Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 14:27:58 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". That's not only broadbrush, but it's false broadbrush. By far most readers want the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 14:31:18 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. Yep. Busted. "False prophet" is the most likely thing he was convicted for. So there you have it.....you liked a "false prophet"! I liked him too. A caring and gentle person who experienced the raw end of 2x2 hysteria and should never have been booted out.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 11, 2014 14:37:34 GMT -5
Another way Jesus dealt with questions that had an agenda was by asking the question have you not read? ken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 14:38:40 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. Totally agree. There is always a possibility of solutions and resolutions when there is good communications happening. It cannot happen when one party cuts off communication. Imagine if we had an angry client complaint and we just shut up. That's a guaranteed lawsuit and a lot more cost and hassle than just working it out in the first place. Kids should be encouraged to state their concerns without fear of reprisals and with full expectations of a reasoned response from the parents. Spouses should always expect a full and reasoned answer to any concern. It is extremely rare that a discussion should be cut off from anyone who has a relationship with you unless you can't help yourself from saying something hostile all the time.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 15:10:10 GMT -5
Its ironic, come to think of it, that people who claim to bring the message of salvation can be such poor communicators.
And as a rule of thumb, the further up the totem pole they are, the harder they are to communicate with.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 11, 2014 17:35:37 GMT -5
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. Yep. Busted. "False prophet" is the most likely thing he was convicted for. So there you have it.....you liked a "false prophet"! I liked him too. A caring and gentle person who experienced the raw end of 2x2 hysteria and should never have been booted out. So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 11, 2014 17:46:19 GMT -5
Yep. Busted. "False prophet" is the most likely thing he was convicted for. So there you have it.....you liked a "false prophet"! I liked him too. A caring and gentle person who experienced the raw end of 2x2 hysteria and should never have been booted out. So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? Steve might have been poison anyway. I wonder if it was the people Steve influenced that maybe GT was trying to excommunicate. wasn't there, just curious. Sure do need facts when speculation like this starts floating around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 17:46:51 GMT -5
Yep. Busted. "False prophet" is the most likely thing he was convicted for. So there you have it.....you liked a "false prophet"! I liked him too. A caring and gentle person who experienced the raw end of 2x2 hysteria and should never have been booted out. So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? Long story. The fact relevant to this thread is this: GT would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meetings the year they were both in Christchurch. There is much more to the story of course, lots more facts, but that is what is relevant to this discussion. GT's anti-Steve (and anti-others in ChCh) position is a fact. If you want to discuss Steve's journey, how he fell out of favour with 2x2ism, who moved against him in the US and NZ to have him banned from fellowship meetings, etc., it really requires a new thread because it would represent a tangent from this thread. I have a journal of facts and I know you like facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 17:49:18 GMT -5
So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? Steve might have been poison anyway. I wonder if it was the people Steve influenced that maybe GT was trying to excommunicate. wasn't there, just curious. Sure do need facts when speculation like this starts floating around. No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort.
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Feb 11, 2014 18:00:31 GMT -5
So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? Long story. The fact relevant to this thread is this: GT would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meetings the year they were both in Christchurch. There is much more to the story of course, lots more facts, but that is what is relevant to this discussion. GT's anti-Steve (and anti-others in ChCh) position is a fact. ..... CD was Graham the senior worker in the field that year?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 18:03:47 GMT -5
Long story. The fact relevant to this thread is this: GT would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meetings the year they were both in Christchurch. There is much more to the story of course, lots more facts, but that is what is relevant to this discussion. GT's anti-Steve (and anti-others in ChCh) position is a fact. ..... CD was Graham the senior worker in the field that year? I believe so. In 2007, he was made junior worker and moved out of ChCH. He remained junior until recently. The American worker who formally banned Steve by email in December of 2005 while Steve was in NZ cited Graham as the primary informant for excommunication.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 18:11:24 GMT -5
Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort. I spent a few days with Steve more recently than that, and I found the same as CD. In August 2007 someone who actually knew what she was talking about gave an update on Steve:
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 11, 2014 18:16:52 GMT -5
Steve might have been poison anyway. I wonder if it was the people Steve influenced that maybe GT was trying to excommunicate. wasn't there, just curious. Sure do need facts when speculation like this starts floating around. No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort. The first mention of Steve Blubaugh in regards to GT was from you Clearday. The word "poison" was probably a wrong choice of words, but it was from the perspective as to how Steve would have been regarded, not my view of him. I've never met him.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2014 19:00:57 GMT -5
No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort. The first mention of Steve Blubaugh in regards to GT was from you Clearday. The word "poison" was probably a wrong choice of words, but it was from the perspective as to how Steve would have been regarded, not my view of him. I've never met him. It's a concern that the word "poison" came out of nowhere. That's dangerous stuff. There are always people who will believe such suggestions. Really, how people regard Steve or any one of us is immaterial. We should judge actions and attitudes, not people. From Thee I would not hide my sin because of fear what men may think; I hate my pride, and as I am appear. Just as I am, O Lord, not what I'm thought to be; just as I am, a struggling soul for life and liberty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2014 19:11:01 GMT -5
No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort. The first mention of Steve Blubaugh in regards to GT was from you Clearday. The word "poison" was probably a wrong choice of words, but it was from the perspective as to how Steve would have been regarded, not my view of him. I've never met him. Yes. "....would have been regarded as poison by those excommunicating him" is practically a given fact because that would be the case in practically every excommunication. Certainly "false doctrine" charges were levelled at him(he preached grace a lot) and that would be regarded as poison. There was no poison that I could detect, and I certainly tried.....my reliable "canary in the mine" told me there wasn't any. Grace wasn't the primary source of the hysteria though.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 12, 2014 0:00:36 GMT -5
Clearday, do you know if Graham ever banned anyone else from meetings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 0:03:56 GMT -5
Clearday, do you know if Graham ever banned anyone else from meetings? No but I could look into it if you are interested in the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2014 0:53:52 GMT -5
Yep. Busted. "False prophet" is the most likely thing he was convicted for. So there you have it.....you liked a "false prophet"! I liked him too. A caring and gentle person who experienced the raw end of 2x2 hysteria and should never have been booted out. So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? A part of a message sent to me: Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnson were in contact with Paul Fiddymont (an ex NZ worker who was not a ‘happy camper’ when he left the work) and several other Christchurch friends. These people together had unusual practices. Long prayer sessions with candles, Gary has since proved to be mentally unwell and I think he was known as ‘the Holy Prophet’ or some such title. So SB &GJ arrive in Chch and with the help of their people in Chch start moving amongst our friends and expressing ‘their way of doing things’. I have spoken personally with a brother in law of one of that group of people. He told me of his experience of being invited for a visit to a home and where it was ‘set up’ for Gary to have a talk with him. This man is a sound good man and saw through the whole thing immediately. Anyway GJ come to a gospel meeting and GT met him before he entered the hall and told him he was not welcome/not allowed to attend the meeting and so Gary went away. GT’s companion was most uneasy with what GT did but did not feel able to speak up about it at the time. ‘The group’ protested about what GT had done with GJ. It was an awkward embarrassing situation for Alan and the other workers in Chch city as it is questionable as to the legality of what GT did in not allowing him to attend a public meeting. GT was just one of three sets of workers in the city of Chch. There were sisters in the field where the two Fiddymont families lived. GT wanted them excommunicated but the sister there felt it better to just take it quietly with them, she told me GT got so worked up he was red in the eyes when she was not agreeable to what he wanted. Alan came down to Christchurch and had visits with all involved. He asked GT to accompany him on these visits but GT refused. Alan handled the situation in a soft and patient manner and it has all quietened down and ‘fizzled out’ now. Workers who were there said we would have lost a number of young people, Fiddymont children etc if a harsh authoritarian approach had been followed. SB has ceased his visits to NZ, some who were so ‘taken up with him’ previously no longer feel as they once did. GJ is under mental health care, friends and workers in the city visit and care for him as they can.
