Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2012 15:40:27 GMT -5
Did ET originate the remarriage policy or did he learn it from Jack Carroll? What was the fellowship like during the Eldon years? Seems like this worker ruled CA with an iron fist from the late 1950s until the 1980s . His underlings such as Walter Pollock continue to follow the no mercy for remarriage policy.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Sept 11, 2012 16:45:37 GMT -5
I met Eldon in the early 50's and as long as I knew him, he was strong against the D&R issue. I do think that he was influenced by Jack Carroll. I don't remember meeting Jack or even seeing him as I recall he had a large mustache. I don't remember any workers, back then, that would wear a mustache.
I really liked Eldon and really am sorry to hear all the negative things that he was involved in. I guess we see the public image that they put on and don't know what takes place behind closed doors.
I will say this. I had a child out of wedlock in 1976, and Tharold Slyvester in Washington State told me I could not marry. I sent an appeal to Eldon and he did clear me as I had never been married.
That is the best I can shed light on the post. I do know that the D&R issue is still the same. No way Jose' if you have been married. (there have been accounts that were allowed, but a lot of money was involved).
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Sept 11, 2012 18:18:18 GMT -5
Your quote L66 " (there have been accounts that were allowed, but a lot of money was involved). "
this is totally new to me , but if its true this is another similarity to the RC church that allows marriage annulment for the rich and famous.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Sept 11, 2012 21:20:10 GMT -5
Will, I am not able to reveal names, but knew of two cases where money was the qualifying factor.
There did seem to be a "loophole" for some, where they were divorced before they knew the "truth" but in one case, the one spouse was B&R so I know that money could have been the only factor in that case. In fact in this case the man became an elder, so you know there was a lot of money involved. (Family connections were also somewhat a factor, but without the high amount of funds, that would not have happened).
These are just two cases I know of personally and have heard of other situations but could not confirm them myself, so will not throw out speculation.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Sept 11, 2012 21:57:55 GMT -5
Will, I am not able to reveal names, but knew of two cases where money was the qualifying factor. There did seem to be a "loophole" for some, where they were divorced before they knew the "truth" but in one case, the one spouse was B&R so I know that money could have been the only factor in that case. In fact in this case the man became an elder, so you know there was a lot of money involved. (Family connections were also somewhat a factor, but without the high amount of funds, that would not have happened). These are just two cases I know of personally and have heard of other situations but could not confirm them myself, so will not throw out speculation. So just like other organizations, eh? It matters who you know and how much money you want to spend?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 11, 2012 23:04:10 GMT -5
Did ET originate the remarriage policy or did he learn it from Jack Carroll? What was the fellowship like during the Eldon years? Seems like this worker ruled CA with an iron fist from the late 1950s until the 1980s . His underlings such as Walter Pollock continue to follow the no mercy for remarriage policy. Yes, I can think of couples in this situation where money has influenced the workers' attitudes/decisions regarding their "status" in the fellowship - I specifically have in mind two situations, one in California and one here in Hawai`i, which were both under Eldon's administration. These always seemed to be viewed as "problematic" cases by the different workers on the staff, with some taking a hard line approach, others kind of not saying much but allowing more privilege than some others may have. The couple in California are both allowed to take part, and they obviously have money, and have extended much hospitality to the workers - I have stayed in the home many times myself. The meeting is in their home, and both are allowed to take part, but he is not allowed to be the elder, because of his position. In the Hawai'i situation, one is not allowed to take part (I'm not going into more detail here!), but they do entertain the workers frequently and have "helped" in numerous ways with cars, at convention, etc. I am talking about people whom I know well and whom I respect as friends, so I prefer to say only that the situation is quite complex, with no easy agreement among those involved. I believe some of the division stemmed from Jack Carroll, but it seemed to grow very "hard line" with ET. But we didn't see ET as "hard line"! I'm not defending him here, but I am trying to show how we all "bought into" a mindset, and we nearly worshiped Eldon, feeling we were so "privileged" to have an overseer who "held a high standard." I have to admit to buying into it as well, but I can also attest to having reservations all along. It's one of those things where someone could ask, "Well, if you had reservations, why did you go along with it?" All I can say is that I believe many of us live with certain deep-seated questions, some of which we hardly admit to ourselves, until the time comes when there are just too many, or too great a tension, and we take a step in some direction. Tharold Sylvester was also notoriously "hard line" on this issue, while Howard Mooney was seen as a "concern" by the "hard-liners." I am basically relaying "worker conversations" here, not just my own ideas, though they did become mine.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Sept 11, 2012 23:31:04 GMT -5
Alan, to quote you here " It's one of those things where someone could ask, "Well, if you had reservations, why did you go along with it?" and again here " we nearly worshiped Eldon, feeling we were so "privileged" to have an overseer who "held a high standard."
