H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 29, 2008 16:45:01 GMT -5
Being B&R as a 2x2 member, I was always told that the church was started by Jesus and dates back to him. Since we now know that the church was started by William Irvine about 100 years ago, it's obvious that what I was told as a child can not be true. What do you tell people who ask you about the origins of the church?
|
|
|
Post by recentarriver on Jul 30, 2008 17:07:26 GMT -5
I am interested in the worker's answer to this too.
Among other things told to me by 2 workers, I was told that they had heard about Wm Irvine for years and didn't even think about it anymore. Their take on Wm Irvine is that he was a worker who "lost out".
To any worker(s) who respond...thanks in advance. RA
|
|
|
Post by worker83 on Jul 30, 2008 21:29:28 GMT -5
Professed when I was a teenager, whole family totally new to truth, so didn't know any 'history' - heard about the black stocking issue - didn't shake my faith. We are a bit slow to accept the modern trends, we don't want to be the first nor the last - middle of the road is temperance/modesty, etc. etc.
First year in the work, I was encouraged by my companion to read the Secret Sect as someone wanted to visit about it and she thought my being fairly new to Truth, should know what others criticize. I found it totally hilarious - honestly ! Why ??
1) There were accusations that young workers didn't get any money - I had money given to me by the friends, shared from my companion who being received more thru her large correspondence, than I did in my few letter writings, shared with by the overseer, inquired if I had 'enough' for my needs every time he saw me, etc.
2) there were accusations that young workers were not ALLOWED to do anything, use the phone, drive the vehicle, etc. And that very day, my companion asked me to please call a certain family and see if it was convenient with them if we came for a visit - I answered her, Oh, but the BOOK says, I can't do that. She looked so puzzled - then realized it was a joke !
3) the next day I was driving as we went out for the day of visits, the gas tank was getting low, and she looked over at me and said, 'did you ever own a car?', 'yes, why?' 'what did you do when it needed gas?' "filled it up, why?" "don't you think this car needs some gas?" "yeah, I saw that, but didn't know if it was my place to say anything or not" - I was DEAD serious - not a joke because of the book, just didn't feel she needed me telling her that the car needed gas. She then proceeded to inform me that we were equals, responsible adults, professional, and that my contribution was not only welcomed but expected - I was not in this ministry to carry her suitcase !
During the visit with the one who had given us the book (an outsider who was coming to mtgs, never professed) he told us he was so disappointed in the book as he was hoping to find a book on the history of the fellowship and what he found was a book written by a disgruntled person who had 3 issues that were giving him a complex 1) money, 2) independence, 3)problem with authority. That was his impressions of the 'history' as presented in the Secret Sect.
I explain the ministry Jesus established, believing to still be the model for us, and fellowship and NT church. I understand that we can NOT trace a direct lineage thru the ages of continuation and then the time when William Irvine and others were inspired to return to that model and that today we look to that same NT model. Obviously I don't know all the details of William Irvine's inspiration (some post here that it was modelled after the masonic teaching, others that it was after some other mission) But the point is he wasn't alone -there were others and he didn't continue but others did and the inspiration continued. To follow the model of the NT - I'm satisfied with that - Is it founded by a man ? NO - it's founded/established by Christ.
Now, this is a long way around but I enjoy relaxing this way - sharing my experiences...thanks for your patience in reading.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 30, 2008 21:34:20 GMT -5
Worker83, thanks for answering.
To those who no doubt will take exception to worker83's reponse and would like to challenge/debate/confront, please start a new thread on the main board and have at it over there.
We want this area to remain more of a Q&A/reference section.
|
|
|
Post by worker83 on Jul 30, 2008 21:56:05 GMT -5
Sorry, Rob, I don't mean to instigate any confrontations - I feel like a student here who didn't pass the test again ! After I post, I'm anxious to see how it 'goes over' and often disappointed that it 'missed the mark' or starts a war ! Feel free to delete anything I write !