it's a crazy old world!...and you don't get the 'gospel truth' of the situation by what you read on TMB!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 12, 2014 1:26:36 GMT -5
This certainly seems to be another side of the story. So Graham did ban Steve from meetings? That is a fact? A part of a message sent to me: Steve Blubaugh and Gary Johnson were in contact with Paul Fiddymont (an ex NZ worker who was not a ‘happy camper’ when he left the work) and several other Christchurch friends. These people together had unusual practices. Long prayer sessions with candles, Gary has since proved to be mentally unwell and I think he was known as ‘the Holy Prophet’ or some such title. So SB &GJ arrive in Chch and with the help of their people in Chch start moving amongst our friends and expressing ‘their way of doing things’. I have spoken personally with a brother in law of one of that group of people. He told me of his experience of being invited for a visit to a home and where it was ‘set up’ for Gary to have a talk with him. This man is a sound good man and saw through the whole thing immediately. Anyway GJ come to a gospel meeting and GT met him before he entered the hall and told him he was not welcome/not allowed to attend the meeting and so Gary went away. GT’s companion was most uneasy with what GT did but did not feel able to speak up about it at the time. ‘The group’ protested about what GT had done with GJ. It was an awkward embarrassing situation for Alan and the other workers in Chch city as it is questionable as to the legality of what GT did in not allowing him to attend a public meeting. GT was just one of three sets of workers in the city of Chch. There were sisters in the field where the two Fiddymont families lived. GT wanted them excommunicated but the sister there felt it better to just take it quietly with them, she told me GT got so worked up he was red in the eyes when she was not agreeable to what he wanted. Alan came down to Christchurch and had visits with all involved. He asked GT to accompany him on these visits but GT refused. Alan handled the situation in a soft and patient manner and it has all quietened down and ‘fizzled out’ now. Workers who were there said we would have lost a number of young people, Fiddymont children etc if a harsh authoritarian approach had been followed. SB has ceased his visits to NZ, some who were so ‘taken up with him’ previously no longer feel as they once did. GJ is under mental health care, friends and workers in the city visit and care for him as they can.
it's a crazy old world!...and you don't get the 'gospel truth' of the situation by what you read on TMB!
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 12, 2014 2:45:45 GMT -5
This was posted on another thread :I see. From what I've seen posted here though they are already turning on him. A few of them anyway. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction once the shock wears off. Go into damage control and decide that maybe the person wasn't as good as they thought. After all he left the perfect way, got to be something wrong with him! Same old same old really. I agree with you many are seeking answers, some seem to be past that and into the deny phase but others may continue asking and seeking. It will be interesting to see how far reaching this issue becomes. Lots are turning on him I think.
I don't so much see it as turning on him as becoming wary. GT is a great man. He has been so helpful in the work and much admired for his courage in bringing the CSA thing into the open. However..since reading this forum I have asked around a bit, as I am interested to see just what peoples reaction is to him leaving the work. (Before I get pounced on) I am NOT a worker, I am NOT an elder, just an average JO Bloggs middle age professional with no agenda, just a love for God and his people. Generally people are not interested in what happened 70 years ago, they are not really interested either in the 'he said , I said ' Australian overseer drama. They are interested in the here and now and what NZ issues forced Graham to leave the work.
After what has happened in the past people believe that GT thinks divorced folks have no place in the fellowship and that as a senior worker he has the right to enforce this and that he is 'spirit led' on this matter (see previous quotes re baptism) He also believes that he should have been allowed to excommunicate people that he thought had wrong doctrine (see quote re Ch Ch). Alan would not back him on these issues. I for one am extremely grateful to Alan that he took this stand. I can only shudder to think what would have happened if GT had allowed to proceed with his ideas. Anyone I have ever spoken to has had great admiration for the way that Alan handles problems - he is very approachable and always gives a well thought out reply. Alan did not back him in these decisions. Could it be that the many references made in GT's letters to 'unresolved issues' were in fact issues that Alan wouldn't back down on. Maybe it was GTs way or no way and is that approach really what we want? Would you like to see a fellowship in NZ that excludes those that have been divorced? Maybe this is the reason people are not jumping on TMB in their 00's to support him - because they dont?
Just a thought!!
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 12, 2014 4:05:11 GMT -5
Main points in the Graham Thompson email below: Graham's comments that: - I no longer believe that there is any man among the eldership of Australia or New Zealand who has a true and unswerving conviction and purpose to do only what is right in the sight of God.
- I see everywhere the willingness to please Man, rather than to please God.
- I have been in situations through which I have become aware of "judgements" and stands which are not only iniquitous but also thoroughly irrational.
