Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 3:00:25 GMT -5
I think most of us here know the drill by now: speak up against the system in a just and sound manner and you get demonized, slandered, libelled and poorly treated. It's understandable, it's a defensive mechanism of a system that seeks to protect itself and perpetuate the status quo.
This thread is dedicated to all the negatives against Graham Thompson. It could be facts, it could be fiction, it doesn't matter, whatever is out there. This thread is a repository for all the bad stuff people are saying, writing or otherwise claiming against Graham Thompson.
From what I have sensed from his writings, GT would be perfectly fine with this thread. He wants the truth to come out and is prepared for the consequences.
So, what is the word "on the street"? Is GT being slagged or commended out there? Are there any refutations at all which soundly contradict his claims of serious issues at the overseer level? What reasons are people giving for his resignation from the ministry group?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 8:53:07 GMT -5
One of the rebuttals is that Graham is right in principle, but wrong in how he presented it.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Feb 8, 2014 10:43:31 GMT -5
One of the rebuttals is that Graham is right in principle, but wrong in how he presented it. To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 12:50:30 GMT -5
One of the rebuttals is that Graham is right in principle, but wrong in how he presented it. To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue. I have probably not conveyed the purpose of this thread properly. This thread's purpose IS to present both sides of the story. There are two or three other threads which are presenting only Graham Thompson's side of the story, making the whole issue subject to being one sided. There are readers now indicating that they feel the TMB is all pro-Graham Thompson and is not presenting the rest of the story. This thread is an invitation to present the other side that is against GT. Let's examine the "other side" of the story. So far, there isn't much presented against GT which points out his errors, but I am sure some things will emerge. One way or another, this thread is intended to eliminate the criticism that the TMB is one-sided and to encourage full disclosure of the facts. If there is "more to the story", let's hear it! If it is justified criticism, even more important present that here. If it is only unjustified "demonization", let's hear that too.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Feb 8, 2014 13:19:01 GMT -5
One of the rebuttals is that Graham is right in principle, but wrong in how he presented it. To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue.That is the whole problem - overseers do not want an open dialogue, but unquestioning submission to their decisions. They don't feel that they owe us answers to our questions. As long as the church as a whole does not ask for answers and the right to know what is happening, overseers will be free to make decisions without accountability and transparency. I believe that's why Graham even allows his correspondence to be shared with all - because he has exhausted attempts to accomplish anything through dialogue. Meanwhile, senior workers are confident that most friends won't dare to ask questions or ask directly for the other side of the story. And even if someone asks, they will be satisfied with answers that don't contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because they have been taught all their lives to "just trust." The overseers feel and teach that through them the Holy Spirit is directing from heaven. Hence a dialogue is pointless. There was no dialogue with Moses on Mt. Sinai because he had brought them the two tablets. But Paul and the apostles were open to dialogue as in Acts 6 and 15. Paul seems to feel in various of his epistles that he owed the saints a detailed explanation of problems and his views. By not engaging in dialogue, you can maintain an aloof stature and not get drawn into messy details and messy facts. A dialogue means opening a crack to differences of opinion which make it clear just how much human wisdom and judgements are involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 13:22:30 GMT -5
One way I have perceived to know which is a true report is to wait and see which one "changes." To my way of thinking, a false report by its very nature simply cannot remain the same over time, and, will (eventually) reveal itself as untrue.
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Feb 8, 2014 13:56:24 GMT -5
clearday. we wouldn't need this thread if graham would tell us exactly what the issues are. rumours and speculation have only come about through lack of real information.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Feb 8, 2014 15:14:36 GMT -5
To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue. I have probably not conveyed the purpose of this thread properly. This thread's purpose IS to present both sides of the story. There are two or three other threads which are presenting only Graham Thompson's side of the story, making the whole issue subject to being one sided. There are readers now indicating that they feel the TMB is all pro-Graham Thompson and is not presenting the rest of the story. This thread is an invitation to present the other side that is against GT. Let's examine the "other side" of the story. So far, there isn't much presented against GT which points out his errors, but I am sure some things will emerge. One way or another, this thread is intended to eliminate the criticism that the TMB is one-sided and to encourage full disclosure of the facts. If there is "more to the story", let's hear it! If it is justified criticism, even more important present that here. If it is only unjustified "demonization", let's hear that too. This appears to be fair enough. I would just ask where is Graham's thread? I haven't seen that yet. I would expect to see Graham posting it himself. Has he done that or do you know?