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 30, 2008 22:14:29 GMT -5
Hi worker83,
Then the mistake is mine for not being clearer. We want you and other workers to respond here as you have done. What we are trying to avoid is any flame wars, and no matter what you or other workers might say there will inevitably be some people who will respond in a manner that is not conducive to open and "meaningful dialogue". It is the dialogue we want to see nurtured.
So please post, please continue to answer any and all questions as you see fit.
And please feel free to encourage your colleagues to join.
|
|
|
Post by recentarriver on Jul 31, 2008 5:12:49 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your experience worker83. Evidently the age/era/location factor plays a big role here. (I am 58 yrs old, B&R and have heard the opposite experience for workers in #1 and #2.)
I guess any discussion needs to take place in another area. IMHO it would make better sense to continue the dialogue where the related comments already exist. Probably my overactive organizational mind. ;D RA
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jul 31, 2008 12:20:35 GMT -5
To Worker83,
Thanks for the answer, I enjoyed reading it. I personally have never read the Secret Sect as I can't find a copy of it anywhere. I know there are a lot of bitter exes out there, and I'm sure it was their bad experience that drove them to write what they did. I try to look past the anger when I read their stories, and try to focus on the facts instead.
I learned about William Irvine while visiting a church in Europe, and since then have done all of my research using other books.
I'll be honest, if you had given me that answer during a visit, I would have many other follow-up questions for you. I don't want to break the rules of this board, so I'll ask first. Can I post a follow-up question to my original question in this thread?
You can look at my post history and see that I won't flame anyone.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jul 31, 2008 13:07:02 GMT -5
To those who no doubt will take exception to worker83's reponse I don't take exception to so-called worker83's response. It's exactly what I expected to read from them. The party line was toed according to the worker handbook.
|
|
|
Post by worker scoffs on Aug 11, 2008 16:12:04 GMT -5
The Secret Sect gave a good account of the early days. I see no bitterness in the person, just facts.
Why did you find those things totally hilarious? is that the kind of compassion you have for those early workers who had nothing. Who believed they went out as Jesus taught. who truly were homeless ad without purse?
Those early workers lived to tell their story and you found it hilarious. You claim to be homeless and without purse but scoff at those who do this, literally. It is like scoffing at Jesus words.
Your church was started by a man not Jesus Christ no matter how much you try to twist your words.
Quote: To follow the model of the NT - I'm satisfied with that - Is it founded by a man ? NO - it's founded/established by Christ.
What a twist on words. A model is a model. It is a copy, a counterfeit, not the original founded on Jesus. It is only a man trying to copy what he believed the Bible says
It would be more truthful to say it is modeled on Christ, but not founded/established by Christ. It was established by a false preacher. You only attempts a few passages of the Bible which was clearly meant for the Jews, not the whole Bible to all mankind.
|
|
|
Post by worker83 on Aug 11, 2008 21:48:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry if you think I was mocking anyone. The book was analyzed by the 'contact' - who never professed and was not affected by the 2x2 doctrine - he never believed in it, but HE was the one that was disatisfied with the book that claimed to be a simple account of the history and he found the author obviously had several complexes that affected his account of the history. I didn't analyze the book, but I found several discrepancies in what I was living as a young worker and what was being reported as 'the life of a young worker' - that's what I found hilarious. I was being asked to do the very things that the author said he was refused to be allowed to do. So yes, I found it amusing . . .
|
|
|
Post by worker83 on Aug 11, 2008 22:00:10 GMT -5
Could I ask a question of some of you who are more studied on William Irvine. . . did he claim to be starting a religion when he began preaching 2 x 2 ? Or is the fact that he started this 'church' credited to him later on in history? I think that might be an important fact - if he claimed to be starting a church . . . or did he encourage all to 'go back to the bible' ? Some will say I should read more about that era, but it's been awhile since I did read much about it. . . .
