Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 18:14:49 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment?
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 19:47:25 GMT -5
I haven't seen any evidence of people trying to silence Graham regarding CSA, other than by ignoring him.
However Graham has said:
...it has come to my notice that there has been some criticism of things that were spoken in the Mid-year meeting in Auckland last year. Please take notice that what was said was carefully and deliberately worded, and was thoroughly appropriate and necessary to be voiced. The statements made were true, and the speaker stands by them and is ready to repeat them at any time. Let it also be noted that now, nearly a year later, there is even greater reason to believe and to express these things than there was at the time they were spoken.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 3, 2014 20:46:38 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment? Did I miss something? Could you point out where he indicated that?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 21:10:34 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment? Not exactly. We know the following from Graham's letter already posted:
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 3, 2014 21:19:49 GMT -5
Alan has sought to keep his own correspondence to NZ workers regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret: "This letter is written only to workers in our NZ gospel fields. Please do not make copies of this letter nor divulge to others what I have written, without first consulting me."
However in August 2013 Graham wrote to Alan: Whilst I have till the present time honoured your request that your letter about CSA of August last year should not be shared with, or its contents divulged to, other people without first consulting you, it is now being released without restriction or caveat. The reasons for this are; firstly, that the desire to have secret communications amongst the members of the ministry and withhold these from the saints is abhorrent in principle (our Lord Jesus Himself described this sort of thing as a master-servant relationship, as opposed to a brotherhood relationship), and secondly, that your letter being wrong yet with you being unwilling to correct or withdraw it, it is necessary to warn the saints about proceedings which could impact upon them which are wrongly based, and to inform them as to the source of the guidance. (It is noted, however, that this letter had already been released by other unknown persons, as I was aware before the end of last year that some people other than NZ Gospel workers had seen it).
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 3, 2014 22:03:52 GMT -5
Alan has sought to keep his own correspondence to NZ workers regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret: "This letter is written only to workers in our NZ gospel fields. Please do not make copies of this letter nor divulge to others what I have written, without first consulting me."
Dale Shultz also tried to keep his own correspondence to his staff regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret:
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 4, 2014 10:59:36 GMT -5
Alan has sought to keep his own correspondence to NZ workers regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret: "This letter is written only to workers in our NZ gospel fields. Please do not make copies of this letter nor divulge to others what I have written, without first consulting me."
Dale Shultz also tried to keep his own correspondence to his staff regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret: "Also, to show this letter to people who do not need to see it may arouse concerns that they had not previously entertained. " Yikes, I feel that this is a blow to the friends and workers that blindly trust the ruling workers! These rulers want those "trusting" souls left completely void of knowledge to the "truth" about their rulers! Yes, sounds a bit like dictatorship, eh? Kind of made me mad in that I would be considered so dumb and so blindly allowing my ruling overseer workers take advantage of my ga-ga worship of them! Whatever it costs to the friends and other workers, those rulers are going to not stop at anything to keep their positions and reputations(blindly) on the good side of it all...they MUST by all means continue that blind worship and leading those blind underlings! n What big-headedness, What super -feeling indulgences! Makes me wonder how many times those ruling workers leave the friends' home where they've been given the best beds, the best meals, the best washerwoman services, etc, they go out the door saying in their wicked minds, "Nananananana! Got you sucker!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 11:06:44 GMT -5
