Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:15:41 GMT -5
Were any friends living in the vicinity of this tragedy? Did overseer Mark Huddle visit any interdenominational religious services after the tragedy? Any E Mails about this event?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:24:36 GMT -5
i haven't heard that anyone professing was in the oso slide. i haven't heard if mark did anything or not...i don't think the truth is really setup for interdenominational activity...
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 6, 2014 14:53:18 GMT -5
Were any friends living in the vicinity of this tragedy? Did overseer Mark Huddle visit any interdenominational religious services after the tragedy? Any E Mails about this event?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:53:58 GMT -5
i haven't heard that anyone professing was in the oso slide. i haven't heard if mark did anything or not... i don't think the truth is really setup for interdenominational activity...Now that's the understatement of the year!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 18:24:45 GMT -5
The only way you grow a group is to get outside the confines of the group and reach out. The early 1900s workers understood that to a certain extent. Reproduction can keep a group kicking but that's about it.In order to get new blood, you have to get out of the comfort zone and show people you care about other people outside of the group. Even in Washington state, the numbers are done compared to the 1980s. Imagine if Mark and the WA workers showed up at some memorial service and even took part. Then these people might just come to their missions. People in WA seem to like Huddle over Holt, that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 19:06:02 GMT -5
i liked syndey holt but i also like mark huddle each have thier own strengths and weaknesses
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 19:10:17 GMT -5
Syndey Holt? sounds like a woman! wouldn't it be interesting to have sister workers as overseers! HD oops i spelt that wrong...its sydney
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 19:16:00 GMT -5
i don't know if that would cut it biblically, from the 1st century church anyways
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 6, 2014 19:27:20 GMT -5
I believe in asking God for direction ... If it was Gods direction, sister workers could be made overseers. Who would God tell that to?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 7, 2014 9:32:05 GMT -5
Which just points out another flaw in what people think was a perfect early church. The Gnostics believed that women could be leaders and the early church fought that tooth and nail. And won, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 7, 2014 12:30:44 GMT -5
I believe in asking God for direction ... If it was Gods direction, sister workers could be made overseers. An interesting story comes to mind. We've been told that back in the "early days" of the fellowship in New Zealand, one year it was decided that sister workers should not be part of the ministry. So, that year they were not sent out to preach. However, that year, nobody professed. It was then decided that it was God's will that women should be part of the ministry. Is growth important and does it signify anything? Personally, I don't like talking about growth as if numbers prove anything. What matters to me is: does the church create an environment of support and care both for the believer and unbeliever, and is it ready to do away with arbitrary rules and rules that are not essential to salvation but are rooted in tradition more than the Scripture if and when they are shown to hinder more than help? The early 2x2 church in NZ seemed to be able to do that at least in this case. Should we act only when God gives us specific instructions in prayer or should we also consider the consequences of action/inaction? It makes no difference to me whether SW's can be overseers or not. But whether we can act only when God specifically tells us to is a relevant issue today in the fellowship where unwillingness to speak up against evils and to ask for CSA guiedelines is being justified by saying that "we can't do anything without the prompting of the Spirit."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 12:59:12 GMT -5
Hello Maja, What year was that?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 7, 2014 14:31:45 GMT -5
Hello Maja, What year was that? Not sure what year it was. We were told about it by Roy Price, a NZ worker. Later on, somebody else told us that the experiment with the SW's happened before the excommunication of Edward Cooney. BTW, Roy's first companions were a married couple, Ralph and Rene Beattie: docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnwyeDJoaXN0b3J5fGd4OjYwNjliYzYyNWI0M2Q2ZjARoy referred to that time as "the grand old days" Wonder how things would be different today if married couples were still allowed in the ministry...?
