|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 0:51:13 GMT -5
Just a few points that seem to need clarification:
1. Correspondence that has been posted does address specific problems.
2. Correspondence that has been posted does suggest solutions to correct those problems.
3. Graham hasn't asked that his correspondence be published on TMB, and is not trying to make his case on TMB.
4. Contrary to the opinions of some on this board, Graham has no "surrogate" here.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 0:56:43 GMT -5
Now there's a solution - a meeting between Alan R and Graham T independently arbitrated by Scott . I reckon we'd get a sensible outcome! That's not as silly as it might appear. Both Graham and Alan R are intelligent and well-meaning men I believe. No one inside the fellowship could arbitrate because of the hierarchy. Scott has already proven that overseers are better able to discuss issues with him than with people inside.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 11, 2014 1:07:38 GMT -5
In the following email from Graham Thompson to Alan Richardson it seems that Alan was excluding certain letters from further discussion, even though the matters raised in those letters had not been resolved.
Email dated 27/05/2006
Dear Alan,
Thank you for your letter with travel information for next Tuesday, we should be on hand to meet you. It will be good to see the other brothers as well.
I see that you mentioned about the possibility of taking up matters with you of which I had written in my last two letters. From the obviously carefully-chosen wording, I assume you are trying to preclude any further discussion of the contents of my letter to you dated March 6, following which two other letters were written. While it is evidently reasonable and acceptable in your mind to decline to communicate about certain matters while being willing to communicate about other matters, it is certainly not reasonable or acceptable to me. So I want you to clearly understand that I will not be part of any such pretence, and if you think to work on that basis then you need not have any expectation of discussing anything with me - beyond the barest essentials necessary for the administration of the field.
Over the past two years I have written and spoken to you of certain very serious matters of the Kingdom, including corrupt governance, false and deceptive dealing, ungodly judgment, self-exaltation, favouritism, failure to act concerning child abuse, inappropriate behaviour towards sisters, bringing in false teachers amongst the congregation, amongst other things. In none of these very serious matters (all of which are well substantiated) have you been willing to make any stand for Truth, and in fact you have lent your unwavering support to those who commit such things and so have entered into their abuses. In our meeting at Masterton you offered the opinion that a letter I had written to you was "offensive", an opinion which you had no grounds to espouse (as what was written was true), and certainly no right to express in company of others. What is truly offensive is the failure to address these matters that have been raised, and the violation of the Kingdom's values that this represents.
It seems to me you are full-well emulating the husbandmen of the vineyard of whom Jesus spoke, who began to handle their sacred responsibility as if those things they handled were their own property and possession (when they were the sole possession of the Lord), and made decisions more with the thought of maintaining their own position than in the light of fostering the fruitfulness of the vineyard and rendering it with joy to the Lord.
I long for the day when it is clearly understood amongst us all that the only thing we ever have any right to do is that which is right in the sight of God, and that the interests of God's Kingdom are best served not by attempting to sweep under the carpet things that should be addressed but by attending to them in a timely and Godly manner. In the meantime, I view your position as being seriously compromised, and the confidences which I once had now stand severely threatened.
With best wishes, your brother Graham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 9:31:25 GMT -5
RB, I agree with your assessment over why GT wasn't dismissed long ago as I have been wondering why for the last couple of years myself. At some point, sacking him became a bigger liability than keeping him on. Management made an error to let it get past that point. AR is obviously a patient and tolerant man, which doesn't always work well if you are trying to manage a religious system.