Dale Shultz also tried to keep his own correspondence to his staff regarding how to handle CSA matters as a secret: "Also, to show this letter to people who do not need to see it may arouse concerns that they had not previously entertained. " Yikes, I feel that this is a blow to the friends and workers that blindly trust the ruling workers! These rulers want those "trusting" souls left completely void of knowledge to the "truth" about their rulers! Yes, sounds a bit like dictatorship, eh? Kind of made me mad in that I would be considered so dumb and so blindly allowing my ruling overseer workers take advantage of my ga-ga worship of them! Whatever it costs to the friends and other workers, those rulers are going to not stop at anything to keep their positions and reputations(blindly) on the good side of it all...they MUST by all means continue that blind worship and leading those blind underlings! n What big-headedness, What super -feeling indulgences! Makes me wonder how many times those ruling workers leave the friends' home where they've been given the best beds, the best meals, the best washerwoman services, etc, they go out the door saying in their wicked minds, "Nananananana! Got you sucker!" In a sense it is the classical "blind leading the blind". That is, Mr.Schultz and peers lack so much confidence in their vision of what is right, that they feel compelled to keep others in the dark about it. This runs through most of the workers who are very cautious about what they reveal to people, thinking that blind people are more dependent and easier to lead than those who can see. It's a big mistake on their part but first they have to get knowledgeable and confident in what they believe before they will feel comfortable being open and honest with others.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 4, 2014 13:23:00 GMT -5
"Also, to show this letter to people who do not need to see it may arouse concerns that they had not previously entertained. " Yikes, I feel that this is a blow to the friends and workers that blindly trust the ruling workers! These rulers want those "trusting" souls left completely void of knowledge to the "truth" about their rulers! Yes, sounds a bit like dictatorship, eh? Kind of made me mad in that I would be considered so dumb and so blindly allowing my ruling overseer workers take advantage of my ga-ga worship of them! Whatever it costs to the friends and other workers, those rulers are going to not stop at anything to keep their positions and reputations(blindly) on the good side of it all...they MUST by all means continue that blind worship and leading those blind underlings! n What big-headedness, What super -feeling indulgences! Makes me wonder how many times those ruling workers leave the friends' home where they've been given the best beds, the best meals, the best washerwoman services, etc, they go out the door saying in their wicked minds, "Nananananana! Got you sucker!" In a sense it is the classical "blind leading the blind". That is, Mr.Schultz and peers lack so much confidence in their vision of what is right, that they feel compelled to keep others in the dark about it. This runs through most of the workers who are very cautious about what they reveal to people, thinking that blind people are more dependent and easier to lead than those who can see. It's a big mistake on their part but first they have to get knowledgeable and confident in what they believe before they will feel comfortable being open and honest with others. Well that wouldn't be an issue if they were doing what was right. Transparency comes only when there is nothing to hide. Otherwise we do tend to hide things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 13:29:34 GMT -5
In a sense it is the classical "blind leading the blind". That is, Mr.Schultz and peers lack so much confidence in their vision of what is right, that they feel compelled to keep others in the dark about it. This runs through most of the workers who are very cautious about what they reveal to people, thinking that blind people are more dependent and easier to lead than those who can see. It's a big mistake on their part but first they have to get knowledgeable and confident in what they believe before they will feel comfortable being open and honest with others. Well that wouldn't be an issue if they were doing what was right. Transparency comes only when there is nothing to hide. Otherwise we do tend to hide things. While that is perfectly true with people doing bad things, it is not exclusively those people. Lots of people are very private and cautious about people knowing what they are doing but it may have nothing to do with doing wrong things. It may have to do with lacking confidence. Perhaps their pride is such that they can't handle criticism, it could be arrogance that doesn't give them the patience to answer questions......probably a few other things.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 4, 2014 14:20:54 GMT -5
Well that wouldn't be an issue if they were doing what was right. Transparency comes only when there is nothing to hide. Otherwise we do tend to hide things. While that is perfectly true with people doing bad things, it is not exclusively those people. Lots of people are very private and cautious about people knowing what they are doing but it may have nothing to do with doing wrong things. It may have to do with lacking confidence. Perhaps their pride is such that they can't handle criticism, it could be arrogance that doesn't give them the patience to answer questions......probably a few other things. Very good points. However, when we are in a leadership role we do have an obligation to those we lead to be as open as we can and try to override our personal tendencies to be as transparent as possible about the things that pertain to everyone. They don't have to be transparent about their most personal feelings per se.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 14:27:59 GMT -5
