|
Post by lazarus66 on May 11, 2012 18:36:37 GMT -5
I have asked several professing people on this board if they have seen things happen that shouldn't or things not happen that should. My favorite is the Matthew 18:15-17. I have asked several if they have seen it done, and of course they had, but no specifics, and I have never heard anyone going to meetings and being absolute believers in that "way" admit that things might be a bit different. I can provide cases where the wealthy were favored, and Matt. 18 was ignored.
Miltown Convention ground owner was a pervert, elder and favored grounds owner. He has now passed, but it is known to many that he was hitting on young girls, and workers in his own home, with his wife present in the house, but not aware of his activities.
I have no problem with those that go to meetings, in general, but when you deny the facts, then you are in denial and accepting of these peoples behavior...............
|
|
|
Post by JO on May 11, 2012 19:27:25 GMT -5
Lazarus66: the root cause is right here in the Shultz doctrine that results in no accountability to anyone lower in the hierarchy:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
....I would just like to encourage you to accept this support that Willis and Jim have at the present time as a reality and to respect that decision because it comes from a group of men whom God has called and whom God is using in guiding his work in this part of the earth. If our attitude towards them becomes disrespectful, it is a reflection on our attitude towards God as well...
....Their judgement may not always be right, but it is always right for us to respect that judgement and to work with it in the best way that we possibly can.....
.....But, whichever is the applicable possibility in this case, it does remain the right thing to respect that decision because of where it has come from and to work with it no matter what our own thoughts might be on the subject....
....Whether the decision is right or wrong, the right thing for all of us is to respect it because of those who have made the judgement....
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on May 11, 2012 22:56:19 GMT -5
From what I understand this is what happens when you don't follow the above rules or should I say "suggestions".
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 12, 2012 0:26:49 GMT -5
You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? I don't believe the question was whether there was a single case. The words 'usually' and 'tend to' in your claim imply that it is not the exception but the rule.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 12, 2012 2:23:54 GMT -5
You've never, ever, ever seen a worker take money from the friends or never, ever, ever seen a worker place a meeting in the home of a wealthy friend with a questionable background or never, ever, ever seen the workers side with the offender over the victim? I don't believe the question was whether there was a single case. The words 'usually' and 'tend to' in your claim imply that it is not the exception but the rule. Try betting on the workers making the worst possible decision when decisions need to be made. (I know several friends that have a betting pool for this.) You'll find that you're rarely surprised when the workers' final decision is handed down. The surprises happen when the workers come out with a decision that's worse than what you've imagined. (This can clear the betting pool in a heartbeat.) On the other hand, (even more rare) there will a kind and fair decision made by an overseer and/or worker. This tends to have everyone in the betting pool saying, "What happened here?" (If you ever want to participate in the betting pools, just profess at your local gossip meeting. The friends will talk to you later.)
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 12, 2012 9:40:53 GMT -5
Try betting on the workers making the worst possible decision when decisions need to be made. (I know several friends that have a betting pool for this.) That is side stepping the question. The question is not whether they will make the worst decision. And that would really depend on who is judging the decision. The best decision from the workers point of view is getting the best ROI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 11:11:20 GMT -5
Lazarus66: the root cause is right here in the Shultz doctrine that results in no accountability to anyone lower in the hierarchy: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....I would just like to encourage you to accept this support that Willis and Jim have at the present time as a reality and to respect that decision because it comes from a group of men whom God has called and whom God is using in guiding his work in this part of the earth. If our attitude towards them becomes disrespectful, it is a reflection on our attitude towards God as well... ....Their judgement may not always be right, but it is always right for us to respect that judgement and to work with it in the best way that we possibly can..... .....But, whichever is the applicable possibility in this case, it does remain the right thing to respect that decision because of where it has come from and to work with it no matter what our own thoughts might be on the subject.... ....Whether the decision is right or wrong, the right thing for all of us is to respect it because of those who have made the judgement.... Cultic?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on May 12, 2012 23:27:50 GMT -5
Certainly not Celtic.................Glen
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on May 13, 2012 0:38:51 GMT -5
Try betting on the workers making the worst possible decision when decisions need to be made. (I know several friends that have a betting pool for this.) That is side stepping the question. The question is not whether they will make the worst decision. And that would really depend on who is judging the decision. The best decision from the workers point of view is getting the best ROI. Provide examples and statistics of this, rational.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on May 13, 2012 7:33:13 GMT -5
That is side stepping the question. The question is not whether they will make the worst decision. And that would really depend on who is judging the decision. The best decision from the workers point of view is getting the best ROI. Provide examples and statistics of this, rational The best ROI would be longevity of convention and cooperation of trustees and at least a break-even point on operations for the grounds businmess activity.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 13, 2012 19:54:18 GMT -5
That is side stepping the question. The question is not whether they will make the worst decision. And that would really depend on who is judging the decision. The best decision from the workers point of view is getting the best ROI. Provide examples and statistics of this, rational. Examples of what the question was? Examples of what? Statistics of what?
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on May 14, 2012 11:43:42 GMT -5
ratz Fyi brissie = brisbane, australia I would think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2012 16:09:57 GMT -5
Back in the 1990s, there were some warnings about the "hate mail from the enemies of Truth" Or the "enemies of God's way". We were warned to BURN THOSE LETTERS. Arnold Brown raised his voice and said "BURN THOSE LETTERS>DON'T EVEN READ THEM". AB didn't know it but he started a search for the history and info about the fellowship that would end with discovering VOT some 5 years later. Arnold Brown used a verse in Psalms 78 to discredit the hate mail stuff. Fast forward to the 20th century. Today we have more info about CSA in the fellowship. Yet workers downplay the issue. Come on workers, stop worrying about how the worldly people might feel about God's way (the workers' way by the way) and protect innocent children.
|
|
|
Post by ksrw56 on May 20, 2012 16:11:52 GMT -5
Why doesnt someone ask about the smallholding the person in question was bought?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 1:26:08 GMT -5
Why doesnt someone ask about the smallholding the person in question was bought? If you are referring to the current Scottish case I have been led to believe this smallholding was a family property or family acquired property, not one bought using fellowship funds. Knowing a little about the family background this makes sense. However, I may have been misled? One or two of the other stories going about are quite despicable.
|
|
Seph
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by Seph on Jul 30, 2018 9:08:19 GMT -5
Does anybody know some details about this Stan Jordan?
|
|