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Feb 8, 2014 15:20:24 GMT -5
To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue.That is the whole problem - overseers do not want an open dialogue, but unquestioning submission to their decisions. They don't feel that they owe us answers to our questions. As long as the church as a whole does not ask for answers and the right to know what is happening, overseers will be free to make decisions without accountability and transparency. I believe that's why Graham even allows his correspondence to be shared with all - because he has exhausted attempts to accomplish anything through dialogue. Meanwhile, senior workers are confident that most friends won't dare to ask questions or ask directly for the other side of the story. And even if someone asks, they will be satisfied with answers that don't contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because they have been taught all their lives to "just trust." The overseers feel and teach that through them the Holy Spirit is directing from heaven. Hence a dialogue is pointless. There was no dialogue with Moses on Mt. Sinai because he had brought them the two tablets. But Paul and the apostles were open to dialogue as in Acts 6 and 15. Paul seems to feel in various of his epistles that he owed the saints a detailed explanation of problems and his views. By not engaging in dialogue, you can maintain an aloof stature and not get drawn into messy details and messy facts. A dialogue means opening a crack to differences of opinion which make it clear just how much human wisdom and judgements are involved. They must present their side of the story otherwise we go off in all directions with suspicions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 15:51:33 GMT -5
clearday. we wouldn't need this thread if graham would tell us exactly what the issues are. rumours and speculation have only come about through lack of real information. There is already a copious amount of Graham's words posted here, and there is more emerging all the time. That's the problem, it is all one-sided in his direction. What we really need is what the F&W are saying from their perspective, whether justified or not. Without the other perspective, it will be Graham's words which become the established history on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:03:13 GMT -5
I have probably not conveyed the purpose of this thread properly. This thread's purpose IS to present both sides of the story. There are two or three other threads which are presenting only Graham Thompson's side of the story, making the whole issue subject to being one sided. There are readers now indicating that they feel the TMB is all pro-Graham Thompson and is not presenting the rest of the story. This thread is an invitation to present the other side that is against GT. Let's examine the "other side" of the story. So far, there isn't much presented against GT which points out his errors, but I am sure some things will emerge. One way or another, this thread is intended to eliminate the criticism that the TMB is one-sided and to encourage full disclosure of the facts. If there is "more to the story", let's hear it! If it is justified criticism, even more important present that here. If it is only unjustified "demonization", let's hear that too. This appears to be fair enough. I would just ask where is Graham's thread? I haven't seen that yet. I would expect to see Graham posting it himself. Has he done that or do you know? I have reason to believe that all words attributed to Graham here on the TMB are Graham's words. There appears to be a huge "paper trail" on these issues from Graham's perspective. There has been a reasonable attempt to present some of the other side of the story from Graham's records. However, I fully expect that a rebuttal narrative is being developed and sent out into the field for wide consumption. What is it? I expect we will hear how the workers are morally above rebutting and providing disclosure. However, they have to develop a narrative because people will be asking to try to make sense of it since Graham's narrative is not complimentary toward the "eldership" of the F&W fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:09:17 GMT -5
To make this a valid and believable thread you MUST present both sides of the story. Until then it is impossible to believe all the negatives. The trouble with so many threads is that the negatives always seem to go down as fact when in reality we just don't know the facts. We never seem to hear both sides of the dialogue.That is the whole problem - overseers do not want an open dialogue, but unquestioning submission to their decisions. They don't feel that they owe us answers to our questions. As long as the church as a whole does not ask for answers and the right to know what is happening, overseers will be free to make decisions without accountability and transparency. I believe that's why Graham even allows his correspondence to be shared with all - because he has exhausted attempts to accomplish anything through dialogue. Meanwhile, senior workers are confident that most friends won't dare to ask questions or ask directly for the other side of the story. And even if someone asks, they will be satisfied with answers that don't contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because they have been taught all their lives to "just trust." The overseers feel and teach that through them the Holy Spirit is directing from heaven. Hence a dialogue is