Graham's request to not be a senior because of his belief "that the oversight system we now have in this region is nothing more than a hierarchy of self-exalting, self-righteous, and deceitful men, and I wish to take no part in responsibility or seniority under such a system." Graham's request to not have an overseas convention tour because he was so disheartened by events of the recent past ---------------------------------------------------- Email to an elder in Europe, February 2007 Dear G, Thanks for your email lately, it was nice to hear. You would have enjoyed your time in India, and no doubt it is very heartening to see the local workers there now in good numbers. You will have busy days now since your return, and there will be much to do. I trust that the coming days on conventions bring great blessing to all. I appreciated your brotherly care in your feelings expressed regarding my position of recent times, but I have to say that sympathy or relief for myself personally is not what concerns me most. My greatest concern and wish is that people who are responsible would address the problems that there are, which are well known to them, and yet it seems there is not the will to do so. It pains me greatly to see the fellowship being damaged, to see good people whose joy in their service has been taken away, to see workers who "follow trembling" and have no confidence in they who should be guides - and all because of things that never should have arisen and should never be allowed to continue. You remarked that there seemed to be only positive echoes emanating from this area, and perhaps that is so. But I guess you would understand that it can be that there are people who could have things to say who choose to remain silent. I suppose to those whose lot it has been to sail in the calm waters of "Status Quo Bay" there could seem to be good reason to feel positive. But some of us have been put in places where we have had to sail through deep waters, and it is in those places where you find out what are the currents that are flowing, and which way the winds are blowing. So maybe you could understand the distress that caused me to write to a brother some while ago saying, "I no longer expect support in matters of principle from any elder in this part of the world". I no longer believe that there is any man among the eldership of Australia or New Zealand who has a true and unswerving conviction and purpose to do only what is right in the sight of God. I see everywhere the willingness to please Man, rather than to please God. I have been in situations through which I have become aware of "judgements" and stands which are not only iniquitous but also thoroughly irrational. In a recent conversation with Alan Richardson he used the phrase "standard of judgement", and my comment to him was that to apply either of those words ("standard" or "judgement") in the current climate seemed to me to be an abuse of the English language, for neither in reality can be applied to some things that have been done. These feelings have come about through experiences both in Australia and also here since returning and being placed in Christchurch. In the past two years in Christchurch we have been face to face with some problems which are very serious, and we found that not only could we not count on support of the elder brothers, but they actively undermined our position and sidelined us through their unwise communication with the trouble-makers (from which we were deliberately excluded). Alan now says that he regrets having gone to these people without us, though when I protested to him earlier about it he would hear nothing of what I had to say. As I said to him, anyone should have known beforehand that it would be out of the question to do something like that, and the point that worries me most is the obvious lack of direction and wisdom that allowed these men to do such a thing. All of this has some connection with your comment about the reason for my placing with Colin of course, but not perhaps in the way you might expect. I was brought to the place where I had to request that I not be asked to have responsibility of a field or a younger companion. The principle reason for this is the straightforward one that over the past 18 months I had written to Alan a number of times about issues of the Kingdom, and some of those communications he only acknowledged but never replied to, and some he simply ignored and never even acknowledged. I spoke to him at Masterton in 2005/6 and said that I can't work like that and needed an assurance that it wouldn't happen. He didn't give the assurance but I still hoped that it wouldn't happen again, but through the year he did so again more than once. So I was left with no option but to make the request mentioned. A further reason was that AS (working in the city field neighbouring ours) promoted a terrible division in the ministry last year by upholding wrong elements that we had tried to withstand and though this was known to Alan he did nothing about it. A letter I wrote to him stating plainly that "my complaint is about my fellow-labourers knowingly supporting a division within the ministry" was one of those which was ignored. In the end I came to the place where to continue trying to work under those kind of circumstances was simply impossible. Another reason is that as a result of experiences I believe that the oversight system we now have in this region is nothing more than a hierarchy of self-exalting, self-righteous, and deceitful men, and I wish to take no part in responsibility or seniority under such a system. I'll attach a letter I wrote to Alan which touches on this point. Interestingly, at the time I wrote it he labelled it "offensive", but lately he told me that he feels that Stan was gravely in error in the way he wrote to me. You may therefore understand why I not only feel that there is little evidence of anointing of the Holy Spirit here, I also am beginning to question Alan's mental competence. You referred to the earlier suggestion that I be invited to conventions over your way. Stan Cornthwaite wrote to me telling me that the suggestion had been made and asking whether I thought my health would be up to it. My reply to him was that while my health may possibly be up to it I feel so disheartened by events of the recent past that I don't feel I could face it just now. And if I did have to go, I had doubts that I would be able to bring help in the way that would naturally be expected. So I asked him that no arrangements be made for me. Even so, he was still minded to just go ahead and proceed apparently, until Alan prevailed on him to leave it for a while. I don't know what would be likely to happen in that regard now. I don't really harbour any hopes or ambitions of going anywhere. I'm sorry that this has turned out to be rather long, when I know that you have a lot on your plate. There is much more that could be written, but perhaps it suffices to say that whatever I have written can be fully substantiated, and it would be possible to stand by every comment in any forum. I haven't written in this kind of detail about these things to anyone in a responsible position outside the region (even though I did give notice to Alan some good while ago regarding the abuses of power that I was aware of relating to Australian affairs that "an appeal to elders overseas is not out of the question"), so you will understand that I do so somewhat reluctantly and in the confidence that it will be received with all prudence. I would not disclose to Alan that you have emailed me or that I have replied, but I will be sending him a copy of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs of this. I believe that is the only fair thing to do when comments such as these have been made. There is very little of what I have written that has not already been shared with him. I trust all goes well there for you all at the present and also in the coming days. All the best, your brother Graham.
