|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 11:03:24 GMT -5
Todd, do I have this right? You say that as long as a person is preaching what he believes to be true, then he isn't a liar?
I think what you mean is that a person who is unwittingly preaching what is false can be "sincere" in doing it. It reminds me of what we hear so often in gospel meetings and from the platform regarding the denominations "out there", the "worldly churches" or "false religions". We hear, "People can be sincere, but they can be sincerely wrong." How many of you out there have heard that from the workers? Or, "You can be wrong in the right way, but you can't be right in the wrong way"?
Todd, you seem keenly observant when the exes tell "lies". However, you are not as vocal about the workers' lies. If you were posting about the lies you heard from the platform this year or the lies you heard from the gospel meetings, I would say that you were being fair.
So, tell us, what lies have you ever heard from the workers?
The problem is that lies mislead people and affect their souls. False teaching damages entire generations and even several generations. Sexual abuse is just a fruit of these lies. A worker is in his lofty place because he and his co workers support a ministry that came from the shores of Galilee and is the most important and only right ministry in the world. Parents trust them without question. Several guys take advantage of the situation and molest little children. The other workers hide this "little human fault". The child is affected and later the child's children(if there are any) will be affected. Perhaps he/she will not have children at all because of the abuse. Either way, the next generation is affected by the abuse.
No one wants to acknowledge the ramifications of lies and abuse. The great emotional, spiritual and even financial ruin that ensues from lies. The strong are not affected. The weak are the ones who suffer the most.
So, who is weak and who is strong? The workers? The friends posting here? The friends not posting here? The overseers who met at Seneca? The children who were abused? The adults who spoke out? The nameless and insignificant person who was abused by a worker and just dropped out and was never heard from again?
I get the impression from the professing people here that the weak are those who can't take any amount of abuse from the workers silently.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 11:15:53 GMT -5
The point is, of course, if there are no readers, the paper "folds." I disagree with that statement. If there aren't enough buyers/advertisers to cover the cost of "investigating" and writing the stories, the paper "folds". The National Enquirer depends on payers, not readers. How many people read the headlines without paying money to buy the paper? Unless someone decides to finance the paper out of the goodness of his heart, the paper needs paying readers or paying advertisers. (Or in the case of the National Enquirer, it might "badness" of heart.) Don't get technical on me. Yes, it is money that greases the gears. People with money pay for ads in a paper that makes such fantastic statements that people(who have money) read the paper. Meanwhile, they are seeing ads in the paper. The ads in that paper are for products that fit the demographic that likely buys that kind of paper. For example, you could probably expect an increase in business with an ad in the Enquirer if you were a psychic reader or sold Himalayan vitamin that allowed you to live to 150 years old in perfect health. If you were selling manure spreaders, you would advertise in a farm magazine...unless you are talking about a figurative manure spreader, in which case the Enquirer is the right place for you. Readers ultimately buy products advertised. If they did not, then the newspaper would not last. If it weren't for advertisements in newspapers, they would have to sell each paper for $12 each and no one would buy them every day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2010 12:54:32 GMT -5
And I actually got todd to growl at me!! Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. Scott And just yesterday we were complaining that the board was so dead!!!
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 4, 2010 13:56:21 GMT -5
And I actually got todd to growl at me!! Grrrr Scott, you are misreading me again. Scott And just yesterday we were complaining that the board was so dead!!! You call this life?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 14:00:11 GMT -5
And just yesterday we were complaining that the board was so dead!!! You call this life? What do you hang out here for unless you got some sort of reward out of it? "Inquiring minds want to know." - slogan for the National Inquirer.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 4, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Scott said Well..... It sure looks as if todd is insinuating that I am a liar. Yeah..... It pisses me off, because he goes out of his way to try and show everyone that they are wrong or misguided if they do not accept what he says as being true.
Scott then said I actually think that is quite humorous!
He has made me growl here on the board several times because has he this way of twisting my words to try to discredit or diminish what I have posted.
Payback usually sucks doesn't it?