While that is perfectly true with people doing bad things, it is not exclusively those people. Lots of people are very private and cautious about people knowing what they are doing but it may have nothing to do with doing wrong things. It may have to do with lacking confidence. Perhaps their pride is such that they can't handle criticism, it could be arrogance that doesn't give them the patience to answer questions......probably a few other things. Very good points. However, when we are in a leadership role we do have an obligation to those we lead to be as open as we can and try to override our personal tendencies to be as transparent as possible about the things that pertain to everyone. They don't have to be transparent about their most personal feelings per se. Except this isn't a "manmade" leadership organization. These are God's sole representatives on earth who need not account to any man, just God. So it goes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 4, 2014 16:09:25 GMT -5
Very good points. However, when we are in a leadership role we do have an obligation to those we lead to be as open as we can and try to override our personal tendencies to be as transparent as possible about the things that pertain to everyone. They don't have to be transparent about their most personal feelings per se. Except this isn't a "manmade" leadership organization. These are God's sole representatives on earth who need not account to any man, just God. So it goes anyway. That's the problem in a nutshell CD. This is the "gospel" message of the overseers: 1. This isn't a "manmade" leadership organization. 2. We are God's sole representatives on earth who need not account to any man, just God. 3. You'd better come aboard, obey us unquestioningly, or you'll go to hell when you die. Many workers teach many things besides that of course, but their overseers have the last word.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 4, 2014 16:25:50 GMT -5
Well that wouldn't be an issue if they were doing what was right. Transparency comes only when there is nothing to hide. Otherwise we do tend to hide things. While that is perfectly true with people doing bad things, it is not exclusively those people. Lots of people are very private and cautious about people knowing what they are doing but it may have nothing to do with doing wrong things. It may have to do with lacking confidence. Perhaps their pride is such that they can't handle criticism, it could be arrogance that doesn't give them the patience to answer questions......probably a few other things. CD/SR They don't trust the Holy Spirit. Its really an issue of control. Those who are in the wrong fear the light of the scripture, that their deeds don't line up. ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 16:42:55 GMT -5
You guys need to stop talking about Workers and focus upon Jesus, no?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 4, 2014 16:48:41 GMT -5
Very good points. However, when we are in a leadership role we do have an obligation to those we lead to be as open as we can and try to override our personal tendencies to be as transparent as possible about the things that pertain to everyone. They don't have to be transparent about their most personal feelings per se. Except this isn't a "manmade" leadership organization. These are God's sole representatives on earth who need not account to any man, just God. So it goes anyway. Well then they do an awesome job being just like God. He's pretty much as unknown, mysterious and unreachable as they are and answers questions and requests in pretty much the same manner.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 4, 2014 17:06:37 GMT -5
You guys need to stop talking about Workers and focus upon Jesus, no? Jesus was pretty outspoken.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 4, 2014 17:22:41 GMT -5
You guys need to stop talking about Workers and focus upon Jesus, no? Maybe it's time the workers pointed people to Jesus and not themselves as the sole way in which one can receive salvation.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 4, 2014 17:37:37 GMT -5
Very good points. However, when we are in a leadership role we do have an obligation to those we lead to be as open as we can and try to override our personal tendencies to be as transparent as possible about the things that pertain to everyone. They don't have to be transparent about their most personal feelings per se. Except this isn't a "manmade" leadership organization. These are God's sole representatives on earth who need not account to any man, just God. So it goes anyway. Sounds like they're trying to hide their leadership.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 17:41:16 GMT -5
Bert, Ray Corbett is one of yours. I am sure he has probably been in your home.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 5, 2014 12:39:43 GMT -5
You guys need to stop talking about Workers and focus upon Jesus, no? Jesus was pretty outspoken. Reminded me of this that God said to Pharoah that God had made him what he was so that God's name will be glorified.... I looked for that phrase but failed to find it But I remember that it was said because another place in the NT about God sets those in authority places.....and it is all to glorify the Lord. And yes, I know some don't believe in that, but I was reminded of that when I read those woes to the scribes and Pharisees again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 12:43:29 GMT -5
