|
Post by JO on Jul 4, 2009 22:23:27 GMT -5
Nathan, the "no man can come to the Father but by us" doctrine will inevitably lead to abuse of power.
The Alberta workers were only doing what they had been trained to do, and what they felt was necessary to preserve their kingdom.
They were only excercising the power that system/worker worshippers gave them.
Rather than condemn the people involved we should examine the doctrine that led to the suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2009 0:16:01 GMT -5
Nathan, the "no man can come to the Father but by us" doctrine will inevitably lead to abuse of power. The Alberta workers were only doing what they had been trained to do, and what they felt was necessary to preserve their kingdom. They were only excercising the power that system/worker worshippers gave them. Rather than condemn the people involved we should examine the doctrine that led to the suffering. You have a good understanding of the Alberta situation JO. Once caught by their errors, insiders have worked feverishly to tie the can to WP, JK, GF et al. This is terribly wrong as these workers were doing what they sincerely believed was their mission and authority given to them by God. To suggest that Alberta was some rogue situation is not only completely wrong, but it negated the possibility that there would be lessons learned from it which won't be repeated. Unfortunately, there is no sign yet that the lessons were learned, but rather have been buried in shame.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 5, 2009 0:17:13 GMT -5
That's the typical 2x2 method of damage control... if I close my eyes, then I can't see it and hopefully it will go away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2009 0:20:34 GMT -5
That's the typical 2x2 method of damage control... if I close my eyes, then I can't see it and hopefully it will go away.Worse, in the Alberta case, damage control was effected by the use of scapegoats.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 5, 2009 0:22:07 GMT -5
True. That is much worse. They had no qualms about harming additional people in order to cover up for their previous errors.
Maybe we should go around and force all the other workers to face the same treatment and ask them if they support the actions of those Alberta workers who ripped families apart without hesitation. Yes or no... and you must answer right now.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 5, 2009 0:34:13 GMT -5
At one time, having no name was congruent with the fellowship. It was once very loosely structured, This loose structure is one thing that people still complain about... eg, the fact that people eat different breakfast cereals in different places. What makes you think it isn't now? Has someone decided that we don't really need to be spirit led, so in that case we are going to need a name? What is it exactly that has changed regarding the organization? We have lists? Is that it? Do you not expect that the church of God would be very organized? Are you looking for a church that is a shambles? Which is good. Nothing wrong with everyone turning up to the meeting at the right time because they have read it on a list. How would you prefer the meeting to be? Got any ideas on how to make it any better than it is? I must say though that the structure isn't the same all over the world, and so if it is the structure you are putting the name to, then you will need a different name for each structure. I honestly have tried to think of a meeting that I have been to where there isn't someone appointed to do the hosting/conducting, and I can't. That is just what makes for a well run meeting. Ahhh, yes I remember now pointing out one of the meeting rules on VOT once, and it was that no one is allowed to throw meat pies into the ceiling fans during the meeting. It is just a bit distracting that's all. Yes, there is two or three other behaviours that aren't allowed, to make for a pleasant meeting experience. It is a strait and narrow way. Does that mean we should give it a name? I really don't see how the fact that these things are well organized correlates with needing a name? Please explain why? I imagine that this is your opinion, and maybe the opinion of a very few, because there are many who are getting on quite fine without giving themselves a name. Why does it not make sense? What is the benefits of having a name? Who tells them there is no organization when it is obvious that things are well organized? I certainly don't, and I would wonder why others would. Ok, so maybe you could describe us by what is distinctive about us. This wouldn't be 2x2 by the way, seeing that other groups do this, and it wouldn't be the distibuting of convention lists either seeing that various religious and non-religious groups distribute convention lists. Has this ever happened that you know about or are you just making this up? I have trouble believing that someone would refuse to listen to the preaching simply because it doesn't have a name. From my experience the fact that they don't take a name actually has prompted an interest in the ministry.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 5, 2009 0:53:24 GMT -5
True. That is much worse. They had no qualms about harming additional people in order to cover up for their previous errors. Maybe we should go around and force all the other workers to face the same treatment and ask them if they support the actions of those Alberta workers who ripped families apart without hesitation. Yes or no... and you must answer right now.Not only the other workers but the friends who supported the unchristlike behavior of the ministry at that time. I suppose many friends and workers felt so smug and "kingdom minded" in their support of the excommunications, yet when those they supported ended up as scapegoats they would have been conspicuously silent. I don't mean to drag up the past for any other reason than to learn from it. Blind allegiance to "the ministry in all of it's decisions" is not virtuous - it's foolish. Paul wrote "follow me as I follow Christ" meaning, I believe, something like "follow me only to the extent that I follow Christ". When workers depart from the simplicity that is in Christ we are wrong to follow them without question.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 5, 2009 0:58:40 GMT -5
I remember getting an answer about the changing doctrines, which didn't even make sense. If the doctrine are changing as much as it was portrayed, why does that neccesitate a name? Why would you give a name to something if it was not that same thing the next year. How would you know what that name aplies to, if in fact it has changed? If things where changing, that would be reason to not give it a name.