That was what I was referring to, as Eldon seemed to be a loving and kind, compassionate man. As I said, what you see or know out front is different than what is really in their minds or goes on behind closed doors. Also as you said, " but I am trying to show how we all "bought into" a mindset".
I guess my biggest question was for those that slipped under the wire on the "we didn't know the truth then" technicality, is that I always saw that as a good argument, but one that could apply to so many things, so why wasn't that used more freely to lighten up on the rules for those that had never known the "truth" before.
Thanks for backing up my position. I know many don't think it happens, but as we both have stated, we both can name at least two different ones that were involved, and without betraying them and exposing them, we have chosen to be more discreet. I figure it is their personal situation, and I have no part in judging it.
Tharold was off the hook on this subject. As I mentioned before, he excommunicated me and told me that if a couple had been "intimate, sexually" they were married. It raised quite a stink for a short time in Washington, I know for sure. Howard may have been more relaxed because of his niece, and what she went thru......
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 12, 2012 1:58:09 GMT -5
I guess my biggest question was for those that slipped under the wire on the "we didn't know the truth then" technicality, is that I always saw that as a good argument, but one that could apply to so many things, so why wasn't that used more freely to lighten up on the rules for those that had never known the "truth" before. The woman taken in adultery would have known what the rules were, yet Jesus still had a compassionate attitude towards her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2012 2:31:59 GMT -5
I was in the work from 1965 until 1981 and although most of that time Willie Smiley was the governing overseer for my service in the work, we were kept quite well informed as to Eldon Tenniswoods power development, after Willie Jamesons decline in influence. Both Willie Jameson and Willie Smiley where much more reasonable on the divorce/remarriage issue. Even tho Willie Smiley ran his show quite independant of other influence -- it always surprised me that he shyed away from confrontation on the issue.
He would complain in private visits about this kind of radicalism -- but he would never do anything about it, even when it started to influence the workers on his staff. However some did suggest that these 'big guns' from the western states did soften their tone a bit when they were visited our conventions in western Canada, at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2012 11:53:32 GMT -5
ET must have been a hardliner with a smile. Tharold must have been a hardliner without a smile. ET's elder and young people's meetings laid down the group doctrine on several isses. These notes were sent near and far.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 12, 2012 12:55:51 GMT -5
I was told that Willie Jamieson had expressed concern in his later years regarding Eldon consolidating power. Eldon often expressed concern to us on the California staff (often within a small group conversation), to the effect that he hoped he had conveyed the importance of the "standard'" and that we wouldn't allow ourselves to be influenced by "false doctrine."
It came to the point with Eldon where we generally knew that any topic - in a visit or sermon - would eventually wind it's way to "the divorce issue." Even we who were on his staff, and who were more in less in line with his thinking, saw him as being obsessive on this one topic. I heard Uncle Dick Middleton, after a morning bible study at Orick preps, kind of mutter to a few of us that Eldon was getting radical (or words to that effect). Uncle Dick respected Eldon, and sought his advice, and he held similar thinking in regard to divorce/remarriage, yet he sought to develop connections with "the east," and I think many of us looked forward to Uncle Dick's sharing in visits and meetings, knowing that he wouldn't always work back to this one topic.
Quoting Edgar: I believe this can be extended to many concerns, where the individual may be privately questioned, but in practice the interest of "the ministry" takes precedence, and things are not effectively addressed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 12, 2012 13:19:10 GMT -5
Your quote L66 " (there have been accounts that were allowed, but a lot of money was involved). " this is totally new to me , but if its true this is another similarity to the RC church that allows marriage annulment for the rich and famous. The RCC allows marriage annulments to anyone who meets their requirements. Some are rejected regardless of their financial condition. Consider King Henry VIII! Of course, that is their written rule!
|
|
|
Post by texasdude on Sept 12, 2012 13:45:47 GMT -5
I guess my biggest question was for those that slipped under the wire on the "we didn't know the truth then" technicality, is that I always saw that as a good argument, but one that could apply to so many things, so why wasn't that used more freely to lighten up on the rules for those that had never known the "truth" before. I've heard George Peterson say that he would rather err on the side of mercy.....always been a fave of mine. The woman taken in adultery would have known what the rules were, yet Jesus still had a compassionate attitude towards her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2012 14:06:52 GMT -5
I remember when I was Stanley Sharpe's companion one time he got a letter from a California worker, asking some questions about the marriage background of a proffessing family that had moved to California from Manitoba.