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Feb 12, 2014 6:34:49 GMT -5
I read the above post and also the one related by scott they appear to be addressing the same incident
Scotts account:
Alan came down to Christchurch and had visits with all involved. He asked GT to accompany him on these visits but GT refused.
Grahams letter:
In the past two years in Christchurch we have been face to face with some problems which are very serious, and we found that not only could we not count on support of the elder brothers, but they actively undermined our position and sidelined us through their unwise communication with the trouble-makers (from which we were deliberately excluded). Alan now says that he regrets having gone to these people without us, though when I protested to him earlier about it he would hear nothing of what I had to say. As I said to him, anyone should have known beforehand that it would be out of the question to do something like that, and the point that worries me most is the obvious lack of direction and wisdom that allowed these men to do such a thing.
These reports are totally contrary unless there was an occasion where Graham was asked to accompany Alan and he refused?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 10:18:45 GMT -5
I read the above post and also the one related by scott they appear to be addressing the same incident Scotts account: Alan came down to Christchurch and had visits with all involved. He asked GT to accompany him on these visits but GT refused. Grahams letter: In the past two years in Christchurch we have been face to face with some problems which are very serious, and we found that not only could we not count on support of the elder brothers, but they actively undermined our position and sidelined us through their unwise communication with the trouble-makers (from which we were deliberately excluded). Alan now says that he regrets having gone to these people without us, though when I protested to him earlier about it he would hear nothing of what I had to say. As I said to him, anyone should have known beforehand that it would be out of the question to do something like that, and the point that worries me most is the obvious lack of direction and wisdom that allowed these men to do such a thing. These reports are totally contrary unless there was an occasion where Graham was asked to accompany Alan and he refused? Regardless of whether Graham was invited or not, had Alan not intervened in the ChCh situation, Graham would have started another Alberta mess as some of the best friends ChCh had were about to get the chop. Alan may not have actually fixed the problem properly, but it is likely he prevented it from becoming an unmitigated disaster at the hands of Graham. Just my opinion based on tons of information surrounding the Johnson/Blubaugh story.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 12, 2014 12:03:40 GMT -5
Steve might have been poison anyway. I wonder if it was the people Steve influenced that maybe GT was trying to excommunicate. wasn't there, just curious. Sure do need facts when speculation like this starts floating around. No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort.I have to double consensus with "There wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him....quite the opposite.......he was a healing sort." Steve was a wonderful speaker, he also did his best to stand behind what he said! He was railroaded in the US. I heard both sides of the story or actually there was more then ONE side of the story opposing his point of view.....and what upsets me is that IH was the one who worked the hardest to get the US overseer,Gilbert Ricter, to send an overseer to that area to disfellowship Steve and his friend. Steve was working to help Johnson to come back to simple interpretation of the bible , is what I was told at the time....it seemed that all had given up on Johnson but Steve tried to stick it out to help him....so I guess anything that rumormill said Steve was doing that is what was taken as truth when the truth was far more complicated then that. Steve didn't get a very nice welcome when he came back to the states.....and I don't even think he was trying to be part of the 2x2 church, but it was just something to make his life more miserable! I question anything that's been spoken in regards to Steve in light of the 2x2 religion because of who it was that sought to destroy him here in the US and that was IH! And we all know about how good he was!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2014 13:26:57 GMT -5
