Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 22:21:42 GMT -5
I wish I had taped our last talk with the workers. It is not just what they said it is the clinical indifference they had to people being hurt and it was purely a business transaction in the offer for me to be quiet about the problems. Some friends would be shocked how little the workers really felt about them.
More needs to be put onto utube. It doesn't feel good doing it - I thought about it. Afterwards I knew it would have been the most sensible thing to do. I regret not doing it myself. Be prepared before you have the talk it's no good wishing you had it in place afterwards.
Also if you have families you can share the whole experience - especially if there is any nastiness that won't be admitted afterwards. There is always something wrong with you if you are the victim. Prove them wrong let them show themselves up, a picture is worth a thousand words here. Also if the workers know if you are in the right and they are in the wrong. They will quote scripture and dodge around the issue like a pro. I said I was telling the truth and could look them in the eye I expected them to do the same. It worked. They stopped the bs.
Its just a little advice for those thinking of leaving the meeting particularly over an issue. It's back up for you even if you don't use it. It's helpful for your families. It can't be twisted or changed. It will show up who is bitter and nasty and has the wrong spirit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 8:09:37 GMT -5
There is so little about the Truth on you tube. No convention or meeting sermons there. I wished the Alberta tapes were on there along with photos of the excommunicating workers. My internet is too slow to upload...would take me forever.Brandon did upload audio of his excommunication by a Texas elder with approval from Lyle Schober and Clarence Mounce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 8:11:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 8:17:11 GMT -5
Brandon we are not here to argue...Hmmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 8:19:34 GMT -5
Just what the world needs - another foul mouthed video.
Quote - "They stopped the bs."
Did you use this term when you were IN the meeting? Or did you learn to use it AFTER leaving the meetings?
When you left this comment on another thread: Quote - "So don't be a dumb arse..."
I posed a similar question, but you wouldn't (or couldn't) answer it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 20, 2014 11:04:40 GMT -5
What right do they have to do that though? They are not the judges. If someone professed in their meeting they have a right to speak in the Sunday morning meetings or any meetings that the F&W hold. If they believe they are the only way to salvation, then they are condemning people to hell by kicking them out of the organization. At least that is how they would see it, that they were no longer saved.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 20, 2014 11:24:29 GMT -5
Nathan, it's all such a ridiculous mess. If you have been told you no longer can take part in the church you attend, what is the point of attending? You might as well go to a church where your voice can be heard. Workers should not have the power to silence people in meetings. They are supposed to be bringing people into the 'way' not kicking them out or telling them they cannot speak in meetings, which became their right when they professed. Also those who were baptized should not have the right of partaking in the bread and wine taken from them. They earned that right when they were baptized. The workers are not the ones they professed to or got baptized for. They were only the instrument that was used for that to take place. The only one that has the right to change that is the one they professed to love and follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 11:40:11 GMT -5
What right do they have to do that though? They are not the judges. If someone professed in their meeting they have a right to speak in the Sunday morning meetings or any meetings that the F&W hold. If they believe they are the only way to salvation, then they are condemning people to hell by kicking them out of the organization. At least that is how they would see it, that they were no longer saved. Actually, the workers do have the "right" to kick someone out of meeting. The F&W church was started by the workers and ever since the workers have maintained sole and full authority for who gets in, what participation level they are allowed, and who gets removed. From a church membership and participation point of view, yes, they are the judges. It's their party. None of the above would raise an eyebrow in most organizations except for the fact the membership in the F&W church is also seen as the sole means of being in God's favour for all eternity, as you correctly point out. That's what changes it all and makes all authority decisions on participation highly important to members and a potential tool for spiritual/emotional abuse. For non-exclusive people like myself, I can't be abused by the system in this manner but for exclusive people, any change with regard to participation can be extremely hurtful, particularly if removed altogether. The only answer to this is to encourage people to realize that membership or participation in any group has no bearing on eternal destination. It should be seen as a help or a hindrance, but never an essential. Only then will the power of the workers be properly curtailed and abuses minimized.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 20, 2014 11:40:32 GMT -5
I thought you said he wasn't allowed to speak? How can he pray without speaking?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 20, 2014 11:45:35 GMT -5