I remember Stanley saying 'I refuse to do research for far-away workers, where the only purpose is to find a reason to kick them out of meetings!!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 12, 2012 14:35:23 GMT -5
I remember when I was Stanley Sharpe's companion one time he got a letter from a California worker, asking some questions about the marriage background of a proffessing family that had moved to California from Manitoba. I remember Stanley saying 'I refuse to do research for far-away workers, where the only purpose is to find a reason to kick them out of meetings!! I only knew Stanley from his occasional visits to California conventions, but I remember him as a very compassionate man. This response is beautiful!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2012 16:52:02 GMT -5
I remember when I was Stanley Sharpe's companion one time he got a letter from a California worker, asking some questions about the marriage background of a proffessing family that had moved to California from Manitoba. I remember Stanley saying 'I refuse to do research for far-away workers, where the only purpose is to find a reason to kick them out of meetings!! I only knew Stanley from his occasional visits to California conventions, but I remember him as a very compassionate man. This response is beautiful! When Stanley passed away, they threw the mold away. I don't know of anyone quite like him since. When the friends would come running to him with gossipy tales about other friends, he would stop them as soon as they got started.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 12, 2012 17:59:38 GMT -5
I only knew Stanley from his occasional visits to California conventions, but I remember him as a very compassionate man. This response is beautiful! When Stanley passed away, they threw the mold away. I don't know of anyone quite like him since. When the friends would come running to him with gossipy tales about other friends, he would stop them as soon as they got started. Hmmm, I liked reading all your memories. I loved Stanley Sharpe. But then, he wasn’t very hard to love. I can remember standing by the open casket that held his body, asking God “Now, how are we going to manage without him?” I was right. God totally screwed up on that one. I have a D&R story about Stanley that gives insight into his great sense of humor, and the type of man he was: We had a person in our meeting who was D&R, very nice person, wonderful presence. She was allowed to attend meetings but not to take part. Our elder at the time approached Stanley and asked him to show him the scripture that supported such a stance. Stanley replied “Nope!” Pause. Pause. Pause. “And you can look and look and look and you’ll never find it because it isn’t there.” He went on to explain how that other franchise heads (my terminology, not Stanley’s) saw things quite differently and that in his view we had to be content to leave things the way they were for the time being until others had more insight.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Sept 12, 2012 20:37:34 GMT -5
I had my own experience with ET even before I was divorced. After I left my husband, because he had threatened to kill me, Eldon and a couple of women workers came to visit.
In the course of the conversation after dinner, Eldon told me that I had to go back to my husband "even if he killed me!" I asked him where on earth in the bible it says anything like that! His reply? "If you don't, I'll feel like I have failed!"
I was so speechless and mouth dropped open while I looked at him. I told them, I'd get their coats as it was definitely time for them to leave.
Later, I thought I should have told him that I was interested in being offered as a sacrifice on the alter of his ego! Here my very life was at stake, and this became about HIM!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 12, 2012 21:34:31 GMT -5
I remember when I was Stanley Sharpe's companion one time he got a letter from a California worker, asking some questions about the marriage background of a proffessing family that had moved to California from Manitoba. I remember Stanley saying 'I refuse to do research for far-away workers, where the only purpose is to find a reason to kick them out of meetings!! I never knew you were Stanley's companion. What year was that and were you in Winnipeg? Loved Stanley Sharpe. I remember him when I was quite young.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Sept 12, 2012 22:42:28 GMT -5
In the course of the conversation after dinner, Eldon told me that I had to go back to my husband "even if he killed me!" I asked him where on earth in the bible it says anything like that! His reply? "If you don't, I'll feel like I have failed!" Could it be that he thought your husband didn't mean what he said?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 0:02:07 GMT -5
I remember when I was Stanley Sharpe's companion one time he got a letter from a California worker, asking some questions about the marriage background of a proffessing family that had moved to California from Manitoba. I remember Stanley saying 'I refuse to do research for far-away workers, where the only purpose is to find a reason to kick them out of meetings!! I never knew you were Stanley's companion. What year was that and were you in Winnipeg? Loved Stanley Sharpe. I remember him when I was quite young. Stanley Sharpe was my first companion in 1965 -- It was Stanleys first year in Saskatchewan and we were in the Invermay/Margo/Kelvington field from October to December -- after the new Year (1966) we had meetings in Lac La Ronge (northern Sask.) until preps in Smeaton. I was his companion for shorter periods during the next 8 years until I came to Sweden in 73. He was a wonderful man -but hand-cuffed by the system. Both he and Frank Thomas were elbowed out of leadership roles by Willis Propp when Willie Smiley passed away. Frank (I was with Frank 2 years and 5 preps!) to the Maritimes -- Stanley back to Manitoba.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Sept 13, 2012 8:59:12 GMT -5