One time in about 1968, a small child was reported as saying as she saw two of "the workers" coming up the front walk... " Mommy, Mommy, God and Jesus are coming up the front sidewalk!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:58:52 GMT -5
Bert, since Ray Corbett is in your country, talk with him about these issues. Ray Corbett is a human being. I heard him speak back in the early 1990s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 5:49:17 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment? I don't know of any effort to silence him. The NZ overseer did make at least one response. I have this on first class good authority. Alan R said that Graham should not have said in his Special Meeting message that the response of the ministry to csa in Victoria had been inadequate. This again is a classic illustration of why issues of truth within the fellowship are not addressed by the overseer group. What is the motivation behind such an overseer response? Everyone knows Graham’s comment was true, so why was the overseer so against it being said? I suggest this is an example of the cronyism and defensiveness that Cassandra explained so clearly on her other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 10:13:27 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment? I don't know of any effort to silence him. The NZ overseer did make at least one response. I have this on first class good authority. Alan R said that Graham should not have said in his Special Meeting message that the response of the ministry to csa in Victoria had been inadequate. This again is a classic illustration of why issues of truth within the fellowship are not addressed by the overseer group. What is the motivation behind such an overseer response? Everyone knows Graham’s comment was true, so why was the overseer so against it being said?
I suggest this is an example of the cronyism and defensiveness that Cassandra explained so clearly on her other thread. Nothing complicated there at all. There is an implied compact between all overseers and to a slightly lesser extent, all workers. The agreement is: "I don't cr_ap on you, you don't cr_ap on me." It really is that simple and they see it as critical to the survival of their group. The problem is, good things like truth, justice, mercy and compassion are sacrificed to maintain that compact. In short, Christ is sacrificed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2014 3:21:04 GMT -5
From the Graham Thompson letter, I get the idea that there was an effort by Messrs Snowe, Corbett and Richardson to silence Graham Thompson for his efforts to bring up the issue of CSA in the Work. Is that a correct assessment? I don't know of any effort to silence him. The NZ overseer did make at least one response. I have this on first class good authority. Alan R said that Graham should not have said in his Special Meeting message that the response of the ministry to csa in Victoria had been inadequate. This again is a classic illustration of why issues of truth within the fellowship are not addressed by the overseer group. What is the motivation behind such an overseer response? Everyone knows Graham’s comment was true, so why was the overseer so against it being said? I suggest this is an example of the cronyism and defensiveness that Cassandra explained so clearly on her other thread. that maybe so but we don't go to meetings to hear about the faults of others well at least I don't I want to hear about Jesus and the Father
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2014 3:55:48 GMT -5
I don't know of any effort to silence him. The NZ overseer did make at least one response. I have this on first class good authority. Alan R said that Graham should not have said in his Special Meeting message that the response of the ministry to csa in Victoria had been inadequate. This again is a classic illustration of why issues of truth within the fellowship are not addressed by the overseer group. What is the motivation behind such an overseer response? Everyone knows Graham’s comment was true, so why was the overseer so against it being said? I suggest this is an example of the cronyism and defensiveness that Cassandra explained so clearly on her other thread. that maybe so but we don't go to meetings to hear about the faults of others well at least I don't I want to hear about Jesus and the Father We read in the Bible about the faults of others, so why sanitize the meetings to the extent that we're only smoothing one another's egos? This is what Graham said about Victoria: Paul wasn't restricting his message to Jesus and the Father in the following verses:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 1:16:00 GMT -5
that maybe so but we don't go to meetings to hear about the faults of others well at least I don't I want to hear about Jesus and the Father We read in the Bible about the faults of others, so why sanitize the meetings to the extent that we're only smoothing one another's egos? This is what Graham said about Victoria: Paul wasn't restricting his message to Jesus and the Father in the following verses: seems like you like to focus on the negative
|
|