What right do they have to do that though? They are not the judges. If someone professed in their meeting they have a right to speak in the Sunday morning meetings or any meetings that the F&W hold. If they believe they are the only way to salvation, then they are condemning people to hell by kicking them out of the organization. At least that is how they would see it, that they were no longer saved. Actually, the workers do have the "right" to kick someone out of meeting. The F&W church was started by the workers and ever since the workers have maintained sole and full authority for who gets in, what participation level they are allowed, and who gets removed. From a church membership and participation point of view, yes, they are the judges. It's their party. None of the above would raise an eyebrow in most organizations except for the fact the membership in the F&W church is also seen as the sole means of being in God's favour for all eternity, as you correctly point out. That's what changes it all and makes all authority decisions on participation highly important to members and a potential tool for spiritual/emotional abuse. For non-exclusive people like myself, I can't be abused by the system in this manner but for exclusive people, any change with regard to participation can be extremely hurtful, particularly if removed altogether. The only answer to this is to encourage people to realize that membership or participation in any group has no bearing on eternal destination. It should be seen as a help or a hindrance, but never an essential. Only then will the power of the workers be properly curtailed and abuses minimized. Yes CD, because of their exclusivity clause that no other way leads to salvation, that is why I feel they should not be allowed to kick people out. Like you stated, it leads to emotional and spiritual abuse to give that power to the workers. And it has, often. That would be why D&R people attend meetings for years, not being allowed to speak or partake of the emblems. They are afraid of going to another church because of their spiritual status that they believe is contingent on being a 2x2. Theoretically yes, they formed the organization, they have the right to kick out. However, if they truly believe that it is about God and salvation, not about the organization itself, then they are not being honest about one aspect or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 12:25:32 GMT -5
Actually, the workers do have the "right" to kick someone out of meeting. The F&W church was started by the workers and ever since the workers have maintained sole and full authority for who gets in, what participation level they are allowed, and who gets removed. From a church membership and participation point of view, yes, they are the judges. It's their party. None of the above would raise an eyebrow in most organizations except for the fact the membership in the F&W church is also seen as the sole means of being in God's favour for all eternity, as you correctly point out. That's what changes it all and makes all authority decisions on participation highly important to members and a potential tool for spiritual/emotional abuse. For non-exclusive people like myself, I can't be abused by the system in this manner but for exclusive people, any change with regard to participation can be extremely hurtful, particularly if removed altogether. The only answer to this is to encourage people to realize that membership or participation in any group has no bearing on eternal destination. It should be seen as a help or a hindrance, but never an essential. Only then will the power of the workers be properly curtailed and abuses minimized. Yes CD, because of their exclusivity clause that no other way leads to salvation, that is why I feel they should not be allowed to kick people out. Like you stated, it leads to emotional and spiritual abuse to give that power to the workers. And it has, often. That would be why D&R people attend meetings for years, not being allowed to speak or partake of the emblems. They are afraid of going to another church because of their spiritual status that they believe is contingent on being a 2x2. Theoretically yes, they formed the organization, they have the right to kick out. However, if they truly believe that it is about God and salvation, not about the organization itself, then they are not being honest about one aspect or the other. Actually, in Brandon's case, it is in light of the exclusivity that the decision of the workers was quite rational regardless of whether one considers it right or wrong. Here is how I would summarize the most likely process from the workers' point of view: 1.Brandon preaches allegedly "false doctrine" in meeting. 2.Brandon's presence in meeting is driving away children and weak members (who will go to hell if they leave meetings). 3.Workers and elders make lots of effort to get Brandon's false doctrine corrected and he wouldn't budge. 4.Workers are faced with losing several weak members to a lost eternity if Brandon stays on in the meeting. 5.Brandon is going to hell anyway for his false doctrine so removing him and saving the children and others is the heroic and Godly thing to do!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 13:14:44 GMT -5