pointless. There was no dialogue with Moses on Mt. Sinai because he had brought them the two tablets. But Paul and the apostles were open to dialogue as in Acts 6 and 15. Paul seems to feel in various of his epistles that he owed the saints a detailed explanation of problems and his views. By not engaging in dialogue, you can maintain an aloof stature and not get drawn into messy details and messy facts. A dialogue means opening a crack to differences of opinion which make it clear just how much human wisdom and judgements are involved. What usually happens (and what I expect in this case) is overseer silence in public, and overseer vocalization in private. That private narrative will form the official position on what happened with Graham. That's what we are looking for on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 8, 2014 16:24:43 GMT -5
I would love it to have Graham himself come here and post. Then questions can be answered right from his mouth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:28:06 GMT -5
clearday. we wouldn't need this thread if graham would tell us exactly what the issues are. rumours and speculation have only come about through lack of real information. There is already a copious amount of Graham's words posted here, and there is more emerging all the time. That's the problem, it is all one-sided in his direction. What we really need is what the F&W are saying from their perspective, whether justified or not. Without the other perspective, it will be Graham's words which become the established history on this. That's an excellent point, CD. The actual history of the start of this fellowship has been written by those who did the research and those who preach are now left with a reactionary, revisionist position--which would have been more convincing if they had been the first one out of the gate with the news. Graham has been willing to allow his paper trail to be made public; and if the overseers won't dialog publicly on this, Graham writes the story; the friends who know about it draw their own conclusions; and everyone is left to wonder what the overseers are hiding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 16:41:30 GMT -5
There is already a copious amount of Graham's words posted here, and there is more emerging all the time. That's the problem, it is all one-sided in his direction. What we really need is what the F&W are saying from their perspective, whether justified or not. Without the other perspective, it will be Graham's words which become the established history on this. That's an excellent point, CD. The actual history of the start of this fellowship has been written by those who did the research and those who preach are now left with a reactionary, revisionist position--which would have been more convincing if they had been the first one out of the shut with the news. Graham has been willing to allow his paper trail to be made public; and if the overseers won't dialog publicly on this, Graham writes the story; the friends who know about it draw their own conclusions; and everyone is left to wonder what the overseers are hiding. Exactly. The way it is headed, GT's story will become the official history and yet another black mark on the fellowship whether it is fully accurate or not. One complication is that there WILL be an unofficial insider story that differs from Graham's. These vacuums always get filled with something and in this case, it is most likely to get filled with defensive-type information. Some people will just get brush offs like "God will take care of it" or "oh, you don't know the full story" which will usually get a lot of people to back off but others will persist and get some kind of story, usually focusing the blame on some deficiency of the person who stood up for what they believed was right.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Feb 8, 2014 17:08:42 GMT -5
I suspect that in many cases the response will be a refusal to discuss it. There seems to be an entrenched mindset that if they shut up and ignore it, it’ll go away.
To get a response, friends will have to force the issue. This doesn’t have to be with aggression, but we will have to have a “don’t back down” attitude. It is important, this is what "standing for truth" is really about.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 8, 2014 17:19:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Feb 8, 2014 18:09:10 GMT -5
One way I have perceived to know which is a true report is to wait and see which one "changes." To my way of thinking, a false report by its very nature simply cannot remain the same over time, and, will (eventually) reveal itself as untrue. Very true, Dennis. My dear old Gram used to warn us kids about lying! She would say it would be a whole lot easier on you and the rest of us if you'd just start with the truth, that way you don't have to keep remembering what lie you said and at what time it was you said it. That said, people now days don't cotton to me very fast because I am pretty blunt with the truth when they ask a question....that's okay with me for if they want to make a false report of what I've said then it's the skin off their back not mine. It is so amazing sometimes when I just wait and watch and finally discover who is spreading lies......it's seems it's a way of life for a majority of certain kinds of people. This is why Jesus IS TRUTH! He IS the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and all the future tomorrows....we don't have to lie about him or to him....he IS truth!
