Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 10:36:07 GMT -5
I actually think that a huge amount of that reaction is associated with the healing process. When you learn about the reactions to spiritual abuse (generally, not specific to F&W's) it all seems to fit in. I have even seem myself in this. You will also find it is part of the human condition. For those who are prone to go "all-in" when they believe something, then they will go "all-out" when they choose to disbelieve. Abuse may be the trigger for the change but not necessarily the cause. Many abused people work their way out of the abuse influence methodically rather than swinging to the opposite pole. It is difficult to work out the balance--I see it with my husband's struggle. He's an 'all or nothing' thinker and some wrong means all wrong in his world. For many of us, this fellowship has undermined our emotional health--it has for him--and trying to find a healthier way of relating to the world around you while still in this fellowship can be tricky. His family lived for the workers but mine didn't, and it's made a huge difference in how we've gone about handling the evidence that this 'less than perfect' fellowship is the same one we once thought was perfect. My thought is that whether we stay or leave, we have no excuse not to love.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 16, 2013 11:08:31 GMT -5
You will also find it is part of the human condition. For those who are prone to go "all-in" when they believe something, then they will go "all-out" when they choose to disbelieve. Abuse may be the trigger for the change but not necessarily the cause. Many abused people work their way out of the abuse influence methodically rather than swinging to the opposite pole. It is difficult to work out the balance--I see it with my husband's struggle. He's an 'all or nothing' thinker and some wrong means all wrong in his world. For many of us, this fellowship has undermined our emotional health--it has for him--and trying to find a healthier way of relating to the world around you while still in this fellowship can be tricky. His family lived for the workers but mine didn't, and it's made a huge difference in how we've gone about handling the evidence that this 'less than perfect' fellowship is the same one we once thought was perfect. My thought is that whether we stay or leave, we have no excuse not to love. I certainly understand what your husband might be going through. I was pretty entrenched in believing in the workers and the system and when things showed up as less than what I had envisioned, I left. I can see how having a 'worker worship' attitude can make things real difficult when you find out they aren't perfect. I totally agree with you that whether we leave or stay, there is no excuse not to love. We all need different things in life and they are found in different places. Love someone else's journey and respect it but also be an advocate for anything that harms. That, however, does not mean you stop loving the person, just the system or doctrine that is doing the harm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 12:23:55 GMT -5
I actually think that a huge amount of that reaction is associated with the healing process. When you learn about the reactions to spiritual abuse (generally, not specific to F&W's) it all seems to fit in. I have even seem myself in this. You will also find it is part of the human condition. For those who are prone to go "all-in" when they believe something, then they will go "all-out" when they choose to disbelieve. Abuse may be the trigger for the change but not necessarily the cause. Many abused people work their way out of the abuse influence methodically rather than swinging to the opposite pole. I rather think the ones who can exit more "strategically" are those who didn't buy too deeply into things in the first place. That's not to say they weren't sincere. However, I think people should read up a lot about spiritual abuse. I reckon most, if not all of the prominent "ex 2x2" posters on this board are to a great degree still working through issues. There are many explanations in the background to spiritual abuse that exes are grappling to find. Innies should read up on it too. That way they might understand exes better and see them in a process of healing and all the various issues that go with that. The various confrontations really help no one. Whilst in the sect, the answer to every issue is to profess more, put more effort into it, be at the heart of the matter and so on. Don't just be professing, but be possessing. It's more twisted than a corkscrew. Those who can avoid that do very well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 14:16:42 GMT -5
You will also find it is part of the human condition. For those who are prone to go "all-in" when they believe something, then they will go "all-out" when they choose to disbelieve. Abuse may be the trigger for the change but not necessarily the cause. Many abused people work their way out of the abuse influence methodically rather than swinging to the opposite pole. I rather think the ones who can exit more "strategically" are those who didn't buy too deeply into things in the first place. That's not to say they weren't sincere. However, I think people should read up a lot about spiritual abuse. I reckon most, if not all of the prominent "ex 2x2" posters on this board are to a great degree still working through issues. There are many explanations in the background to spiritual abuse that exes are grappling to find. Innies should read up on it too. That way they might understand exes better and see them in a process of healing and all the various issues that go with that. The various confrontations really help no one. Whilst in the sect, the answer to every issue is to profess more, put more effort into it, be at the heart of the matter and so on. Don't just be professing, but be possessing. It's more twisted than a corkscrew. Those who can avoid that do very well. Yes, that is what I am suggesting. If you are an all-in believer, going through a change can be enormously painful, particularly the feeling of betrayal can cause you to go to the other extreme. Like hberry, I wasn't brought up in an environment which idolized the workers much and always felt pretty free to think for myself, so I have never found myself in a significant emotional swing like some people experience. Disappointment at times from higher expectations being unmet, but no real sense of deep wounding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 14:57:12 GMT -5