Could you please tell me which post you gave the answer, because maybe the answer was such that I didn't even recognise it as a response to my question.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 5, 2009 15:42:13 GMT -5
I remember getting an answer about the changing doctrines, which didn't even make sense. If the doctrine are changing as much as it was portrayed, why does that neccesitate a name? Why would you give a name to something if it was not that same thing the next year. How would you know what that name aplies to, if in fact it has changed? If things where changing, that would be reason to not give it a name. Could you please tell me which post you gave the answer, because maybe the answer was such that I didn't even recognise it as a response to my question. The basic answer was that a name would serve to differentiate between the numerous doctrinal differences.
Didn't Jesus desire that His church should be one in spirit and in truth?
Perhaps it isn't only a name that's needed, or one name rather than many (Truth, F&W, 2x2, Christian Convention), but more importantly for the doctrines and teachings to be clearly defined and to be the same everywhere.
And that they be God's commandments, doctrines, not William Irvine & followers' commandments.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 5, 2009 20:03:33 GMT -5
I remember getting an answer about the changing doctrines, which didn't even make sense. If the doctrine are changing as much as it was portrayed, why does that neccesitate a name? Why would you give a name to something if it was not that same thing the next year. How would you know what that name aplies to, if in fact it has changed? If things where changing, that would be reason to not give it a name. Could you please tell me which post you gave the answer, because maybe the answer was such that I didn't even recognise it as a response to my question. The basic answer was that a name would serve to differentiate between the numerous doctrinal differences. Maybe you better still tell me which post gave the answer, and I will read that as well. I am still not getting how a name is going to differentiate between doctrinal differences if you are still talking about them being within this group, as you have been, because the differences would be under the one name, and not differentiate. Yes. What sort of things are you talking about here. Can you give examples? Again, please explain what sort of things you are talking about here. I imagine you are not concerned about the issue regarding the different cereal brands, but can you give me an example of these differences? Either way, having consistant doctrine has nothing to do with having a name, and you still haven't given a good reason to have a name... only reasons not to have a name. What things do you consider are William's followers commandments that are still followed today? Could you list them out for me? This is still not giving reason for having a name.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 5, 2009 21:02:47 GMT -5
]The basic answer was that a name would serve to differentiate between the numerous doctrinal differences. Maybe you better still tell me which post gave the answer, and I will read that as well. I am still not getting how a name is going to differentiate between doctrinal differences if you are still talking about them being within this group, as you have been, because the differences would be under the one name, and not differentiate. Yes. What sort of things are you talking about here. Can you give examples? Again, please explain what sort of things you are talking about here. I imagine you are not concerned about the issue regarding the different cereal brands, but can you give me an example of these differences? Either way, having consistant doctrine has nothing to do with having a name, and you still haven't given a good reason to have a name... only reasons not to have a name. What things do you consider are William's followers commandments that are still followed today? Could you list them out for me? This is still not giving reason for having a name. What things do you consider are William's followers commandments that are still followed today? Could you list them ... That statement illustrates my point. One person is saying in another thread that he couldn't be baptized in the 70s because he participated in sports. If it took black stockings to get to heaven in the early days of the faith set out by Wm I., shouldn't they still be worn today?Wm I's followers today--TVs are wrong in some places, but okay in others? TVs are wrong, but computers are okay? Small potatoes...but...D&R? D&R is a biggie. Divorce is necessary in some cases but the R is where it gets difficult. We may be talking about a covenant between two people and God for which divorce only removes the civil commitment.