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Feb 8, 2014 19:47:04 GMT -5
This appears to be fair enough. I would just ask where is Graham's thread? I haven't seen that yet. I would expect to see Graham posting it himself. Has he done that or do you know? I have reason to believe that all words attributed to Graham here on the TMB are Graham's words. There appears to be a huge "paper trail" on these issues from Graham's perspective. There has been a reasonable attempt to present some of the other side of the story from Graham's records. However, I fully expect that a rebuttal narrative is being developed and sent out into the field for wide consumption. What is it? I expect we will hear how the workers are morally above rebutting and providing disclosure. However, they have to develop a narrative because people will be asking to try to make sense of it since Graham's narrative is not complimentary toward the "eldership" of the F&W fellowship. I understand what you are saying. But the only way we can be accurate in our evaluation of what's going on is to have verifiable statements of what he said and what they said and what the subject of discussion was actually all about.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Feb 8, 2014 22:19:22 GMT -5
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”.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 8, 2014 23:44:36 GMT -5
What I'd guess is likely being said:
- sowing discord and dissension - rebelling against authority - seeking place and position - speaking against God's annointed - unwilling - lost his first love
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 9, 2014 0:01:25 GMT -5
- sowing discord and dissension - rebelling against authority - seeking place and position - speaking against God's annointed - unwilling - lost his first love Are you speculating, or are these things you have heard about GT specifically?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 9, 2014 0:02:39 GMT -5
- sowing discord and dissension - rebelling against authority - seeking place and position - speaking against God's annointed - unwilling - lost his first love Are you speculating, or are these things you have heard about GT specifically? Oh dear lord no i have not heard anything -- but I'd bet that's what's being said.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Feb 9, 2014 0:31:11 GMT -5
Here's a thought inspired from DJ's "cynical" thread: Clearday, would you consider revising the title? Since you state th.eat your purpose is to bring out "the other side, then I think that responses doing that should not all carry the label of "demonization."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 0:52:25 GMT -5
Here's a thought inspired from DJ's "cynical" thread: Clearday, would you consider revising the title? Since you state th.eat your purpose is to bring out "the other side, then I think that responses doing that should not all carry the label of "demonization." Actually, I was planning to change that wording to "rebuttal" and couldn't find where I could do that. Will look again. It is a balanced title though. Some people think that Graham is demonizing the overseers (most concern is over protecting the reputation of Alan Richardson) so it would only be fair for them to demonize Graham with either the truth or falsehood their response.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 9, 2014 1:01:39 GMT -5
If you just click the edit button on your first post, you should be able to change the thread title there. If not, let me know what you want it changed to. It is best if you do it, so I don't show up as editing your post. People might wonder what else I had changed.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2014 1:06:17 GMT -5
If you just click the edit button on your first post, you should be able to change the thread title there. If not, let me know what you want it changed to. It is best if you do it, so I don't show up as editing your post. People might wonder what else I had changed....... We know you wouldn't do sneaky stuff! Thanks, that worked. I was trying to find an edit for it on my subsequent posts with no luck.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 9, 2014 3:23:09 GMT -5
That's an excellent point, CD. The actual history of the start of this fellowship has been written by those who did the research and those who preach are now left with a reactionary, revisionist position--which would have been more convincing if they had been the first one out of the shut with the news. Graham has been willing to allow his paper trail to be made public; and if the overseers won't dialog publicly on this, Graham writes the story; the friends who know about it draw their own conclusions; and everyone is left to wonder what the overseers are hiding. Exactly. The way it is headed, GT's story will become the official history and yet another black mark on the fellowship whether it is fully accurate or not. One complication is that there WILL be an unofficial insider story that differs from Graham's. These vacuums always get filled with something and in this case, it is most likely to get filled with defensive-type information. Some people will just get brush offs like "God will take care of it" or "oh, you don't know the full story" which will usually get a lot of people to back off but others will persist and get some kind of story, usually focusing the blame on some deficiency of the person who stood up for what they believed was right. Another approach is the "Oh, we don't want to talk bad about someone else," with that knowing smile. I would also suspect the "GT was into things he shouldn't be messing with" statement. Overall, I think GT had an excellent approach to CSA. Too bad we don't have the majority of the friends and workers agreeing with him. Does leave us all to think "too little, too late," though.
|
|