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Aug 11, 2008 23:30:29 GMT -5
The Secret Sect gave a good account of the early days. I see no bitterness in the person, just facts. ..... Any more posts like this will be deleted without warning. We requested that this area be kept civil and respectful and argument be taken to the main board. You can disagree all you like and as stridently as you like - on the main board.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 16, 2008 18:26:55 GMT -5
Thanks for the answer, I enjoyed reading it. I personally have never read the Secret Sect as I can't find a copy of it anywhere. I learned about William Irvine while visiting a church in Europe, and since then have done all of my research using other books. You can get a copy of the SS form ONE source in N. America: Go here and click on ORDER BOOKS HERE From: RIS ( Research & Information Services) www.tellingthetruth.info/home/links.phpCurious as to what books you used to do your research ?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 16, 2008 18:44:51 GMT -5
To Worker83: Q How old were you when you went in the work? Q What history did you learn from the book? Q Have you read the book again; and if so, when?
Every time I have read the Secret Sect, I discover things I didn't notice before. (about 4 times in 20 years.)
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Aug 21, 2008 3:31:31 GMT -5
Nathan asked, Tell me, which church do you believe started by Jesus himself and not by a man today. Where's church started by Jesus, now? Thanks.
I think the church Jesus started is the body of believers who have repented of their old ways, and make their beliefs' manifest in a way that is commensurate with the fruits of the spirit.
There are some in the 2x2 church; but perhaps not all, and there are some in other churches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2008 5:48:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry if you think I was mocking anyone. The book was analyzed by the 'contact' - who never professed and was not affected by the 2x2 doctrine - he never believed in it, but HE was the one that was disatisfied with the book that claimed to be a simple account of the history and he found the author obviously had several complexes that affected his account of the history. I didn't analyze the book, but I found several discrepancies in what I was living as a young worker and what was being reported as 'the life of a young worker' - that's what I found hilarious. I was being asked to do the very things that the author said he was refused to be allowed to do. So yes, I found it amusing . . . This is interesting. Years ago the fellowship were warned by workers against "education." Many obeyed or followed their "wisdom" and suffered the consequences of that leadership. Nowadays we hear of young people being advised to "get an education" before offering for the work. Some might find these type of discrepancies "hilarious" also, but somehow I do not think this will be the sentiment of those who were compliant in years past ! Worker83, In your original post you stated you found the Secret Sect "totally hilarious." Later you state there were several "discrepancies" based on YOUR experiences. I strongly suspect that at that time when you were young and young in the work, you were influenced by your peers, resulting in you coming to your position of totalness. Something I can well understand.
|
|
ddowdy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by ddowdy on Oct 12, 2008 1:36:15 GMT -5
It took eight paragraphs of circuitous illogical stuff and nonsense for #83 to finally say but not admit that...yes, she would mislead whomever queried her about the cult's history. #83's response is true to form though, expect nothing more from these people. Sad? Yes for those still under their influence.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 17, 2008 11:38:58 GMT -5
Good Morning All,
I find the question being discussed in this thread, a perplexing question.
First, a little background. I was B&R in the 2X2 community. Professed at 14 and left the fellowship while in college at age 18. It is now 45 years later. I was amazed when my wife (never professed/never knew anything about the 2X2's untill we met) found a website about the 2X2's about 4 years ago and asked if this was the group that I had grown up with. I spent some time interacting on some of the discussion boards at that time, but found the bitterness and anger somewhat unpleasant and stopped visiting those sites until I once again ran across the TMB a couple of months ago.
Now to the point of this thread. The issue of William Irvine seems to carry disproportionate weight on these discussion sites. I guess I am slow, but I don't get it.
While I was in the 2X2 community (over 45 years ago) I never once heard anything about a fellow named William Irvine. I have a very vivid recollection, however, of a conversation with my father at the time. I was professing and in my teens. My Dad and I were traveling somewhere in the car. Pretty much out of the "blue", I turned to Dad and asked "How do we know that our religion goes all the way back to Jesus?" He thought for a moment and replied. "Well, I really don't know of any way to prove that it does, but I can tell you what I believe. I believe that down through history God's still small voice has been heard by a few people and passed along from generation to generation, right down to the present time." I liked his response at the time and found it to be a necessary and sufficient explanation.