I rather think the ones who can exit more "strategically" are those who didn't buy too deeply into things in the first place. That's not to say they weren't sincere. However, I think people should read up a lot about spiritual abuse. I reckon most, if not all of the prominent "ex 2x2" posters on this board are to a great degree still working through issues. There are many explanations in the background to spiritual abuse that exes are grappling to find. Innies should read up on it too. That way they might understand exes better and see them in a process of healing and all the various issues that go with that. The various confrontations really help no one. Whilst in the sect, the answer to every issue is to profess more, put more effort into it, be at the heart of the matter and so on. Don't just be professing, but be possessing. It's more twisted than a corkscrew. Those who can avoid that do very well. Yes, that is what I am suggesting. If you are an all-in believer, going through a change can be enormously painful, particularly the feeling of betrayal can cause you to go to the other extreme. Like hberry, I wasn't brought up in an environment which idolized the workers much and always felt pretty free to think for myself, so I have never found myself in a significant emotional swing like some people experience. Disappointment at times from higher expectations being unmet, but no real sense of deep wounding. I think too, that people like yourself are in a minority (esp. for B&R).
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 16, 2013 17:10:10 GMT -5
Yes, they really need to explain it properly as to what they mean. I heard it all my life that we are not an organization but I never believed that we weren't organized as it was obvious that things were pretty well organized....just the Wed night bible study list was enough for that. The difference always made some sense to me. At one point in more recent years I did consider that there was duplicity here (double speak) but I don't see it that way....at least not in general. It is a fact that we didn't have a headquarters, a world leader, a charter, a statement of beliefs, an incorporation (except for the one in Alberta for awhile), or all the normal trappings of an official organization. However, I never did think that "things just happened" as that doesn't make any sense. Also the incorporation in Sweden: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_articles/swedeninc.php
Bottom line IMO, the issue of whether or not the 2x2 church is an "organization" turns on what definition is being used for "organization" by the speaker/writer.
Also, they are an organization when they "need to be" as in Evan Jones Statement: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.php
And when the men seek exemption from military service and use a name for their church, and need to show a connection to an organized denomination, such as "Christian Conventions" or "Testimony of Jesus"--see: sites.google.com/site/2x2history/uk-history
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2013 17:16:28 GMT -5
One could paraphrase whether or not we are an organization using the Dale B (I think) quote: whether or not we believe in the Trinity (or are an organization) depends on who we are talking to.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 16, 2013 21:31:27 GMT -5
One of the great principles by which the movement is run is that there is no formal organization. This isn't a "false impression", it's what the group aspires to do and to be. So how do I explain the workers, head workers, trust accounts, and so on? Like this. There isn't a single principle you could name that is not attended by an element of hypocrisy. That applies to the principles of any group, whether those people are the Boy Scouts, the f&w, the Mennonites, or an entire nation such as the USA or Canada. Using Irvine-speak, one might say that Americans give a "false impression" of living in a free country, because they actually have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and do little for the poor. But please don't tell that to an American, because freedom is a very deeply held value, one which many of them have died to protect. And please don't tell any of the friends that they DO have a formal organization, or much more than a skeleton level of organization, because the friends have a deeply held belief that they don't, and a point of pride is to do as much as possible with a minimum of organizational overhead. As Clearday indicates, no one is trying to create a "false impression" about this. A false impression is created when you believe one thing, and give off that you believe something else. That is simply not the case with the friends and their method of organization. They believe they don't have a formal organization, end of story. The point of reference when discussing the truth is the truth; intention is secondary or irrelevent.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 16, 2013 21:40:10 GMT -5