Scott Do you find it humorous that you are P----Off?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2010 14:10:29 GMT -5
And just yesterday we were complaining that the board was so dead!!! You call this life? Well, only if you define life as "it moved when I poked it"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2010 14:12:21 GMT -5
What do you hang out here for unless you got some sort of reward out of it? "Inquiring minds want to know." - slogan for the National Inquirer. Was this a question for me or for waterguy?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 4, 2010 14:12:40 GMT -5
Well, only if you define life as "it moved when I poked it"! Somebody poked ts!!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 4, 2010 14:29:14 GMT -5
then there IS life here.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 4, 2010 15:19:22 GMT -5
The National Inquirer was the only newspaper that published the story about John Edwards secret mistress and his baby with her. This was a major news story as it was happening as he campaigned for President of the United States. All other media outlets wouldn't touch the story.
Even in the face of lawsuits and withering criticism from their media brethren, the National Inquirer went ahead with the story- because they knew that they had the truth on their side. Bravo, National Inquirer, bravo. And truth prevailed.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 4, 2010 19:50:18 GMT -5
I sure do agree with you Jesse. As soon as one person posted a blanket statement accusing everyone on the VOT as being constant liars: That was the trouble with VOT... they were constant liers (as harsh as that sounds)No wiggle room on that one is there? todd's statement means that there was no truth to anything they posted. And after stating that, to me it then seemed that he was inferring that others were also liars. (and I have now seen that he really didn't mean to say that I was a liar), and that certainly pushed me over the edge. I guess partly it was because he posted that : So, who is wrong and who is right? Someone is wrong because there is a contradiction.Another blanket statement as far as I can see. We often see here opposing points of view. They are based on our personal experiences, and our personal convictions. It sure looks to me that if todd has a conviction/belief/thought on any subject, and someone disagrees with him then in his mind that means that the other person is wrong. (regardless of the circumstance/issue) Maybe I am misunderstanding him and he is now admitting that it could be him that is wrong. We could use the William Irvine issue here as an example, and he is now admitting that he could very well be the one that is wrong? After all, we have had both exes and professing folks try to answer his questions, but he hasn't accepted anyone else's viewpoint other than his own it seems. Scott Not worth much but here is my take: Todd is not saying all contradictions are lies. So if 2 workers (or anyone else) preaches something that contradicts another, it isn't necessarily a lie - just a difference of perspective, opinion, or need at the time. (If they INTENTIONALLY contradict the teaching of another - might be a different story.) What Todd said about VOT is that when some fact was proved to be not true, then the same person would post some other contradictory "fact." to attempt to prove the truth of the point. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 4, 2010 20:40:35 GMT -5
Scott said Well..... It sure looks as if todd is insinuating that I am a liar. Yeah..... It pisses me off, because he goes out of his way to try and show everyone that they are wrong or misguided if they do not accept what he says as being true. Scott then said I actually think that is quite humorous! He has made me growl here on the board several times because has he this way of twisting my words to try to discredit or diminish what I have posted. Payback usually sucks doesn't it? Scott Do you find it humorous that you are P----Off? Actually I DID find humor in letting todd bug me again. I should just remember that his display of playing dumb in regard to understanding what people mean is meant to get people upset. I sure hope he is just playing at it anyhow....