I wish I had taped our last talk with the workers. It is not just what they said it is the clinical indifference they had to people being hurt and it was purely a business transaction in the offer for me to be quiet about the problems. Some friends would be shocked how little the workers really felt about them. More needs to be put onto utube. It doesn't feel good doing it - I thought about it. Afterwards I knew it would have been the most sensible thing to do. I regret not doing it myself. Be prepared before you have the talk it's no good wishing you had it in place afterwards. Also if you have families you can share the whole experience - especially if there is any nastiness that won't be admitted afterwards. There is always something wrong with you if you are the victim. Prove them wrong let them show themselves up, a picture is worth a thousand words here. Also if the workers know if you are in the right and they are in the wrong. They will quote scripture and dodge around the issue like a pro. I said I was telling the truth and could look them in the eye I expected them to do the same. It worked. They stopped the bs. Its just a little advice for those thinking of leaving the meeting particularly over an issue. It's back up for you even if you don't use it. It's helpful for your families. It can't be twisted or changed. It will show up who is bitter and nasty and has the wrong spirit. I have mixed feelings about doing this because there's not a lot of upside unless it is used carefully. I suppose if you had a high degree of certainty that you were going to get abused in such a meeting and/or lied about afterward, at least you would have an accurate record. Otherwise, it is seen as a hostile move and release of it may backfire on the producer, particularly if they think it will protect them from losing the affections of their professing friends and family. It will likely have the opposite effect. I think if it happened to me, I would make accurate notes on the meeting, put the story together right after the meeting, and then send it out only to those who are close to me and whom I have hope of salvaging their relationships. I would make it factual and without rancour or anger. Being the first to get your story out there gives you far more advantage than a video or audio tape released later to counter the lies and slander. People tend to believe the first story the strongest, and the second story has to start from a hole and then climb out.....which is where a lot of people end up by not talking about their excommunication until much later. A video or audio tape could be helpful in specific cases where your family/friend hears a lie from another source and then you can use it a way that it will be accepted and listened to. Otherwise, taking a video and putting out on YouTube will be cheered by those who already agree with you, but will backlash against the insiders whom you may attempting to influence.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 20, 2014 13:55:48 GMT -5
Nathan, it's all such a ridiculous mess. If you have been told you no longer can take part in the church you attend, what is the point of attending? You might as well go to a church where your voice can be heard. Workers should not have the power to silence people in meetings. They are supposed to be bringing people into the 'way' not kicking them out or telling them they cannot speak in meetings, which became their right when they professed. Also those who were baptized should not have the right of partaking in the bread and wine taken from them. They earned that right when they were baptized. The workers are not the ones they professed to or got baptized for. They were only the instrument that was used for that to take place. The only one that has the right to change that is the one they professed to love and follow. Snow ~ Unfortunately, what you describe are workers putting themselves on the same level as God Himself with authority to excommunicate you for the least little offense in their eyes. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me that a number of people who leave the 2x2's become so fed up with the legalistic religious practices of the leadership that they turn their backs on God entirely and anything connected to church even within the outside world? However, this also seems to be the practice of any church who claims to be the "one and only true way to Heaven" when it comes to excommunication. You either allow yourself to be controlled and manipulated at will by the people in charge or you get the "royal boot" for having your own opinions and voicing them in meeting. Personally, it reminds me a lot of bullies in school and how they promote fear in others by their unfair and insensitive tactics.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jun 20, 2014 14:27:00 GMT -5
What right do they have to do that though? They are not the judges. If someone professed in their meeting they have a right to speak in the Sunday morning meetings or any meetings that the F&W hold. If they believe they are the only way to salvation, then they are condemning people to hell by kicking them out of the organization. At least that is how they would see it, that they were no longer saved. Actually, the workers do have the "right" to kick someone out of meeting. The F&W church was started by the workers and ever since the workers have maintained sole and full authority for who gets in, what participation level they are allowed, and who gets removed. From a church membership and participation point of view, yes, they are the judges. It's their party. That's one way of looking at it. It belongs to the workers and at their discretion they allow their friends to participate. Some claim that it belongs to Christ. If he is the head of it, then workers had better make sure Christ is calling the shots. Something else to consider is that today's workers didn't start it, but rather workers at the turn of the 20th century started it. William Irvine and Edward Cooney did more to start the church than those who booted them.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Jun 20, 2014 14:56:13 GMT -5
1) KC wrote: Wow pretty flimsey reasons and lots of playing the power card.~~~ Rational reply: While I am far from an expert in these things, these do not seem like flimsy excuses.