Now you are saying that being given the impression is another way of saying lying. To me the ones giving the impression are often as blinded by the whole thing as anyone. Irvine is not an ex and was not B&R so is maybe able to be more objective and see through the whole thing better than some of us b&rs. Grey has stated, in effect, that the friends are going to Hell, and that you have to "buy in" to the Trinity theology to obtain salvation. On this basis, he labels the friends a "dangerous cult". Doesn't sound objective to me. Actually, I believe that Grey's theological views are very narrow, and not widely held. Sure, most Christians say they accept the Trinity theology but when you begin to break it down with them, it has little to do with their faith or their values, which tend to centre on the sayings of Jesus, and belief in God, and the after-life. The issue of whether Jesus is a person of God Himself, or of the same divine nature as God (the friends' belief and all that the Bible actually says) is a fine point that matters little in terms of how people live or worship. It is a BIG point to theologians in terms of keeping Christianity as an exclusive religion. Although there are corrupt theologians, fortunately, there are also honest theologians like John Hick and Marcus Borg who go by the Bible rather than the history of the church, and understand that these issues do not matter. There are no recognitive Christians but Trinitarians. To postulate differently is to deny Christianity's confessions are a sign to the world, either of God's revelation to humankind, or of humankind's response to their Creator.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 16, 2013 21:49:36 GMT -5
No CD I am not suggesting the workers deliberately lie about anything (generally speaking). Double-speak is part of the culture and mindset. Most often friends and workers think they are responding wisely, without realising the deception that is involved. Impression is very much part of things, either to promote the way or to protect it. I was run of the mill double-speak and double-think, until I was eventually made to treble-think! Yes insiders truly but mistakingly believe there is no formal organisation. Of course most of them don't know a thing about the mechanics of the way and just as importantly, they don't give a hoot. For the greater part we are/were all victims of a system and culture we were indoctrinated by and bought into. In turn we became perpetrators. Most of the time the double-speak or double-think is done innocently as we try to reconcile various factors, often with sparse information. We are not intending to deceive, but we do so nonetheless. The deceived deceive unwittingly. Blind leading the blind if you like. The ditch can be a rude awakener! They're not in any ditch that I can see. From any objective perspective, the friends do "community" extremely well. At least around here. It suggests though that community must be a disparate experience and our species is incapable of anything more.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Aug 17, 2013 5:35:03 GMT -5
You will also find it is part of the human condition. For those who are prone to go "all-in" when they believe something, then they will go "all-out" when they choose to disbelieve. Abuse may be the trigger for the change but not necessarily the cause. Many abused people work their way out of the abuse influence methodically rather than swinging to the opposite pole. I rather think the ones who can exit more "strategically" are those who didn't buy too deeply into things in the first place. That's not to say they weren't sincere. However, I think people should read up a lot about spiritual abuse. I reckon most, if not all of the prominent "ex 2x2" posters on this board are to a great degree still working through issues. There are many explanations in the background to spiritual abuse that exes are grappling to find. Innies should read up on it too. That way they might understand exes better and see them in a process of healing and all the various issues that go with that. The various confrontations really help no one. Whilst in the sect, the answer to every issue is to profess more, put more effort into it, be at the heart of the matter and so on. Don't just be professing, but be possessing. It's more twisted than a corkscrew. Those who can avoid that do very well. Ram I was one who never bought into the criticism of other denominations. Early on there was a concerted effort by the workers to criticize my cousins help. Good and righteous bretheren who I valued for their suggestions as I started the journey. ken ken
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Aug 17, 2013 5:40:32 GMT -5
I have read the book and appreciate some of the reported facts that I did not know. I sence that most F&Ws criticism stems from the dangerous cult comment and not on the documented facts. ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 5:59:36 GMT -5
Yes, they really need to explain it properly as to what they mean. I heard it all my life that we are not an organization but I never believed that we weren't organized as it was obvious that things were pretty well organized....just the Wed night bible study list was enough for that. The difference always made some sense to me. At one point in more recent years I did consider that there was duplicity here (double speak) but I don't see it that way....at least not in general. It is a fact that we didn't have a headquarters, a world leader, a charter, a statement of beliefs, an incorporation (except for the one in Alberta for awhile), or all the normal trappings of an official organization. However, I never did think that "things just happened" as that doesn't make any sense. Also the incorporation in Sweden: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_articles/swedeninc.php
Bottom line IMO, the issue of whether or not the 2x2 church is an "organization" turns on what definition is being used for "organization" by the speaker/writer.
Also, they are an organization when they "need to be" as in Evan Jones Statement: www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_later/jonesevan.php
And when the men seek exemption from military service and use a name for their church, and need to show a connection to an organized denomination, such as "Christian Conventions" or "Testimony of Jesus"--see: sites.google.com/site/2x2history/uk-history
This gets back to whatever a worker says being right!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 6:02:33 GMT -5
Ken, the "facts" tell us there never was an historical Jesus. The "facts" tell us that Paul usurped the Christian church for his own legalistic ends. The "facts" tell us the bible has no scientific merit. The "facts" tell us most of the events of the bible have no historical basis. The "facts" tell us that people find psychological comfort in religion. The "facts" tells us that religion prospers in times of adversity because it gives an "other world" consolation.