You're right, a total review and overhaul is needed but it's not going to happen: it would seem too much like an organizational procedure to the overseers. They are caught in a limbo: they can't let go of their power and control so the organization survives but they can't fix the organization because they can't acknowledge that it exists.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2014 9:48:11 GMT -5
That is the point - I am not doubting anything. Asking for the other side of a situation does not mean you doubt anything. What do you mean by "the other side of the story"? Graham's correspondence has been made available. It was never intended to be a one-sided story. It is what it is. Graham has stated his views. Either you agree with them or not. Graham says Alan has blue hair. I can neither agree nor disagree unless I can see the other side of the story - Alan's hair. I believe Graham has stated his views. He probably believes them. As christiansburg said: I don't like to put a puzzle together blindfolded.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 11, 2014 10:07:10 GMT -5
RB, I agree with your assessment over why GT wasn't dismissed long ago as I have been wondering why for the last couple of years myself. At some point, sacking him became a bigger liability than keeping him on. Management made an error to let it get past that point. AR is obviously a patient and tolerant man, which doesn't always work well if you are trying to manage a religious system. You're right, a total review and overhaul is needed but it's not going to happen: it would seem too much like an organizational procedure to the overseers. They are caught in a limbo: they can't let go of their power and control so the organization survives but they can't fix the organization because they can't acknowledge that it exists. They cannot only acknowledge that the workers' church is an organization, but they are bearing the brunt of the lies that were perpetuated by workers from all generations before them, in that the fellowship and workers were all the way from the shores of Galilee, etc....there seems to be so many "lies" that the present generational powered workers are caught with their pants down and mostly the fault of their forbears! I do not understand why they don't give it up and start with blunt honesty, that would clear the dirt from under the carpet about as quick as anything...drag it all out and start admitting what they know as being blatant lies and wrong doctrine! Or maybe they really don't know what is lies and what is wrong doctrine....they too have been deceived to the point that the only thing thye know they want and that is the ruling power over other workers and all the friends! This is the only goal that has been a constant goal from the first day they perceived to go into the work...that eventually they would have their little kingdoms and rejoice therein because the lies had been perpetuated by former worker generations and Jesus lost in the shuffle....putting the onus of burden and glory on the ruling workers....YES! Wouldn't all of us so vainly wish to be the rulers of such a history? Making ourselves to look as psychologically ill as the founder was?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 11, 2014 10:17:31 GMT -5
If someone were to post on the TMB that "John Dough" is the mastermind behind the stolen credit cards at Target. I would probably be aware of it, and not remain silent.
Everyone at TMB not only is open to the other side of the story, but rather encourages it.
If someone says I have blue hair, and I don't contradict their statement. You can assume that I either have blue hair, or assume that I don't really care if everyone thinks I have blue hair.
Sometimes silence is a good indication of the other side of the story. Through much discussion, the truth will usually shake out. Those in the right usually have nothing to hide. Those in the wrong....well.....they fear open discussion and communication.
Keep telling the truth.......you never need to fear contradicting yourself. Its quite telling when someone states that they care not that everything they write or speak be shared.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 10:50:33 GMT -5
Another experience of Graham's that should examined is his handling of the case of Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnston in ChCh in banning them from meetings. In both of the above cases, was Graham as dictatorial and authoritarian as the overseers he criticizes? It's a fair question and worth looking at. bringing in false teachers amongst the congregation, amongst other things. Interesting to watch these speculative conversations on TMB. Both Graham and Steve have been vigorously defended here on TMB - almost to the point that it is impossible that either could do anything wrong. It would be ironic if Graham was the one who judged Steve to be a "false teacher" and banned him from meetings. If true it would also give validity to the claims "taken on too much authority" and "overstepped his place". Maybe overseers didn't want Steve banned from meetings. Then there is this: inappropriate behaviour towards sisters, VS this: In response to the opening post, Graham wrote in February 2005 that: Stan has branded me as one who is “dividing the work in SA”, “too friendly with women”, “jealous of Ian”. Speculating is so often just spinning wheels, never get anyone anywhere, but throw mud on everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 10:58:46 GMT -5