1) Meeting in the home and the worker's role - Two of the basic tenets of the F&W.2) Not bringing peace and harmony to the meeting - Why would any organization accept people who are disruptive?3) It is not clear what happened at convention but it sounds like the introduction of new ideas/methods somewhat in opposition to the beliefs of the F&W.While they all seem like trivial things to me, for those who believe in the F&W, these are, right or wrong, the foundation of their belief/organization. Why would someone who does not believe in the basic tenets of an organization want to remain a member? It seems like a Catholic stating that the Pope is not the head of the church on earth and wondering why Catholic's have a problem with that stance. ~~ Texasman reply: Flimsy?? When children attending the bible studies tell their parents they don't want to go if BM will be there - you don't think some of the peace has been lost from that little meeting? Again, if you don't know some, if not all of the details - other than some of the drivel BM is espousing, it might be best to take a more measured approach to the conversation versus the 'piling on' of the elders and workers. ~~ Jondough wrote: I really don't think most of you are seeing, or at least acknowledging the whole picture. Many of you have bits and pieces of it, but have not hit it on the head directly. I'd like to start first by saying that the point of this post is not whether I agree, or disagree with why or how Brandon was asked not to take part. I just want to clarify why I think the workers and elders took the stance they took. From my very first post, when this topic was still fresh, I suspected that the problem was that Brandon's conduct was destroying the unity in his meeting(s). I still feel that that is the "root" of why Brandon is being asked not to take part. As someone stated also, Sunday morning meeting is not a place to debate scripture. In fact, I believe that everyone of us should be doing what we can to add unity in our Sunday morning meeting. This meeting is a very sacred time and place where, when there is unity, the spirit is very evident as we gather around the emblems. It sounds like Brandon was showing up with his non-professing girlfriend, and was getting more and more bold with his agenda in getting others to see a different way of thinking that was not something that we all have been taught from our youth. I truly don't believe Brandon's thinking was the problem - or at least the main problem. It was the way he was trying to convert everyone else, and in his attempt was destroying the unity in the Sunday morning meeting. I too express my non-exclusivity views to others, but I am careful where I express them. When expressing them, there have been various reactions. Some agree, some partially agree, some are shocked that I would think such a thing. My parents are split on their view. I have stated many times that we shouldn't come to meetings to preach to others, but rather to share what we are thankful for, along with sharing our own needs and the food that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit to meet these needs (our own). This is what adds unity to the meeting. Not preaching to others because we think they have needs that we can fill. I can picture his Sunday meeting, and the turmoil this preaching (sometimes long) would have caused. Then it comes time to break bread, give thanks for the emblems, etc...The unity gone... It appears that this went on for some time. They attempted several times to talk to him about it, and came to the point where they realized that the only way to get the unity back into the meeting was to have Brandon stop taking part. The elders where given the burden of this task, and they handled it how they handled it. To sum it all up.... They took this action to get the unity and spirit back into the meeting. Something that was desperately needed and they all were probably starving for. [/quote] I like the way you have commented on this Nathan. Not judgmental at all but just stating the importance of unity and thinking alike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 15:04:53 GMT -5
Brandon's last testimony at Georgetown TX offended a great many including his elder, Lyle Schober and Clarence Mounce.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 20, 2014 15:13:13 GMT -5
I wish I had taped our last talk with the workers. It is not just what they said it is the clinical indifference they had to people being hurt and it was purely a business transaction in the offer for me to be quiet about the problems. Some friends would be shocked how little the workers really felt about them. More needs to be put onto utube. It doesn't feel good doing it - I thought about it. Afterwards I knew it would have been the most sensible thing to do. I regret not doing it myself. Be prepared before you have the talk it's no good wishing you had it in place afterwards. Also if you have families you can share the whole experience - especially if there is any nastiness that won't be admitted afterwards. There is always something wrong with you if you are the victim. Prove them wrong let them show themselves up, a picture is worth a thousand words here. Also if the workers know if you are in the right and they are in the wrong. They will quote scripture and dodge around the issue like a pro. I said I was telling the truth and could look them in the eye I expected them to do the same. It worked. They stopped the bs. Its just a little advice for those thinking of leaving the meeting particularly over an issue. It's back up for you even if you don't use it. It's helpful for