But people on this board have stated they won't read these facts because they don't believe them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 6:03:25 GMT -5
I have read the book and appreciate some of the reported facts that I did not know. I sence that most F&Ws criticism stems from the dangerous cult comment and not on the documented facts. ken Theological arguments apart, I agree with your assessment Ken. Since the dangerous cult comment refers to the the dangers of false theology, and with theology being by and large an alien concept for most innies, it is hard for them to imagine the context of remark and regard it by a more general inference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 6:06:25 GMT -5
I rather think the ones who can exit more "strategically" are those who didn't buy too deeply into things in the first place. That's not to say they weren't sincere. However, I think people should read up a lot about spiritual abuse. I reckon most, if not all of the prominent "ex 2x2" posters on this board are to a great degree still working through issues. There are many explanations in the background to spiritual abuse that exes are grappling to find. Innies should read up on it too. That way they might understand exes better and see them in a process of healing and all the various issues that go with that. The various confrontations really help no one. Whilst in the sect, the answer to every issue is to profess more, put more effort into it, be at the heart of the matter and so on. Don't just be professing, but be possessing. It's more twisted than a corkscrew. Those who can avoid that do very well. Ram I was one who never bought into the criticism of other denominations. Early on there was a concerted effort by the workers to criticize my cousins help. Good and righteous bretheren who I valued for their suggestions as I started the journey. ken ken It's good to hear that Ken. You must have missed the box labelled "Brains Here" lying outside the door of the mission.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 17, 2013 8:28:42 GMT -5
Grey has stated, in effect, that the friends are going to Hell, and that you have to "buy in" to the Trinity theology to obtain salvation. On this basis, he labels the friends a "dangerous cult". Doesn't sound objective to me. Actually, I believe that Grey's theological views are very narrow, and not widely held. Sure, most Christians say they accept the Trinity theology but when you begin to break it down with them, it has little to do with their faith or their values, which tend to centre on the sayings of Jesus, and belief in God, and the after-life. The issue of whether Jesus is a person of God Himself, or of the same divine nature as God (the friends' belief and all that the Bible actually says) is a fine point that matters little in terms of how people live or worship. It is a BIG point to theologians in terms of keeping Christianity as an exclusive religion. Although there are corrupt theologians, fortunately, there are also honest theologians like John Hick and Marcus Borg who go by the Bible rather than the history of the church, and understand that these issues do not matter. There are no recognitive Christians but Trinitarians. To postulate differently is to deny Christianity's confessions are a sign to the world, either of God's revelation to humankind, or of humankind's response to their Creator. Conciliatory modal recombinant eschatology aside, the burgeoning exciton dynamics attributed to predominantly hyper-minimized corollary seepage becomes the causative -- not to say the abiometric anhydrocephalytic gnosticistic -- plinth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 8:33:20 GMT -5
This gets back to whatever a worker says being right! The problem with those limited examples is that they are all responses to government requirements to further their beliefs. If not for the government requirements, they would not have engaged any one of them. For example, if a wartime CO status could have been attained simply by an individual declaration of conscience, then there would never have been any statement by George Walker or name registration. The weak criticism is a bit like this: "well if you go out on faith, then why did you just buy a bus ticket since God is going to get you wherever you are going?" Well, that's true, in theory there should be no need for a bus pass or to put gasoline in the tank of the borrowed car if you are going out totally on faith. This is the same for the outward trappings of the organization. George Walker didn't register a name to formalize the organization, he did it to help the boys who didn't believe in killing people. Similarly, Willis Propp didn't incorporate to formalize the organization, he did it to get a worker into Romania. I would suggest that if Walker or Propp could have avoided either, they would have done none of it because they shun formal organization as a principle. However, they advanced a greater principle at the cost of a minor principle. Then they get criticized for being hypocritical. Yet it is no different than the example of Jesus supporting his disciples for plucking corn on the Sabbath, breaking the 4th commandment in favour of the greater 2nd commandment. But of course it is more fun for the legalistic critics to go "aha! caught you, you hypocrites!"