As I view things, there are two separate issues. One is the issue of faith and the second is the issue of the one's 'practice' associated with that faith.
If one says that they believe in Jesus then it seems to me that they have a faith that is independent of any intermediary. I fail to grasp how any of the billions of lives that have been lived in the time between the birth/death of Jesus and the present moment has any bearing on an individual's faith in Jesus. This includes the life of William Irvine. How is the life and/or practices of William Irvine supposed to influence my faith?
The questions about William Irvine, then, must relate to the practice that is associated with the expression of one's faith. There are those who express their faith as proscribed by Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley, George Fox, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and on and on.
If one's focus is on "the practice of one's faith", then I can understand the obsession with William Irvine. If, however, one's focus is on one's own faith, I fail to see the relevance of William Irvine.
Throughout the threads and posts on TMB, there seems to be this great consternation about "the church was started by William Irvine", "I was not told that the church was started by William Irvine", "the workers lie because they will not admit that the church was started by William Irvine", etc.
I simply don't get what the rational question is here. As I try to point out above, if you are within the 2X2 fellowship and if you find that this is the community that expresses the faith and values that you have then it is unlikely that William Irvine means much to you one way or the other. If you are comfortable within the 2X2 community, it does not seem at all unreasonable to me that your faith would lead you to believe that you were practicing you faith as you believe was proscribed by Jesus.
If on the other hand, you are outside of the 2X2 community, it may or may not be important to you to know "who started this church". If it is important to you and if you decide it was William Irvine that started this particular church, good, you have answered the question that troubled you and now you can move on.
I guess there is a third group that might choose to take up this cause. That is the group of people who choose not to focus solely on their own faith, but are moved to comment on the faith of others. For these folks, it seems to be critically important that they "inform" those within the 2X2 fellowship how misguided they are to believe that their faith is grounded in the way proscribed by Jesus and to "inform" them that their faith practice, in "fact", has the shallowness of a mere 100 year history and is based on the conceptual imaginings of some Irish fellow named William Irvine.
To the extent that this latter group feels virtuous in their debasement of the faith of another person, more power to them.
In summary, I guess I am intrigued by the confusion that seems to exist between "fact" and "faith". If one knows the "facts" they don't need the faith. If on the other hand, one has "faith", the "facts" of someone else are pretty much irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 17, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -5
Thank you for putting that all so concisely, Yknot. And thanks, belatedly, to your dad for giving you such a wise answer! Thsi sentence is also awesome: If one's focus is on "the practice of one's faith", then I can understand the obsession with William Irvine. If, however, one's focus is on one's own faith, I fail to see the relevance of William Irvine.
(Still trying to decide if you are the Yknot I chatted with in Glee's chat room and even corresponded with by email on occasion?)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Oct 17, 2008 16:19:45 GMT -5
One and the same Emy!
So good to find you again!
|
|
|
Post by alia on Oct 20, 2008 9:42:14 GMT -5
I have read on this site that some were preached to that the 2x2 way was different because there was no human founder like the other faiths/religions. Different and the only way to heaven.
If some have felt the need to not mention or play down the history of William Irvine's involvement.....one has to wonder why....is it that his role in the history undermine's the faith of the people or the power of some?
P.S. God does not give a spirit of fear, but of power and love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 14:52:52 GMT -5
Here's the problem yknot.
Throughout much of the 20th century, most friends were taught from small children to believe that the church existed continually from Christ's day. Some "got it" more clearly than others. What they "got" was that this succession was one of the prime reasons why the 2x2 church had the exclusive monopoly on God and salvation. Some stuck with the church in spite of living in abusive family situations as well as in unhealthy church situations. They feared getting out because it would mean sure hellfire since all other Christian churches were evil and didn't have God.