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Apr 8, 2014 1:45:19 GMT -5
I believe in asking God for direction ... If it was Gods direction, sister workers could be made overseers. An interesting story comes to mind. We've been told that back in the "early days" of the fellowship in New Zealand, one year it was decided that sister workers should not be part of the ministry. So, that year they were not sent out to preach. However, that year, nobody professed. It was then decided that it was God's will that women should be part of the ministry. Is growth important and does it signify anything? Personally, I don't like talking about growth as if numbers prove anything. What matters to me is: does the church create an environment of support and care both for the believer and unbeliever, and is it ready to do away with arbitrary rules and rules that are not essential to salvation but are rooted in tradition more than the Scripture if and when they are shown to hinder more than help? The early 2x2 church in NZ seemed to be able to do that at least in this case. Should we act only when God gives us specific instructions in prayer or should we also consider the consequences of action/inaction? It makes no difference to me whether SW's can be overseers or not. But whether we can act only when God specifically tells us to is a relevant issue today in the fellowship where unwillingness to speak up against evils and to ask for CSA guiedelines is being justified by saying that "we can't do anything without the prompting of the Spirit." There were no NZ sister workers in 1913. The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 12, 2014 2:58:28 GMT -5
An interesting story comes to mind. We've been told that back in the "early days" of the fellowship in New Zealand, one year it was decided that sister workers should not be part of the ministry. So, that year they were not sent out to preach. However, that year, nobody professed. It was then decided that it was God's will that women should be part of the ministry. Is growth important and does it signify anything? Personally, I don't like talking about growth as if numbers prove anything. What matters to me is: does the church create an environment of support and care both for the believer and unbeliever, and is it ready to do away with arbitrary rules and rules that are not essential to salvation but are rooted in tradition more than the Scripture if and when they are shown to hinder more than help? The early 2x2 church in NZ seemed to be able to do that at least in this case. Should we act only when God gives us specific instructions in prayer or should we also consider the consequences of action/inaction? It makes no difference to me whether SW's can be overseers or not. But whether we can act only when God specifically tells us to is a relevant issue today in the fellowship where unwillingness to speak up against evils and to ask for CSA guiedelines is being justified by saying that "we can't do anything without the prompting of the Spirit." There were no NZ sister workers in 1913. The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6. SteveNZ, I see you refer to possible pregnancies amongst woman workers in NZ during William Irvine's visit in 1913. Do you know if there were in fact any pregnancies. I do know of a worker fathering a child with one of the friends during the 50's in NZ. Do you know of any more recent?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 12, 2014 6:53:03 GMT -5
The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6. So, 4 got pregnant? No . . . wait . . . I'm reading into that. I wonder what caused suspicion. Perhaps one sister worker told? Hard to know, but I would think a sister worker would be offended if she knew she was sent home because there was thought she might be pregnant. no matter when that story came out. Coincidence William Irvine was booted out in 1914 or so?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 12, 2014 14:20:36 GMT -5
Concerning there being no sister workers in NZ in 1913...Heres the link to the: 1905 - 1921 NZ Workers ListsBelow is a1912 letter & list from Willie Hughes giving statistics about sister workers in NZ for the court cases. The list pertains only to native New Zealand sister workers. Please note: there were other sister workers who were preaching in NZ in 1912 who were from "the old country" who were shuffled to Australia during that year. Willie Hughes preached in New Zealand from 1909-1913. Wilson McClung and Bill Carroll were running the 1913 Crocknacrieve convention--I assume this bcs both of them were signing checks in July/Aug 1913 and I have copies. After the convention, Wilson who was Overseer of Victoria left to be the overseer of New Zealand; and Bill Carroll, wife and dtr took Wilson McClung's place and he become the overseer of Victoria. Previous to this Bill Carroll & wife had preached in the UK/Ireland. 1910 – 8 sister workers 1911 – 6 sister workers 1912 – 10 sister workers 1913 - 0 sister workers (3 went to Australia) 1914 - 6 sister workers + Mrs. McClung (4 returned who were on 1912 list plus 2 entered the work) Susan Hooper disappears after 1912; was there in 1910, 1911, 1912 Mary McLeod only in 1912 – disappears Mabel Wix disappears after 1912; was there in 1911, 1912 Does anyone know where Mabel Wix was in 1913 and after? Fixit is pretty sure she was in the work until she died. I cant find any record of her--but that doesnt mean anything. I dont have many foreign workers lists. I know her siblings Lottie & George were preaching in Switzerland and her sister Alice was in NZ and Aust...but where was Mabel preaching?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 12, 2014 14:46:54 GMT -5
An interesting story comes to mind. We've been told that back in the "early days" of the fellowship in New Zealand, one year it was decided that sister workers should not be part of the ministry. So, that year they were not sent out to preach. However, that year, nobody professed. It was then decided that it was God's will that women should be part of the ministry. Is growth important and does it signify anything? Personally, I don't like talking about growth as if numbers prove anything. What matters to me is: does the church create an environment of support and care both for the believer and unbeliever, and is it ready to do away with arbitrary rules and rules that are not essential to salvation but are rooted in tradition more than the Scripture if and when they are shown to hinder more than help? The early 2x2 church in NZ seemed to be able to do that at least in this case. Should we act only when God gives us specific instructions in prayer or should we also consider the consequences of action/inaction? It makes no difference to me whether SW's can be overseers or not. But whether we can act only when God specifically tells us to is a relevant issue today in the fellowship where unwillingness to speak up against evils and to ask for CSA guiedelines is being justified by saying that "we can't do anything without the prompting of the Spirit." There were no NZ sister workers in 1913. The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6.
WOW, that's interesting! Wouldn't it have been better to just do something about William Irvine? Also what about all the other young women at the convention? Wouldn't they also be in jeopardy as well?
(of course it could be just a rumor)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 13, 2014 13:12:00 GMT -5
There were no NZ sister workers in 1913. The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6.
WOW, that's interesting! Wouldn't it have been better to just do something about William Irvine? Also what about all the other young women at the convention? Wouldn't they also be in jeopardy as well?