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 5, 2010 0:59:22 GMT -5
Adding some "Non Sequitur" humour for levity's sake ;D Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 5, 2010 1:18:43 GMT -5
There's probably right and wrong ways to excommunicate ppl, deal with CSA, treat people, minister to the flock etc etc etc. Criticism from the hurt, shamed, shunned, and mistreated, and even their self appointed spokespeople is likely to seem a little harsh and bitter. I'm not excusing anyone, just suggesting that a natural balance often requires extremes at both ends - kind of a bell curve, if you like. There's a different standard for those who have been hurt compared to those running a website. Anyone running a website is a journalist, and should abide by a professional standard and code of ethics. If the web site authors don't know what those are, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Whereas the testimony of someone who has been hurt is not held to that kind of a standard. We don't read or process such documents as objective news, so allowances can be made. First, because they don't even know the standard. Second, because we automatically process such testimonies as one side of the story, knowing there is probably another side as well. Third, because we have sympathy for the pain the person has endured or is experiencing. I appreciate your sentiment here, but at the end of the day, VOT is/was an unregulated website, owned by private individuals. They are not bound by the same journalistic integrity as the mainstream media. They did purport to tell the "facts" on the 2x2 system, and included many examples of allegations of abuse, falsehoods and doctrinal inconsistency. IMO the website was still "opinion" and not "fact" as very few sources for information appeared to be quoted. They appeared to me to have an axe to grind, and grind it they did. There may have been some factual inconsistencies (I hesitate to use "lies" as I have no real evidence to suggest any, some or all of the errors were deliberate or malicious) but their obvious bias should be factored into anything written on the site. They were/are one voice in a multitude, and are entitled to opinion as we all are. That they chose to present their opinion on a website is not particularly relevant. I visited their site a few times, read some of the copies of historical documents, browsed through some 'opinion' and took it all with a grain of salt. It hasn't had any real effect on my thoughts or beliefs apart from adding a little more information into the pot.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Nov 5, 2010 1:38:26 GMT -5
Perhaps they were the pioneers who opened up the Wild West, slung some guns and made it safe for others to tell their experiences of the worker's power abuse. Ultimately there are more professing people who are now in fellowship with the believers who were once considered "outside" and not a part of the body of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 5, 2010 8:24:22 GMT -5
There's a different standard for those who have been hurt compared to those running a website. Anyone running a website is a journalist, and should abide by a professional standard and code of ethics. If the web site authors don't know what those are, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Whereas the testimony of someone who has been hurt is not held to that kind of a standard. We don't read or process such documents as objective news, so allowances can be made. First, because they don't even know the standard. Second, because we automatically process such testimonies as one side of the story, knowing there is probably another side as well. Third, because we have sympathy for the pain the person has endured or is experiencing. I appreciate your sentiment here, but at the end of the day, VOT is/was an unregulated website, owned by private individuals. They are not bound by the same journalistic integrity as the mainstream media. They did purport to tell the "facts" on the 2x2 system, and included many examples of allegations of abuse, falsehoods and doctrinal inconsistency. IMO the website was still "opinion" and not "fact" as very few sources for information appeared to be quoted. They appeared to me to have an axe to grind, and grind it they did. There may have been some factual inconsistencies (I hesitate to use "lies" as I have no real evidence to suggest any, some or all of the errors were deliberate or malicious) but their obvious bias should be factored into anything written on the site. They were/are one voice in a multitude, and are entitled to opinion as we all are. That they chose to present their opinion on a website is not particularly relevant. I visited their site a few times, read some of the copies of historical documents, browsed through some 'opinion' and took it all with a grain of salt. It hasn't had any real effect on my thoughts or beliefs apart from adding a little more information into the pot. Would you say the same about Cherie's site? tellingthetruth.info
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 5, 2010 10:21:19 GMT -5
I appreciate your sentiment here, but at the end of the day, VOT is/was an unregulated website, owned by private individuals. They are not bound by the same journalistic integrity as the mainstream media. They did purport to tell the "facts" on the 2x2 system, and included many examples of allegations of abuse, falsehoods and doctrinal inconsistency. IMO the website was still "opinion" and not "fact" as very few sources for information appeared to be quoted. They appeared to me to have an axe to grind, and grind it they did. There may have been some factual inconsistencies (I hesitate to use "lies" as I have no real evidence to suggest any, some or all of the errors were deliberate or malicious) but their obvious bias should be factored into anything written on the site. They were/are one voice in a multitude, and are entitled to opinion as we all are. That they chose to present their opinion on a website is not particularly relevant. I visited their site a few times, read some of the copies of historical documents, browsed through some 'opinion' and took it all with a grain of salt. It hasn't had any real effect on my thoughts or beliefs apart from adding a little more information into the pot. Would you say the same about Cherie's site? tellingthetruth.infoHave the friends and workers thanked Cherie for her hard work of documenting the history of The Truth fellowship?! Someone should! As a professing person I certainly appreciate her hard work! Thanks Cherie!!!! And thank you for not using the word "cult" on your site like so many others are prone to do. You seem fair.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Nov 5, 2010 11:49:09 GMT -5