Then, the information came out that Irvine was the prime instigator of a new sect in the late 1800's which effectively came out of the Faith Mission. This rocked the faith of many, as they had their faith in the church more than Christ. Some people were cast into confusion and hurt by the betrayal of feeling they were lied to all their lives. Because most F&Ws continue to refuse to clarify the truth about the history, it continues to hurt people. Hence what you see: an apparent disproportionate discussion about William Irvine, the hidden founder.
If you had never thrown your soul into the church because of its supposed exclusive connection going back to Christ, you will probably always have a difficult time understanding why this keeps coming up. It will continue to come up until all F&Ws finally accept and tell the truth about the history.
|
|
ddowdy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by ddowdy on Nov 2, 2008 2:41:15 GMT -5
I am an Attorney who was born and raised in this cult. As soon as I got into my teens I began researching the cult because I had many questions and few answers. Of course I was fed the line about "this is the truth from the beginning" as well.
What I found through contact with Faith Mission was that William Irvine was one of their "workers" (minister) supported and compensated by the Mission in the mid to late 1890's. During that time he came under scrutiny first for several instances of sexual misconduct. However, before the investigations into those allegations could wend their way to conclusion, Rev. Irvine's relationship with Faith Mission was terminated abruptly...BY Faith Mission.
Faith Mission's hierarchy discovered that Irvine had gone off the reservation so to speak and had begun to target some of his young adult converts for a darker mission. It was discovered that he had convinced a number of these people to divest themselves of all their assets and posessions, the profit from which it was discovered was then turned over to the good Reverend in full after which the young converts were dispatched into various parts of the countryside (Northern Ireland was his territory) to preach the gospel according to Irvine to the extent they had learned his message. The Faith Mission hierarchy realized that Rev. Irvine was nothing more than a confidence man who had involved their good name and reputation (which continues to this day) in his scheme and promptly dismissed him with all prejudice. Undeterred, Irvine shifted into the scheme full time and for a number of years following his dismissal it remained in that model. Each convert turned over all of his assets to cult leader Irvine and went out into the world as a cult preacher or "worker".
At some point Irvine must have realized that the thing could be expanded much farther if some changes were made and the cult began to take the shape (more or less) that it has today. This history and the cult's origins have been hidden and denied by its hierarchy not by chance but by design and intention and that as well as, the doctrinal and other implications represents what some of us seem so "angry" and "bitter" about. We aren't either of those...most of us just feel that its time the truth were told about "the truth".
|
|
ddowdy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by ddowdy on Nov 2, 2008 2:48:44 GMT -5
One more thing for whomever it was that brought it up...Irvine himself always credited himself with starting a new church. He was an extremely prolific letter writer and many of his letters are available for any who care to research the subject. He was an extremely interesting character and I do not use the word character lightly.
Also around are some of the writings by his eldest illegitimate son, Archie, who if my memory serves me correctly ended up in Australia as a fairly high ranking clergy member in one of the mainstream Christian churches.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Nov 2, 2008 12:47:23 GMT -5
...most of us just feel that its time the truth were told about "the truth". ...by the workers. All of them.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 2, 2008 13:33:56 GMT -5
Where are these writings by Archie? I've never seen any of them,and would like to.
|
|
ddowdy
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by ddowdy on Nov 4, 2008 4:31:14 GMT -5
Some years ago in the course of my research I discovered a number of letters written by Archie. I am sure you would be able to find them as well, as far as where...don't ask...task. You'll have to look around and dig. I didn't save what I had because as I recall they were fairly unremarkable. Archie seemed a much less flamboyant and mercurial sort than his father. The most remarkable thing about him was the fact that he had ascended to a position of some eminence within one of the mainstream Christian churches in Australia. There seemed (at least to the extent that I found) to be little if any relationship between Archie (who was raised if memory serves me by his maternal grandparents) and his father. Cheers.
|
|