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 17, 2013 9:32:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 9:49:45 GMT -5
Edgar should know the specific answer for that since he was involved. In most cases, it is done to allow foreign workers into the country. Some countries need to have assurance that an immigrant is not going to be a burden to the social system there so in order to approve a legal entry, they need a registered entity which will guarantee that the state will not have to support that person. It is like a company guaranteeing work to a foreigner applying for a work visa. The government simply wants assurance they are not allowing welfare cases into the country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 10:05:23 GMT -5
Edgar should know the specific answer for that since he was involved. In most cases, it is done to allow foreign workers into the country. Some countries need to have assurance that an immigrant is not going to be a burden to the social system there so in order to approve a legal entry, they need a registered entity which will guarantee that the state will not have to support that person. It is like a company guaranteeing work to a foreigner applying for a work visa. The government simply wants assurance they are not allowing welfare cases into the country. This is one good reason to have a formal identity. It saves you having to create one, sometimes a different one, whenever the need arises. In short, a having a name is necessary in this world, even if it is only for special occasions. Also it would go some way towards offsetting any perceptions of "shapelessness!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 10:14:19 GMT -5
There are no recognitive Christians but Trinitarians. To postulate differently is to deny Christianity's confessions are a sign to the world, either of God's revelation to humankind, or of humankind's response to their Creator. Conciliatory modal recombinant eschatology aside, the burgeoning exciton dynamics attributed to predominantly hyper-minimized corollary seepage becomes the causative -- not to say the abiometric anhydrocephalytic gnosticistic -- plinth. Amen, brother. I couldn't have said it better With recombinant eschatology, as with recombinant DNA, the palindromic sequences lead to the production of sticky and blunt ends--hence, this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 10:47:48 GMT -5
Edgar should know the specific answer for that since he was involved. In most cases, it is done to allow foreign workers into the country. Some countries need to have assurance that an immigrant is not going to be a burden to the social system there so in order to approve a legal entry, they need a registered entity which will guarantee that the state will not have to support that person. It is like a company guaranteeing work to a foreigner applying for a work visa. The government simply wants assurance they are not allowing welfare cases into the country. This is one good reason to have a formal identity. It saves you having to create one, sometimes a different one, whenever the need arises. In short, a having a name is necessary in this world, even if it is only for special occasions. Also it would go some way towards offsetting any perceptions of "shapelessness!" As you are aware, one of the key principles of 2x2ism right from the beginning was to eschew the complications of organized religion and make Christianity simple again. The early workers perceived it as a spiritual detriment, and set out to avoid it. For many decades, they didn't need a name or any registrations. What has developed is that the world has become exponentially more regulated and more difficult for the fellowship to accomplish its primary goals while fully meeting its principles of avoiding formal organizational characteristics. Your suggestion that it would be good to have a name is merely a practical matter which has merits as well as demerits. That's a fair discussion. The general criticism here is that the workers are faking it all, having a formal organization while "giving the impression" that they do not. That is an entirely different criticism, one which I reject as having any significant validity. We read here of people complaining about the LACK of formal organization all the time (no formal Statement of Beliefs for instance), then the same people complain that there IS a formal organization! Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 12:31:50 GMT -5
This is one good reason to have a formal identity. It saves you having to create one, sometimes a different one, whenever the need arises. In short, a having a name is necessary in this world, even if it is only for special occasions. Also it would go some way towards offsetting any perceptions of "shapelessness!" As you are aware, one of the key principles of 2x2ism right from the beginning was to eschew the complications of organized religion and make Christianity simple again. The early workers perceived it as a spiritual detriment, and set out to avoid it. For many decades, they didn't need a name or any registrations. What has developed is that the world has become exponentially more regulated and more difficult for the fellowship to accomplish its primary goals while fully meeting its principles of avoiding formal organizational characteristics. Your suggestion that it would be good to have a name is merely a practical matter which has merits as well as demerits. That's a fair discussion. The general criticism here is that the workers are faking it all, having a formal organization while "giving the impression" that they do not. That is an entirely different criticism, one which I reject as having any significant validity. We read here of people complaining about the LACK of formal organization all the time (no formal Statement of Beliefs for instance), then the same people complain that there IS a formal organization! Go figure. For the workers, it's a case of being hoist with their own petard. Being an organized non-organization with no name has its challenges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 13:11:04 GMT -5