Have the friends and workers thanked Cherie for her hard work of documenting the history of The Truth fellowship?! Someone should! As a professing person I certainly appreciate her hard work! Thanks Cherie!!!! And thank you for not using the word "cult" on your site like so many others are prone to do. You seem fair. Cherie's collection of historical accounts is by far the best collection that is publicly available. Her brief descriptions of the fellowship and the picture on the front page of the website are clear enough that any member of the fellowship can quickly recognize the subject. Her collection is extensive and extremely fascinating. However, the editorial content included with the historical content makes most fellowship members hesitate to share the link with other fellowship members--which is counter-productive to her mission of providing the historical info to as many members as possible. What do I mean by editorial content? For example, the brief history page contains a section labeled "hard questions". The stated purpose of the site is to inform people about the history, but there is obviously an additional purpose in including so much editorial content regarding doctrine, rules, and recovery. Even though I may not agree with Cherie's editorial content, I recognize that her efforts have prevented the loss of a fascinating history. As an older generation passes away, the personal effects of eyewitnesses and their children get discarded. In my opinion, history awareness would spread much faster if there was a resource that was strictly historical content.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Nov 5, 2010 11:53:10 GMT -5
Agree with Scholargal's immediately preceeding post.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2010 12:05:18 GMT -5
There's a way to do criticism properly, and they don't do it. There is a way of taking criticism and the workers do not take it at all. If the workers took criticism, there would be none of this falling out that we have experienced. The normal means of making changes (in order to stop abuse) have broken down because the workers are not approachable. The abusers in power were put there by other abusers and they stay there by fear and intimidation. They have the friends convinced that the way to handle it is to sit passively by while the abusers police themselves. Some did not agree with that approach so they started these sites which gave the abused people a voice. Being heard is an essential part of the human experience. By what measure you mete, you should also be measured. Whatever standard the VOT exacts from the workers they should also apply to themselves, and they don't.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2010 12:13:09 GMT -5
There's a different standard for those who have been hurt compared to those running a website. Anyone running a website is a journalist, and should abide by a professional standard and code of ethics. If the web site authors don't know what those are, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. Whereas the testimony of someone who has been hurt is not held to that kind of a standard. We don't read or process such documents as objective news, so allowances can be made. First, because they don't even know the standard. Second, because we automatically process such testimonies as one side of the story, knowing there is probably another side as well. Third, because we have sympathy for the pain the person has endured or is experiencing. I appreciate your sentiment here, but at the end of the day, VOT is/was an unregulated website, owned by private individuals. They are not bound by the same journalistic integrity as the mainstream media. They did purport to tell the "facts" on the 2x2 system, and included many examples of allegations of abuse, falsehoods and doctrinal inconsistency. IMO the website was still "opinion" and not "fact" as very few sources for information appeared to be quoted. They appeared to me to have an axe to grind, and grind it they did. There may have been some factual inconsistencies (I hesitate to use "lies" as I have no real evidence to suggest any, some or all of the errors were deliberate or malicious) but their obvious bias should be factored into anything written on the site. They were/are one voice in a multitude, and are entitled to opinion as we all are. That they chose to present their opinion on a website is not particularly relevant. I visited their site a few times, read some of the copies of historical documents, browsed through some 'opinion' and took it all with a grain of salt. It hasn't had any real effect on my thoughts or beliefs apart from adding a little more information into the pot. So we don't disagree then. Had they shown some level of journalistic integrity you may have found the site more useful than you did. I'm not sure what relevance your first paragraph has. Under free speech principles and the laws of the land, you can urinate on the Cross and call it Art. That doesn't make it okay.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2010 12:16:10 GMT -5
Perhaps they were the pioneers who opened up the Wild West, slung some guns and made it safe for others to tell their experiences of the worker's power abuse. Ultimately there are more professing people who are now in fellowship with the believers who were once considered "outside" and not a part of the body of Christ. They are nowhere near at the level of the Parkers, if that's what you are trying to infer.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2010 12:20:42 GMT -5
Have the friends and workers thanked Cherie for her hard work of documenting the history of The Truth fellowship?! Someone should! As a professing person I certainly appreciate her hard work! Thanks Cherie!!!! And thank you for not using the word "cult" on your site like so many others are prone to do. You seem fair. Cherie's collection of historical accounts is by far the best collection that is publicly available. Her brief descriptions of the fellowship and the picture on the front page of the website are clear enough that any member of the fellowship can quickly recognize the subject. Her collection is extensive and extremely fascinating. However, the editorial content included with the historical content makes most fellowship members hesitate to share the link with other fellowship members--which is counter-productive to her mission of providing the historical info to as many members as possible. What do I mean by editorial content? For example, the brief history page contains a section labeled "hard questions". The stated purpose of the site is to inform people about the history, but there is obviously an additional purpose in including so much editorial content regarding doctrine, rules, and recovery. Even though I may not agree with Cherie's editorial content, I recognize that her efforts have prevented the loss of a fascinating history. As an older generation passes away, the personal effects of eyewitnesses and their children get discarded. In my opinion, history awareness would spread much faster if there was a resource that was strictly historical content. There's also a fairly clear separation between editorial and factual. Clearly, she's advocating one brand of Christianity against another, which is fine since it's very clear which hat she is wearing. That does make the site less easily recommend-able, but I have recommended it on a number of occasions, as well as the WINGS site.