If someone were to post on the TMB that "John Dough" is the mastermind behind the stolen credit cards at Target. I would probably be aware of it, and not remain silent. Everyone at TMB not only is open to the other side of the story, but rather encourages it. If someone says I have blue hair, and I don't contradict their statement. You can assume that I either have blue hair, or assume that I don't really care if everyone thinks I have blue hair. Sometimes silence is a good indication of the other side of the story. Through much discussion, the truth will usually shake out. Those in the right usually have nothing to hide. Those in the wrong....well.....they fear open discussion and communication. Keep telling the truth.......you never need to fear contradicting yourself. Its quite telling when someone states that they care not that everything they write or speak be shared. Truth doesn't always shake out in conversations. That is why there are many warnings about human imagination. I have seen imagination over rule truth many times. Why did Jesus "answer not a word"? He knew even truth wouldn't change imagination. So truth can be on the side of silence.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Feb 11, 2014 11:08:56 GMT -5
If someone were to post on the TMB that "John Dough" is the mastermind behind the stolen credit cards at Target. I would probably be aware of it, and not remain silent. Everyone at TMB not only is open to the other side of the story, but rather encourages it. If someone says I have blue hair, and I don't contradict their statement. You can assume that I either have blue hair, or assume that I don't really care if everyone thinks I have blue hair. Sometimes silence is a good indication of the other side of the story. Through much discussion, the truth will usually shake out. Those in the right usually have nothing to hide. Those in the wrong....well.....they fear open discussion and communication. Keep telling the truth.......you never need to fear contradicting yourself. Its quite telling when someone states that they care not that everything they write or speak be shared. Or, as the proverb goes: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 11:15:55 GMT -5
Another experience of Graham's that should examined is his handling of the case of Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnston in ChCh in banning them from meetings. In both of the above cases, was Graham as dictatorial and authoritarian as the overseers he criticizes? It's a fair question and worth looking at. bringing in false teachers amongst the congregation, amongst other things. Interesting to watch these speculative conversations on TMB. Both Graham and Steve have been vigorously defended here on TMB - almost to the point that it is impossible that either could do anything wrong. It would be ironic if Graham was the one who judged Steve to be a "false teacher" and banned him from meetings. If true it would also give validity to the claims "taken on too much authority" and "overstepped his place". Maybe overseers didn't want Steve banned from meetings. Then there is this: inappropriate behaviour towards sisters, VS this: In response to the opening post, Graham wrote in February 2005 that: Stan has branded me as one who is “dividing the work in SA”, “too friendly with women”, “jealous of Ian”. Speculating is so often just spinning wheels, never get anyone anywhere, but throw mud on everyone. Of course there is always the option of closing your eyes, plugging your ears and pretending that none of this is real.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 11:20:14 GMT -5
Or be subjective about what you think is real... that's probably worse than just ignoring it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 11:25:44 GMT -5
Or be subjective about what you think is real... That would be a better option than dismissing everything as useless mudslinging. At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 11:34:43 GMT -5
It's a fact there is a one-sided paper trail, yes that part is a real fact. The problem is vetting if there are facts in the one-sided paper trail, and if there are exactly what they are. I'm not as expert at that as so many other TMB participants with the amazing ability to put together a puzzle blindfolded. I never learned to do that so I'll probably just watch.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2014 11:36:23 GMT -5
Or be subjective about what you think is real... That would be a better option than dismissing everything as useless mudslinging. At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real. At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 11:37:51 GMT -5
Rational! That should settle it! But it won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 11:40:57 GMT -5
It's a fact there is a one-sided paper trail, yes that part is a real fact. The problem is vetting if there are facts in the one-sided paper trail. I'm not as expert at that as so many other TMB participants with the amazing ability to put together a puzzle blindfolded. I never learned to do that so I'll probably just watch. Most of the NT bible consists of a one-sided paper trail.....there is no information given as to what the epistles are responding to or what was responded from them. Why does that work for you and this doesn't?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 11:42:02 GMT -5
That would be a better option than dismissing everything as useless mudslinging. At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real. At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real. Are you saying that it may not be a fact that there is a 10 year paper trail?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2014 11:44:53 GMT -5
Rational! That should settle it! But it won't. No. But it is understandable that many of those who want to see the F&W modified and reworked see Graham as their champion and accept the faults he has alluded to without question. It is such a mixture of vague accusations, personal issues, spiritual issues, and other issues that are only hinted at, that it is difficult to separate them out and, without being able to look at the other side of the claims, impossible to evaluate.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 11:48:21 GMT -5
Most of the NT bible consists of a one-sided paper trail.....there is no information given as to what the epistles are responding to or what was responded from them. Why does that work for you and this doesn't? It doesn't always work for me, for the same reasons the one sided paper trail here doesn't work for me. Did Graham ban Steve from meetings? Steve was in our field and I liked him very much.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2014 11:52:01 GMT -5
