and mercy shown by our Saviour, Jesus Christ......I can only, as Paul said, die daily so that Christ can live in me! I also can corroborate that there are many within the confines of the truth's fellowship that are singularly of such faith that I have...most don't want to get into controversial subjects for the simple reason that is shown upon this website...."rancor"! Bad feelings created between people.......that isn't showing the love of Christ, now is it? So as long as someone wants to preach that the truth's fellowship is something less then honorable(which they cannot truthfully say all within it are dishonorable) and continually pushes their opinion about it onto someone else and creating a "negative" feeling, however one would describe it.....it is NO MORE honorable then what they purport the truth's fellowship is! It isn't doing as Scott so ably said the other day...showing forth the spirit within that would make someone else want what they have! Now does it? If people cannot handle the truth's beginning history and have to leave the fellowship because of it...they have my best wishes! But leave me to do as I so well please as I have them!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 20:34:51 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 20:34:51 GMT -5
You are a unique individual within the fellowship, at least from those I have known and in the area in which I was involved. I'm glad you're one who seeks truth for yourself. Many others do not, in or out of the f&w. The ones that just follow along often do not want anything to upset the applecart. But growing so comfortable can sometimes prevent us from a deeper intimacy with God, and it can sometimes allow us to wade into complacency and even acceptance of things that would actually hinder our relationship with God.
As brothers and sisters in the Lord, we need to do what we can to encourage one another to keep seeking truth, keeping pressing in, keep examining and weighing things. Don't you agree?
In the scripture we are urged to edify one another, teach each other, provoke each other to good works, love each other...and so much more. In some things, of course, we leave each other alone....but some things are so important as to compell us to act.
I recognize that to you the history of WI is not important, but it IS important to many folks, even some who do not yet know about it. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 20:46:46 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 7, 2009 20:46:46 GMT -5
You are a unique individual within the fellowship, at least from those I have known and in the area in which I was involved. I'm glad you're one who seeks truth for yourself. Many others do not, in or out of the f&w. The ones that just follow along often do not want anything to upset the applecart. But growing so comfortable can sometimes prevent us from a deeper intimacy with God, and it can sometimes allow us to wade into complacency and even acceptance of things that would actually hinder our relationship with God. As brothers and sisters in the Lord, we need to do what we can to encourage one another to keep seeking truth, keeping pressing in, keep examining and weighing things. Don't you agree? In the scripture we are urged to edify one another, teach each other, provoke each other to good works, love each other...and so much more. In some things, of course, we leave each other alone....but some things are so important as to compell us to act. I recognize that to you the history of WI is not important, but it IS important to many folks, even some who do not yet know about it. Blessings, Linda I agree we should keep seeking truth and truth is in Jesus and we won't understand all we could about Him even in our individual lifetimes! The main reason I'm reluctant to "push WI" as history on anyone person is for the simple fact we can cause a person to not only turn from the truth's fellowship but from Jesus and that's what I find dangerous! I'm glad that you can one or two others on this website have proven to hold a love for Jesus so strong within your lives that it isn't going to matter what church you're affiliated with in the long run......but there are just some people who cannot seem to walk the footprints of Jesus without some kind of religious affiliation! And to cause them to lose all trust by pushing the history upon them in an "unacceptable" time is something I'm unwilling to do...I've seen what such a thing has done and I cry about it when I think about it! The human component that so many seem to want to put their trust in is something that can kill a soul and to me this is what can happen........now it's one thing to withhold the truth of the beginnings but to force it upon someone is another! JMOP
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 21:30:51 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 21:30:51 GMT -5
I guess some felt the "no founder" message was forced upon them. That's one reason they are no longer in the meetings.
I left meetings five years before I even knew about William Irvine, so that wasn't the case for me. However, I did find it quite devastating, even though I was no longer in the meetings, to learn of the true history. Devastating...yes...but I'm glad to know the truth.
People who are in Christ can trust that He is able to keep that which they've committed to Him. If hearing about William Irvine's part in the history of the fellowship causes someone to leave Jesus....that is an indicator that perhaps their faith was not really in Him to start with...but in a perception of Him, or in a fellowship or ministry instead. All the better for them to be released of the perception, even though it would be painful and stressful, so they can find the real Saviour.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 21:31:45 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 7, 2009 21:31:45 GMT -5
Cherie Why is it so important to you that WI is the founder? Is it because you have made a vow that it will be preached from the platform,but it hasn't been yet?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:13:47 GMT -5
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 7, 2009 22:13:47 GMT -5
I have never suggested that God was not in this movement. I have great confidence in God's mercy to work alongside human weaknesses. Well Toddy, Without William there would have been NO TESTIMONY. General comment (not directed specifically at you ram); If God was involved it would not matter at all who the men/women were, God is well able to make it happen if he so desires. To say that without Irvine nothing would have happened seems to be thinking that limits the power of God himself and reveals the state of one's faith in the ability of God to do what he wants where he wants and when he wants. How do any of you who think that with out Irvine this would not have happened know that to be absolute truth? Remember what Jesus said? "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Don't leave God out of the discussion. I've always wondered *why* people think what they think, and say what they say - the *why* is often the root of *what* they think and say. So thanks to all - this has been a very interesting thread.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 7, 2009 22:30:38 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 7, 2009 22:30:38 GMT -5
If the f&w fellowship goes back to the shores of Galilee, so do many others.
The f&w would say their ministry is like the first apostles' ministry.
The Pentecostals would say they move in the gifts of the Spirit like the first apostles.
The Baptists would say they baptise just as the first apostles did.
And on and on....
But, the message of salvation through Christ DOES go back to the shores of Galilee, and most Christian churches teach that. While in the past, some of these "other" churches may have excluded their brethren in other denominations, they seldom do today. (Pentecostal and Baptist included) Perhaps it is just taking the f&w group (not referring to every single individual) a little longer to realize we all actually have the same goal....to love and serve God and each other.
Blessings, Linda
|
|