your families. It can't be twisted or changed. It will show up who is bitter and nasty and has the wrong spirit. I have mixed feelings about doing this because there's not a lot of upside unless it is used carefully. I suppose if you had a high degree of certainty that you were going to get abused in such a meeting and/or lied about afterward, at least you would have an accurate record. Otherwise, it is seen as a hostile move and release of it may backfire on the producer, particularly if they think it will protect them from losing the affections of their professing friends and family. It will likely have the opposite effect. I think if it happened to me, I would make accurate notes on the meeting, put the story together right after the meeting, and then send it out only to those who are close to me and whom I have hope of salvaging their relationships. I would make it factual and without rancour or anger. Being the first to get your story out there gives you far more advantage than a video or audio tape released later to counter the lies and slander. People tend to believe the first story the strongest, and the second story has to start from a hole and then climb out.....which is where a lot of people end up by not talking about their excommunication until much later. A video or audio tape could be helpful in specific cases where your family/friend hears a lie from another source and then you can use it a way that it will be accepted and listened to. Otherwise, taking a video and putting out on YouTube will be cheered by those who already agree with you, but will backlash against the insiders whom you may attempting to influence. When I finally realized what was going on, I began wearing a recording device in my pocket so I could make more authoritative notes when I got home. I had made lots of notes previously, immediately after a confrontation, but as I learned more about what kind of questions to ask and what leading questions to refuse to answer, my sole purpose for even speaking to anyone was to get out of them what they were really up to. Twice I wrote stern letters of protest to workers, and I supplied our best friends with copies so they would not believe that I had written something I hadn't. I did that after it became very obvious that the workers were lying to and about the friends, and even to and about each other. As a consequence I was not booted out. It is probably much easier on one's intestinal fortitude to be summarily booted out, but I had decided to leave on my own terms and not before I had learned everything I wanted to learn. I was lucky -- I had lots of training and experience in dealing with slippery people and running annual general meetings. I can only imagine what a tornado some of these workers can put on people they decide to work over.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 20, 2014 16:19:23 GMT -5
Yes CD, because of their exclusivity clause that no other way leads to salvation, that is why I feel they should not be allowed to kick people out. Like you stated, it leads to emotional and spiritual abuse to give that power to the workers. And it has, often. That would be why D&R people attend meetings for years, not being allowed to speak or partake of the emblems. They are afraid of going to another church because of their spiritual status that they believe is contingent on being a 2x2. Theoretically yes, they formed the organization, they have the right to kick out. However, if they truly believe that it is about God and salvation, not about the organization itself, then they are not being honest about one aspect or the other. Actually, in Brandon's case, it is in light of the exclusivity that the decision of the workers was quite rational regardless of whether one considers it right or wrong. Here is how I would summarize the most likely process from the workers' point of view: 1.Brandon preaches allegedly "false doctrine" in meeting. 2.Brandon's presence in meeting is driving away children and weak members (who will go to hell if they leave meetings). 3.Workers and elders make lots of effort to get Brandon's false doctrine corrected and he wouldn't budge. 4.Workers are faced with losing several weak members to a lost eternity if Brandon stays on in the meeting. 5.Brandon is going to hell anyway for his false doctrine so removing him and saving the children and others is the heroic and Godly thing to do! So in effect, damning one to save the many? Ok. I do see it btw, I just think it's a power abuse considering what they believe about their 'way'. But I also see that they don't like disruption, new ideas or the chance that he may influence others to think 'falsely' too.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 20, 2014 17:09:51 GMT -5
Just what the world needs - another foul mouthed video.Quote - " They stopped the bs." Did you use this term when you were IN the meeting? Or did you learn to use it AFTER leaving the meetings?
When you left this comment on another thread:Quote - " So don't be a dumb arse..."I posed a similar question, but you wouldn't (or couldn't) answer it. Bert, your answer is typical of the "I'm more godly than you," response when someone is terribly upset by an injustice and uses "words" considered by people like you as "foul mouth!"
Now Tell me, which is worse, the injustice that occasioned the comments or the comments themselves?
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jun 20, 2014 17:37:15 GMT -5
Just what the world needs - another foul mouthed video.Quote - " They stopped the bs." Did you use this term when you were IN the meeting? Or did you learn to use it AFTER leaving the meetings?