At least in this case, there is a factual paper trail that extends over a decade. That part is real. Are you saying that it may not be a fact that there is a 10 year paper trail? No, I am saying that we do not know if it is a factual paper trail.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 11, 2014 12:07:59 GMT -5
If someone were to post on the TMB that "John Dough" is the mastermind behind the stolen credit cards at Target. I would probably be aware of it, and not remain silent. Everyone at TMB not only is open to the other side of the story, but rather encourages it. If someone says I have blue hair, and I don't contradict their statement. You can assume that I either have blue hair, or assume that I don't really care if everyone thinks I have blue hair. Sometimes silence is a good indication of the other side of the story. Through much discussion, the truth will usually shake out. Those in the right usually have nothing to hide. Those in the wrong....well.....they fear open discussion and communication. Keep telling the truth.......you never need to fear contradicting yourself. Its quite telling when someone states that they care not that everything they write or speak be shared. Truth doesn't always shake out in conversations. That is why there are many warnings about human imagination. I have seen imagination over rule truth many times. Why did Jesus "answer not a word"? He knew even truth wouldn't change imagination. So truth can be on the side of silence. If imagination over-ruled truth, I would guess that there was not a true,open, two way conversation. This is the problem with not wanting to bring it in the open, for true, open, two way conversation. No hidden agendas. Just for the good of the kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 11, 2014 12:28:19 GMT -5
If someone were to post on the TMB that "John Dough" is the mastermind behind the stolen credit cards at Target. I would probably be aware of it, and not remain silent. Everyone at TMB not only is open to the other side of the story, but rather encourages it. If someone says I have blue hair, and I don't contradict their statement. You can assume that I either have blue hair, or assume that I don't really care if everyone thinks I have blue hair. Sometimes silence is a good indication of the other side of the story. Through much discussion, the truth will usually shake out. Those in the right usually have nothing to hide. Those in the wrong....well.....they fear open discussion and communication. Keep telling the truth.......you never need to fear contradicting yourself. Its quite telling when someone states that they care not that everything they write or speak be shared. Truth doesn't always shake out in conversations. That is why there are many warnings about human imagination. I have seen imagination over rule truth many times. Why did Jesus "answer not a word"? He knew even truth wouldn't change imagination. So truth can be on the side of silence. If I ran my business in silence as you are suggesting, I would surely fail. If I ran my marriage in silence as you are suggesting, it would surely fail. If I raised my children in silence as you are suggesting, I would surely fail. Successful relationships are only possible by OPEN, TWO WAY communication. Our fellowship is about relationships. Why would it be any different?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 12:43:25 GMT -5
Ok Jon, how do you communicate with someone who insists their imagination is automatically interchangeable with truth? They don't want two way conversation - it's their way or the highway. That is what I'm talking about. There are people like that everywhere including here on TMB, it's an all to common carnal failure. When that is who you are talking to the only rational approach might be to "answer not a word".
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 11, 2014 12:51:47 GMT -5
Ok Jon, how do you communicate with someone who insists their imagination is automatically interchangeable with truth? They don't want two way conversation - it's their way or the highway. That is what I'm talking about. There are people like that everywhere including here on TMB, it's an all to common carnal failure. When that is who you are talking to the only rational approach might be to "answer not a word". If someone cannot have a two way conversation, they are not worth having a relationship with. If its a marriage, it should have been ended before marriage. Business.....I would rid my business of anyone that didn't want to have two way conversation. Kids, thats my responsibility to insure this happens. Church....well, this type of person should defintely not be in any place of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 13:49:34 GMT -5
Speculating is so often just spinning wheels, never get anyone anywhere, but throw mud on everyone. What is the following statement if its not speculation? Maybe overseers didn't want Steve banned from meetings. A number of overseers were involved in rejecting Steve Blubaugh: Gilbert Ricter, Ron Thomke and Joe Hobbs. Alan Richardson and Robin Schofield banned Steve from meetings in New Zealand on the request of American overseers.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 14:24:22 GMT -5
Got proof?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 14:26:27 GMT -5
It goes like this:
1. First you discuss an issue here and the suppressors say: oh you have no proof that anything like that was said. 2. Then you present what was said in writing and the response is: oh it's only part of it and not clear and concise for me. 3. Then you present more of it and they say: oh it's all one sided. 4. Then you present responses from the other side and they say: oh you have an agenda. 5. Then you present everything there is on it and they say: oh there's more to it than that.
And on it goes.
|
|