Really, if those of your faith are okay with inconsistent doctrines and teachings, and consider themselves to be one in doctrine and faith, and name (which ever one is used), then that's what matters. It doesn't matter what I think.
Peace be with you.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 6, 2009 15:08:49 GMT -5
And what if he just says “a group of men” (which is actually the truth), do you want me to probe further and see if he has heard of William? Do what ever you feel like doing Todd. I'm not really interested anymore. Could you please explain how this period of time is important to the church. How would it affect someone’s salvation if they hadn’t heard of this period of time? It's when your church was founded. It’s why your church was founded. It when many of the customs and rituals of your church were started. I would think this period of time is very important to your salvation if you actually believe the workers are the only ones spreading the true Gospel. The true history of the church that we should profess to belong to, is over 2000 years old. Somehow though, it is assumed that the workers are preaching some other church and some other way. There are a growing number of people here that do not appear to understand basic language and seem to not understand that the way that the workers are preaching is directly from the bible, a message that is over 2000 years old. If someone is feeling lied to because they thought that belonging to this group was a guarantee of salvation then that is sad, and I guess nothing is lost if they do leave the group if they were never going to understand what way is being spoken of, and who it is whereby we have hope of salvation. None if this has anything to do with events around the 1900’s. Maybe what you don't understand is that the workers are preaching an interpretation of the bible that only dates back to the 1900's. That's why I believe the true history of your church has everything to do with the events around the 1900's. Also, you might be surprised to learn that every church out there claims they are preaching directly from the bible. What your workers are preaching is one of many different interpretation of the bible. I’ve concluded that the workers are preaching a variation of William Irvine’s interpretation. If you were there thinking that the meetings were the church, and thinking that it was the meetings that you had to belong to, and didn’t understand what the church really is, and you were there for the wrong reason. Most people attend meetings for the wrong reasons, I was no different. Towards the end of my time in the 2x2's, I began to realize what I was a part of and I decided to get out.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 6, 2009 15:14:42 GMT -5
OK OK I know... I am going to get accused of double speak, or whatever you want to call it, for my responses above, but you are pretending that there is such a thing as 2x2 and then you can pretend other things such as when the workers talk about the only way that they really meant 2x2 (even though they were talking about Jesus' way). The truth is that no such thing as 2x2 exists and when you understand that, you will realise that the workers have only ever told you the truth.Are you actually serious? I had an overseer sit in my living room and explain to me that belief in the worker's ministry and the meetings in the home is a "fruit of the spirit". Ditto. I'm pretty sure it was the same guy.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 6, 2009 15:36:22 GMT -5
Nathan, I have sat in missions just like this where one of the locals was preaching with the worker. He had a house that he went home to every night, and he was married. I have also heard stories of married couples going on a mission specifically to preach the Gospel. People are grasping at straws to try and find fault when they know very well that there are no such rules about this. Hopefully some of these people will realise that they are not really being very truthful, and ask themselves why they would come up with such a poor accusation. I had a very good friend of mine drop out of the work so he could marry another worker. After he passed away a few years ago, his widow went back into the work. I remember K.W. clearly spoke about the difficult decision he had to make because it would not be possible to marry and remain in the work. If no such rule existed, why was he forced to decide between marriage and remaining in the work? Why was it that his wife was only allowed to continue in the work after her husband died? Anyway, I think you have to believe that no such rule exist because you know about the warnings in the bible regarding false prophets that come in later times and forbid people to marry.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 6, 2009 15:44:33 GMT -5
Anyway, I think you have to believe that no such rule exist because you know about the warnings in the bible regarding false prophets that come in later times and forbid people to marry.