|
|
|
Post by alexander on Nov 5, 2010 12:47:08 GMT -5
Cherie's collection of historical accounts is by far the best collection that is publicly available. Her brief descriptions of the fellowship and the picture on the front page of the website are clear enough that any member of the fellowship can quickly recognize the subject. Her collection is extensive and extremely fascinating. However, the editorial content included with the historical content makes most fellowship members hesitate to share the link with other fellowship members--which is counter-productive to her mission of providing the historical info to as many members as possible. What do I mean by editorial content? For example, the brief history page contains a section labeled "hard questions". The stated purpose of the site is to inform people about the history, but there is obviously an additional purpose in including so much editorial content regarding doctrine, rules, and recovery. Even though I may not agree with Cherie's editorial content, I recognize that her efforts have prevented the loss of a fascinating history. As an older generation passes away, the personal effects of eyewitnesses and their children get discarded. In my opinion, history awareness would spread much faster if there was a resource that was strictly historical content. There's also a fairly clear separation between editorial and factual. Clearly, she's advocating one brand of Christianity against another, which is fine since it's very clear which hat she is wearing. That does make the site less easily recommend-able, but I have recommended it on a number of occasions, as well as the WINGS site. What brand of Christianity is she clearly advocating over another? I guess I have not read enough of the articles to have picked up on that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 5, 2010 12:58:23 GMT -5
There's also a fairly clear separation between editorial and factual. Clearly, she's advocating one brand of Christianity against another, which is fine since it's very clear which hat she is wearing. That does make the site less easily recommend-able, but I have recommended it on a number of occasions, as well as the WINGS site. What brand of Christianity is she clearly advocating over another? I guess I have not read enough of the articles to have picked up on that. www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/closestway.phpThe biggest point of contention is concerning Grace. Leaving aside those who plainly misunderstand the function of Grace, the friends are closer to the concept of prevenient grace, as taught by John Wesley, grace which has to be accessed, whereas Calvinists believe in irresistible grace that comes only to those who are predestined to receive it, that is, the elect. The kind of grace taught here www.tellingthetruth.info/bible_topics/grace.php, which emphasises being born again into irresistible grace leads into the idea of pre-destination. Teaching leaning toward prevenient grace, in which it is thought that God has made grace available to all, requires something of us in order to access that grace and obtain salvation. It is also thought that we could lose our salvation along the way, whereas Calvinists tend to believe that one cannot "lose out". Prevenient grace is closer to worker teaching. Unfortunately, prevenient grace is often distorted by its opponents into "salvation by works", which it is not. It should be stated though that it can also be more easily misunderstood by its proponents, because there tends to be less constant "saved by grace" drilling in the teaching. While these two teachings on Grace do not differ greatly, the prevenient grace camp is seen by the irresistible grace camp as emphasizing works to a fault, while the prevenient grace camp often sees irresistible grace believers as moral reprobates using grace as an excuse to sin.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Nov 5, 2010 13:06:35 GMT -5
I agree with ScholarGal. At first reading,the editorials, the editorials disturbed me but now look at them as the right of the author to insert opinion. The accuracy of the content as a whole is a credit to her diligence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2010 14:04:56 GMT -5
What, Nice description on Grace. I usually refer people to Cherie's website with just a comment to be careful of the editorial doctrine. However, I appreciate the easily accessed history and pictures and find it easy to navigate around--which was not the case with VOT.
|
|