(of course it could be just a rumor)
Dmmichgood ~ It would appear that William Irvine probably made regular rounds among the female element of the ministry and some became impregnated as a result and disappeared from his service? Perhaps he had a problem with keeping his pants zipped due to his new Omega revelations, which caused a split within the group around 1914? It seems that the "Truth" group prevailed and William Irvine got the "boot" for his actions when problems within the fellowship started to hit the fan?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 21, 2014 6:23:38 GMT -5
An interesting story comes to mind. We've been told that back in the "early days" of the fellowship in New Zealand, one year it was decided that sister workers should not be part of the ministry. So, that year they were not sent out to preach. However, that year, nobody professed. It was then decided that it was God's will that women should be part of the ministry. Is growth important and does it signify anything? Personally, I don't like talking about growth as if numbers prove anything. What matters to me is: does the church create an environment of support and care both for the believer and unbeliever, and is it ready to do away with arbitrary rules and rules that are not essential to salvation but are rooted in tradition more than the Scripture if and when they are shown to hinder more than help? The early 2x2 church in NZ seemed to be able to do that at least in this case. Should we act only when God gives us specific instructions in prayer or should we also consider the consequences of action/inaction? It makes no difference to me whether SW's can be overseers or not. But whether we can act only when God specifically tells us to is a relevant issue today in the fellowship where unwillingness to speak up against evils and to ask for CSA guiedelines is being justified by saying that "we can't do anything without the prompting of the Spirit." There were no NZ sister workers in 1913. The other version of that story is that all the sister workers were sent home for 1913 because William Irvine had been visiting NZ for conventions and there was concern that one or more of the sister workers might be pregnant. In 1912 there were 10 sister workers in NZ. In 1914 there were 6. In 'the old days' they had couples in the work due to a shortage of workers in NZ. Charlie and Rita Steel were one couple.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 21, 2014 8:42:00 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard of the Steels. How long were they in the work? Can you tell us any more about them? I find Charlie Steel with F. Plews in the work on a 1921 NZ workers list.I have 1913 - 1921 workers list, but dont have old lists after 1921. Here is the link to my list of married workers. List of married workers on TTTTnx, Cherie
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 21, 2014 13:27:31 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard of the Steels. How long were they in the work? Can you tell us any more about them? I find Charlie Steel with F. Plews in the work on a 1921 NZ workers list.I have 1913 - 1921 workers list, but dont have old lists after 1921. Here is the link to my list of married workers. List of married workers on TTTTnx, Cherie Cherie ~ Thanks for that list of married workers! I believe Ed and Carrie Gard were the married workers that my Dad first came in contact back in his late teens. My dad was born in Dec. 1908, so it does fit into the time frame of the workers' years in Upstate NY. He professed at one time for a short while, but left the group after a few years. My uncle told me he never got their strange teachings out of his head much later in a conversation after I left the 2x2's. I can vouch for that fact, since he preached to us kids when we were very young about the 2x2's being the only true way on the earth and called it "The Truth." That's one reason I recognized it later when two female workers came to my hometown and began meetings. I guess the guilt of my Dad's last words to me the night before his death moved me to profess back then, because he said, "If you ever find the Truth, don't turn our back on it." I knew in my gut that he must have been talking about this 2x2 group he came across in his youth, from all appearances. He would sometimes take us to a local church, but he would never go inside, but would sit in the car outside until it was over. I found that strange, but I believe it was connected to the conditioning of the 2x2's back in time, too? It reminded me of what I conveniently ignored growing up, as I didn't really believe such a group still existed until I was exposed to them two years later in November 1965, after my Dad's earlier death in a car accident in October 1963. That was also the same year that Kennedy died the next month in Dallas (Nov. 1963) and I was nearing 13 years old back then.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 23, 2014 4:40:59 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard of the Steels. How long were they in the work? Can you tell us any more about them? I find Charlie Steel with F. Plews in the work on a 1921 NZ workers list.I have 1913 - 1921 workers list, but dont have old lists after 1921. Here is the link to my list of married workers. List of married workers on TTTTnx, Cherie Rita told me many yrs ago. I didnt ask how long. All she said was they used the married couples because there werent enough workers. Rita was a lovely woman and Charlie a good man.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 23, 2014 5:42:44 GMT -5
This is the first I've heard of the Steels. How long were they in the work? Can you tell us any more about them? I find Charlie Steel with F. Plews in the work on a 1921 NZ workers list.I have 1913 - 1921 workers list, but dont have old lists after 1921. Here is the link to my list of married workers. List of married workers on TTTTnx, Cherie Charlie was listed 1921 with Stan Watchorn and Fred Plews 1922 with Jack Craig and Will Pickering 1923 with Stan Watchorn Rita Lillian Berryman (b1904) married St Elmo Charles Steele (b1896) in 1932 I don't think they were ever in the work as married workers. At some stage Charlie Steele was in Canada with his brother (John or William - not sure which).
|
|
jay
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jay on Aug 23, 2014 23:35:42 GMT -5
refer above 1922 with Jack Craig and Will Pickering.
In 1922 Jack Craig was with Percy Barelli in Victoria and 1923 also in Victoria (not sure who with)
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 24, 2014 6:57:20 GMT -5
refer above 1922 with Jack Craig and Will Pickering. In 1922 Jack Craig was with Percy Barelli in Victoria and 1923 also in Victoria (not sure who with) J Craig wasn't shown on the NZ list for 1923-1925. The 1926 list shows J Craig: Germany. Perhaps he was in Australia for most of 1922-1925.
|
|