+1
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 6, 2009 15:52:17 GMT -5
Workers are forbidden to marry. You cannot be a worker and get married. If you are a worker and get married you become an ex-worker.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 6, 2009 16:04:40 GMT -5
I had a very good friend of mine drop out of the work so he could marry another worker. After he passed away a few years ago, his widow went back into the work. I remember K.W. clearly spoke about the difficult decision he had to make because it would not be possible to marry and remain in the work. If no such rule existed, why was he forced to decide between marriage and remaining in the work? Why was it that his wife was only allowed to continue in the work after her husband died? Anyway, I think you have to believe that no such rule exist because you know about the warnings in the bible regarding false prophets that come in later times and forbid people to marry. ~~ It is NOT forbidden workers to get MARRIED but NOT allowing them to continue in the ministry. The workers CAN get MARRIED Anytime as they wish. That's a big Difference!
That is a false interpretation to say the overseers forbidden the workers to get married.The workers can not get married anytime they wish because if they do get married they are no longer workers. Here's a formula to help you understand: W = Worker M = Married man/woman W <> M == M<>W A married man is forbidden from being a worker therefore a worker is forbidden from being a married man.
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 6, 2009 16:15:28 GMT -5
Workers are forbidden to marry. You cannot be a worker and eye a young lady with the desire to make her your wife. It is forbidden and you would be treading on dangerous grounds. Your crown could easily be taken from you. Maybe you want to say you can be a worker and then if lust gets the best of you, you are allowed to exit from the ministry to commit matricide.
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 6, 2009 16:28:35 GMT -5
That's just it. It doesn't say that in the bible. But it is the mandated doctrine of your fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 6, 2009 16:35:29 GMT -5
Seems it's semantics here on language, Nathan insists that workers can get married and then have to leave the work.
Whereas others insist that the worker that wants to get married has to leave the work and then get married!
Thus workers do NOT get married......they have to become ex-workers and then they can get married.
There was one that Scott mentioned who dared do the matrimonial thing secretly but he got himself and his bride into big trouble for then he was thrust out of the work.
Seems easier just to say "I don't want to be a worker anymore....I'm going home and I'm going to get married. Anytime you're around my ex-companion, you're welcome to come and stay with us!"
|
|
|
Post by BackInBlack on Jul 6, 2009 16:35:40 GMT -5
Workers are forbidden to marry. You cannot be a worker and eye a young lady with the desire to make her your wife. It is forbidden and you would be treading on dangerous grounds. Your crown could easily be taken from you. Maybe you want to say you can be a worker and then if lust gets the best of you, you are allowed to exit from the ministry to commit matricide. You asked me where I could back up the quote that is shown above in the bible. I can't. It is not in the bible. But it is how your ministers feel about marriage.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 6, 2009 17:11:17 GMT -5
The workers can not get married anytime they wish because if they do get married they are no longer workers. Here's a formula to help you understand: W = Worker M = Married man/woman W <> M == M<>W A married man is forbidden from being a worker therefore a worker is forbidden from being a married man. ~~ You got your formula mixed up! If the workers are not allowing to continue in the ministry they ARE still MARRIED as husbands and wives even they don't STAY in the work.
[/color] Workers don't have a choice to stay in the work because they are forbidden from getting married. Should they get married, they are forbidden from being workers. The accusation that the overseers are forbidden workers to get married is garbage![/color] It's not garbage Nathan, in fact, you're living proof that such a rule exists. You were a worker, now you're not. Could you return to the work now that you have a family? (It's not my intention to make this personal, so feel free to ignore that question if I've crossed the line.) Does the overseers tell the married workers to break up their marriage after they had married? [/color] No, they just kick them out of the work. When the overseers tell the married workers couple that their marriage is NOT VALID after they had taken their vows then I say that's forbbiden them to get married. [/color] When the overseers allow workers to marry and remain in the work, I'll stop saying it's forbidden. Jesus said, " What therefore God has JOINED together, let NO man separate." That's including the overseers!
I know, that's why I think it's a crime that workers are forbidden from getting married. You are kidding about all this right Nathan? I mean this is basic 2x2 stuff we're talking about here.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 6, 2009 17:13:59 GMT -5
Nathan,
I've asked you several times to tell us which overseer permits married workers in his area. You've yet to let us know.