As you are aware, one of the key principles of 2x2ism right from the beginning was to eschew the complications of organized religion and make Christianity simple again. The early workers perceived it as a spiritual detriment, and set out to avoid it. For many decades, they didn't need a name or any registrations. What has developed is that the world has become exponentially more regulated and more difficult for the fellowship to accomplish its primary goals while fully meeting its principles of avoiding formal organizational characteristics. Your suggestion that it would be good to have a name is merely a practical matter which has merits as well as demerits. That's a fair discussion. The general criticism here is that the workers are faking it all, having a formal organization while "giving the impression" that they do not. That is an entirely different criticism, one which I reject as having any significant validity. We read here of people complaining about the LACK of formal organization all the time (no formal Statement of Beliefs for instance), then the same people complain that there IS a formal organization! Go figure. For the workers, it's a case of being hoist with their own petard. Being an organized non-organization with no name has its challenges. The big mistake occurred in the 1920's when they crystallized the worker fields. That was a first step toward formalization which has been the source of some troubles ever since, where workers getting an assigned territory which is "theirs" are inclined to defend it from incursions. Had they stuck to Cooney's model of "Spirit-led" for territories, the fellowship may have been able to avoid the weird balance of shunning formal organization while practicing a distinctive informal organization. Now with more formalities required in modern times, the system is trending more toward formality in spite of internal resistance. It's definitely challenging I would think. So it's strange stuff sometimes. A few years ago at a convention, Lyle Schultz (Dale's brother) got up and starting preaching about how he is definitely "Spirit led" and stated definitively that "I have no one telling me where to go throughout the year". Ummmm, well sort of yes and no Lyle. While you don't have anyone telling you where to go daily, you do have someone telling what geographical territory to go to for the year and that you must stick within the boundaries. He left out explaining the field territory part which to me, smacked of deceptiveness or lack of intelligence......but more likely the former as he is probably intelligent enough to know better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 13:24:14 GMT -5
Edgar should know the specific answer for that since he was involved. In most cases, it is done to allow foreign workers into the country. Some countries need to have assurance that an immigrant is not going to be a burden to the social system there so in order to approve a legal entry, they need a registered entity which will guarantee that the state will not have to support that person. It is like a company guaranteeing work to a foreigner applying for a work visa. The government simply wants assurance they are not allowing welfare cases into the country. The reason given was to ensure that workers would get their residence visas renewed -- and seeing that it was getting difficult (impossible) to get work permits for new workers, it would be possible to get the status of a certain number of staff workers, to enable visas to replace foreign workers that had to leave for different reasons. There is a very high 'turnover' of workers in this country. To me that would have been acceptable -- if it had been done openly -- but it wasn't. Even tho I was apparently on the board and registered as present at the legal meetings neccesary -- I didn't even find out about it until several years later. When I asked my name to be removed .. they eventually choose to disband the organization. Apparently it was Eldon Knudsons idea -- but had its roots in the Alberta incorperation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 14:09:29 GMT -5
Something like "the shape of a shapeless movement" comes to mind? In fact that might be a good title for a book about the sect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2013 14:34:22 GMT -5
Edgar should know the specific answer for that since he was involved. In most cases, it is done to allow foreign workers into the country. Some countries need to have assurance that an immigrant is not going to be a burden to the social system there so in order to approve a legal entry, they need a registered entity which will guarantee that the state will not have to support that person. It is like a company guaranteeing work to a foreigner applying for a work visa. The government simply wants assurance they are not allowing welfare cases into the country. The reason given was to ensure that workers would get their residence visas renewed -- and seeing that it was getting difficult (impossible) to get work permits for new workers, it would be possible to get the status of a certain number of staff workers, to enable visas to replace foreign workers that had to leave for different reasons. There is a very high 'turnover' of workers in this country. To me that would have been acceptable -- if it had been done openly -- but it wasn't. Even tho I was apparently on the board and registered as present at the legal meetings neccesary -- I didn't even find out about it until several years later. When I asked my name to be removed .. they eventually choose to disband the organization. Apparently it was Eldon Knudsons idea -- but had its roots in the Alberta incorperation. Any ideas for the reasoning behind the secrecy? My first thought was that they figured some folks, including some workers, wouldn't accept it (because of the formal organization concept) and they feared disunity, since unity is always a big thing. While that is probably the primary reason, they probably justified it as being a ministry-only related subject (bringing workers in and out of the country), so there was no need to inform the friends.....including you apparently. The fact that they put you (possibly others too) on the board without their knowledge is a huge error of judgment. If I recall, some of the workers named on the AB board didn't have a clue what they were signing on to either, but at least they had the opportunity to sign. I am surprised you didn't have to sign anything in Sweden Edgar. After all, that means any organization could make you legally responsible for the actions of a corporation. A corporation does limit some liability such as indebtedness incurred by the corporation, but in most countries, board members may be liable for many things, including the criminal activities of the corporation
|
|