Edy, that was the requirement for your "sacrifice for the kingdom" to be killed by your own husband. At least you would go right to heaven. Too many times I think so much pressure is on the workers (self created) for the "flock" to keep pure. After all, the flock is a reflection of the shepherd. (Except when the shepherds screw up). Glad you gave them the "bums rush" out the door. I probably would not have been so kind. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 9:07:13 GMT -5
I never knew you were Stanley's companion. What year was that and were you in Winnipeg? Loved Stanley Sharpe. I remember him when I was quite young. Stanley Sharpe was my first companion in 1965 -- It was Stanleys first year in Saskatchewan and we were in the Invermay/Margo/Kelvington field from October to December -- after the new Year (1966) we had meetings in Lac La Ronge (northern Sask.) until preps in Smeaton. I was his companion for shorter periods during the next 8 years until I came to Sweden in 73. He was a wonderful man -but hand-cuffed by the system. Both he and Frank Thomas were elbowed out of leadership roles by Willis Propp when Willie Smiley passed away. Frank (I was with Frank 2 years and 5 preps!) to the Maritimes -- Stanley back to Manitoba. I remember Edgar in those days too. Came over to our place for Wed night meeting from preps one time. I was in my early-mid teens and Edgar was probably pretty new in the work. What do I remember? Edgar wore pointy toed shoes.....pretty cool for a worker I thought!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 13, 2012 10:49:12 GMT -5
I never knew you were Stanley's companion. What year was that and were you in Winnipeg? Loved Stanley Sharpe. I remember him when I was quite young. Stanley Sharpe was my first companion in 1965 -- It was Stanleys first year in Saskatchewan and we were in the Invermay/Margo/Kelvington field from October to December -- after the new Year (1966) we had meetings in Lac La Ronge (northern Sask.) until preps in Smeaton. I was his companion for shorter periods during the next 8 years until I came to Sweden in 73. He was a wonderful man -but hand-cuffed by the system. Both he and Frank Thomas were elbowed out of leadership roles by Willis Propp when Willie Smiley passed away. Frank (I was with Frank 2 years and 5 preps!) to the Maritimes -- Stanley back to Manitoba. I remember him in Winnipeg along with Stanley Lee. I professed in a meeting led by Stanley Lee. Not sure anymore because I was 8 years old at the time, but I think it was a gospel meeting and for some reason I think Stanley Sharpe was there too. I just remember him being kind. Stanley Lee had a bit of a temper though as I remember.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Sept 13, 2012 11:50:12 GMT -5
In the course of the conversation after dinner, Eldon told me that I had to go back to my husband "even if he killed me!" I asked him where on earth in the bible it says anything like that! His reply? "If you don't, I'll feel like I have failed!" Could it be that he thought your husband didn't mean what he said? Oh, that's possible! But, I don't give a crap for what he believed or didn't believe. I was there when it was all going down, and he wasn't. So he can call me a liar into eternity, I really don't care. God knows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 14:47:32 GMT -5
I remember Edgar in those days too. Came over to our place for Wed night meeting from preps one time. I was in my early-mid teens and Edgar was probably pretty new in the work. What do I remember? Edgar wore pointy toed shoes.....pretty cool for a worker I thought! I can't remember the shoes -- but I am sure going through my memories to figure out who you may be!! Must be within a radius of 40-50 miles from Antler --- and on Wednesdays we usually went to the Manitoba side!! So I have it down to 2 or three suspects!!. Anymore hints?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 16:37:34 GMT -5
I remember Edgar in those days too. Came over to our place for Wed night meeting from preps one time. I was in my early-mid teens and Edgar was probably pretty new in the work. What do I remember? Edgar wore pointy toed shoes.....pretty cool for a worker I thought! I can't remember the shoes -- but I am sure going through my memories to figure out who you may be!! Must be within a radius of 40-50 miles from Antler --- and on Wednesdays we usually went to the Manitoba side!! So I have it down to 2 or three suspects!!. Anymore hints? I have a hint for you: he was the kid staring at your shoes~
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 17:38:51 GMT -5
I remember Edgar in those days too. Came over to our place for Wed night meeting from preps one time. I was in my early-mid teens and Edgar was probably pretty new in the work. What do I remember? Edgar wore pointy toed shoes.....pretty cool for a worker I thought! I can't remember the shoes -- but I am sure going through my memories to figure out who you may be!! Must be within a radius of 40-50 miles from Antler --- and on Wednesdays we usually went to the Manitoba side!! So I have it down to 2 or three suspects!!. Anymore hints? I think that I am one of your 2 or 3 suspects......that's a good hint! We are also FB friends.
|
|