No sense starting up speculation about poison. Fact: When Steve was in ChCh the year GT was the presiding worker, he would not allow Steve to attend fellowship meeting. Another fact: when I spent time with Steve in 2007, there wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him.....quite the opposite....he was a healing sort.I have to double consensus with "There wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him....quite the opposite.......he was a healing sort." Steve was a wonderful speaker, he also did his best to stand behind what he said! He was railroaded in the US. I heard both sides of the story or actually there was more then ONE side of the story opposing his point of view.....and what upsets me is that IH was the one who worked the hardest to get the US overseer,Gilbert Ricter, to send an overseer to that area to disfellowship Steve and his friend. Steve was working to help Johnson to come back to simple interpretation of the bible , is what I was told at the time....it seemed that all had given up on Johnson but Steve tried to stick it out to help him....so I guess anything that rumormill said Steve was doing that is what was taken as truth when the truth was far more complicated then that. Steve didn't get a very nice welcome when he came back to the states.....and I don't even think he was trying to be part of the 2x2 church, but it was just something to make his life more miserable! I question anything that's been spoken in regards to Steve in light of the 2x2 religion because of who it was that sought to destroy him here in the US and that was IH! And we all know about how good he was! Steve Blubaugh knew about IH's sexual immorality long before IH became overseer of Texas. It seems that Steve knew too much for his own good, and had to be eliminated as a credible witness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 13:41:30 GMT -5
"Regardless of whether Graham was invited or not, had Alan not intervened in the ChCh situation, Graham would have started another Alberta mess as some of the best friends ChCh had were about to get the chop. Alan may not have actually fixed the problem properly, but it is likely he prevented it from becoming an unmitigated disaster at the hands of Graham. Just my opinion based on tons of information surrounding the Johnson/Blubaugh story."
Clearday - if what you say is right, that does suggest that Graham's judgment may be questionable ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 13:51:50 GMT -5
I have to double consensus with "There wasn't an ounce of poison perceptible in him....quite the opposite.......he was a healing sort." Steve was a wonderful speaker, he also did his best to stand behind what he said! He was railroaded in the US. I heard both sides of the story or actually there was more then ONE side of the story opposing his point of view.....and what upsets me is that IH was the one who worked the hardest to get the US overseer,Gilbert Ricter, to send an overseer to that area to disfellowship Steve and his friend. Steve was working to help Johnson to come back to simple interpretation of the bible , is what I was told at the time....it seemed that all had given up on Johnson but Steve tried to stick it out to help him....so I guess anything that rumormill said Steve was doing that is what was taken as truth when the truth was far more complicated then that. Steve didn't get a very nice welcome when he came back to the states.....and I don't even think he was trying to be part of the 2x2 church, but it was just something to make his life more miserable! I question anything that's been spoken in regards to Steve in light of the 2x2 religion because of who it was that sought to destroy him here in the US and that was IH! And we all know about how good he was! Steve Blubaugh knew about IH's sexual immorality long before IH became overseer of Texas. It seems that Steve knew too much for his own good, and had to be eliminated as a credible witness. Of course the Americans were delighted that Graham Thompson looked to them to boot Steve. Graham's ill-advised campaign to excommunicate the ChCh people played right into the hands of those trying to cover up for IH. And which overseer sent Steve the email excommunication notice? You guessed it: Joe Hobbs. Little did Graham realize that the very corruption at the overseer level that he complains about is what made him successful in ridding Steve. If you connect the dots, it's ironic that IH's CSA activities are what helped Graham accomplish his task with Steve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 14:01:58 GMT -5
"Regardless of whether Graham was invited or not, had Alan not intervened in the ChCh situation, Graham would have started another Alberta mess as some of the best friends ChCh had were about to get the chop. Alan may not have actually fixed the problem properly, but it is likely he prevented it from becoming an unmitigated disaster at the hands of Graham. Just my opinion based on tons of information surrounding the Johnson/Blubaugh story." Clearday - if what you say is right, that does suggest that Graham's judgment may be questionable ... In my opinion, Graham completely botched the handling of the ChCh matter with Gary Johnson, Steve Blubaugh and several very wonderful couples and individuals in ChCh. I have yet to hear or see any evidence that would lead me to any other conclusion so far. That is not to say that his judgement is always wrong, but true to typical worker-form, he made his judgement without even listening to the ones he condemned. You have no idea how much suffering that caused needlessly on good people, even to this day. The matter has never been properly righted either so I'm not giving AlanR top marks on this either. In 2010, when Steve re-visited NZ, AR himself met with Steve to re-enforce the excommunication for which he claimed no responsibility.....just showing courtesy to the American workers. Unity among overseers is more important than getting it right, and AR is not exempt from that error.
|
|