Obviously, the answer is none, but it would be refreshing to see you admit the truth.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 6, 2009 17:34:21 GMT -5
There was one that Scott mentioned who dared do the matrimonial thing secretly but he got himself and his bride into big trouble for then he was thrust out of the work. Sharon I am interested in this. I had heard of a sister worker in California about two years ago getting secretly married but I was unaware of a brother worker as well. What state did this happen in?
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 6, 2009 18:10:00 GMT -5
[/color] Workers don't have a choice to stay in the work because they are forbidden from getting married. Should they get married, they are forbidden from being workers. [/color] It's not garbage Nathan, in fact, you're living proof that such a rule exists. You were a worker, now you're not. Could you return to the work now that you have a family? (It's not my intention to make this personal, so feel free to ignore that question if I've crossed the line.) [/color] No, they just kick them out of the work. [/color] When the overseers allow workers to marry and remain in the work, I'll stop saying it's forbidden. I know, that's why I think it's a crime that workers are forbidden from getting married. You are kidding about all this right Nathan? I mean this is basic 2x2 stuff we're talking about here. [/quote] ~~ HAS... do you know of any of the workers who AFTER they got married and the overseers forbidden them to do so?[/quote] Nate, you continue to confuse yourself. We all know at any time anyone can get married but the fact remains no matter how many times you huff and puff that a man or a woman is not allowed to remain in the work if they marry. Overseers don't permit it. This is all HAS and Ilylo have been saying but you don't seem to understand this though I am sure you agree with it. You are both basically saying the same thing. Just to be clear, anyone can get married. But you can't get married and go in the work or get married stay in the work. Those days have passed.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 6, 2009 18:22:24 GMT -5
Nate, you continue to confuse yourself. We all know at any time anyone can get married but the fact remains no matter how many times you huff and puff that a man or a woman is not allowed to remain in the work if they marry. Overseers don't permit it. This is all HAS and Ilylo have been saying but you don't seem to understand this though I am sure you agree with it. You are both basically saying the same thing. Just to be clear, anyone can get married. But you can't get married and go in the work or get married stay in the work. Those days have passed. ~~~ Yes, I know the workers are free to get married and NOT allowing to stay in the work. Some here accused or SAY the overseers are forbidden workers to marry is FALSE.
From my own personal experiences and choice I DO NOT want to be married and stay in the work. Why, do I want to put my wife, children through HELL so to speak, living in the suitcase lifestyle, constantly moving, depending on the friends to take care paying bills, rent, food, auto/home insurances, mortage, etc for my own family. Just think of the stress they go through when the bills can't be paid... it is NOT worth it in my book.
The work/ministry is NOT the only place where a person can be used by God. I know many ex-workers who had families, some became conventions owners, some church elders and they have been a great help to the workers, the friends, and others.I know exactly what you saying bro and I believe we are saying the same thing, but from different sides of the coin. Personally you chose to get married but if you wanted to go back they wouldn't permit you because you are married.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 6, 2009 18:31:46 GMT -5
Some here accused or SAY the overseers are forbidden workers to marry is FALSE. Hey, now we're getting somewhere. What we're saying is that workers cannot get married AND REMAIN IN THE WORK. Can you admit that much, nathan?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 6, 2009 19:24:33 GMT -5
It occurs to me something that I've witnessed and I do not think it is right....but the active workers love to throng to the ex-workers homes more so then any other professing persons homes. If they have a choice, that's where they head to all the time. It make a 3 tiered system....workers, ex-workers and lowest of all friends.
You know Jesus said the least would be the greatest and so it would seem maybe a considerable number of the friends are going to be ranked above the workers and ex-workers because they've been made the least and they'be done the waiting and the serving! Kind of sad, don't you think?
So yes, I can see why Nathan is hanging onto the thing that a worker can get married, he/she isn't allowed active workership, but still gets the favorite place among the active workers....it's been so bad in some places that the ex-worker that is married often seems to be play-acting that they're still in the work...'cept they're just stable in position, home, etc.
|
|