When you left this comment on another thread:Quote - " So don't be a dumb arse..."I posed a similar question, but you wouldn't (or couldn't) answer it. Pffth. Cause you answer every post and question posed to you don't you Bert? What a crock. I've seen far worse posted on Facebook by one of your 'hearty' friends. Heavenhelpus didn't say these words or abbreviations to the workers, it was in reply to fixits post. And if she did it would be remarkably restrained to what they deserved to hear. Covering up a pedofile? If your church didn't do that kind of thing Bert you wouldn't need to be so obsessed with 'pederasts' or the like
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 18:20:34 GMT -5
If some professing person posts something rude on Facebook then they are rebeling against their faith. They are not, quote, "hearty" at all (and you know that.) If a non-professing person post something rude on Facebook they are being heartily normal.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jun 20, 2014 18:53:15 GMT -5
If some professing person posts something rude on Facebook then they are rebeling against their faith. They are not, quote, "hearty" at all (and you know that.) If a non-professing person post something rude on Facebook they are being heartily normal. I agree they're not 'hearty' but that is what they're known as by the workers & friends. I actually don't consider rude things posted on Facebook to be normal and I have 'unfriended' people when I found things they posted repeatedly to be offensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 18:55:26 GMT -5
Actually, in Brandon's case, it is in light of the exclusivity that the decision of the workers was quite rational regardless of whether one considers it right or wrong. Here is how I would summarize the most likely process from the workers' point of view: 1.Brandon preaches allegedly "false doctrine" in meeting. 2.Brandon's presence in meeting is driving away children and weak members (who will go to hell if they leave meetings). 3.Workers and elders make lots of effort to get Brandon's false doctrine corrected and he wouldn't budge. 4.Workers are faced with losing several weak members to a lost eternity if Brandon stays on in the meeting. 5.Brandon is going to hell anyway for his false doctrine so removing him and saving the children and others is the heroic and Godly thing to do! So in effect, damning one to save the many? Ok. I do see it btw, I just think it's a power abuse considering what they believe about their 'way'. But I also see that they don't like disruption, new ideas or the chance that he may influence others to think 'falsely' too. Close, but not quite. From their point of view, they aren't damning Brandon at all. They would see it as him damning himself. After all, he heard "the truth" for years and chose to accept false doctrine. He would be welcomed back anytime if he accepted "the truth" again.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 20, 2014 22:34:37 GMT -5
If some professing person posts something rude on Facebook then they are rebeling against their faith. They are not, quote, "hearty" at all (and you know that.) If a non-professing person post something rude on Facebook they are being heartily normal. "Rude", meaning what? Derogatory? Blasphemous? Profanity? Unfortunate truth? Disagreement? Belittling? Antisocial? If what you say is true, I know an awful lot of workers who are rebelling against their faith -- or is it just on Facebook that rude statements constitute rebelling against one's faith? No non-professing people who do not post anything rude are "abnormal"? Bert!!! Do you really mean that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 22:43:53 GMT -5
I am not talking about putting rude things on Facebook - I don't have one. But some things like workers attacking young girls and calling them evil and of the devil I find outrageous that sort of horrible bullying needs to be exposed. Brandon's private life is his private life. Most People only see the stilted polite facade put on by the workers. The last meeting we had Robert had an honest talk about the things that are wrong. He kept saying what I was saying was right and he wished the elder worker was there, he even wrote to him but the Elder worker NSW couldn't be bothered . Even though they said I was right they weren't prepared to fix it. Some of the workers know there are some serious flaws and don't agree with the way things are run but they won't stick their neck out. I was thinking using media and Seeing a senior worker sitting there saying things are wrong and speaking openly and honestly would make people question and maybe not put up with so much rubbish. Put it into perspective - it's not all about the "spirit" and airy fairy stuff. The way is not perfect and God is not in control it's people controlling this. See some behind the scenes stuff instead of seeing the stage. This is not about bitterness - it is about showing the organisation as it is.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jun 21, 2014 1:26:16 GMT -5
I am not talking about putting rude things on Facebook - I don't have one. But some things like workers attacking young girls and calling them evil and of the devil I find outrageous that sort of horrible bullying needs to be exposed. Brandon's private life is his private life. Most People only see the stilted polite facade put on by the workers. The last meeting we had Robert had an honest talk about the things that are wrong. He kept saying what I was saying was right and he wished the elder worker was there, he even wrote to him but the Elder worker NSW couldn't be bothered . Even though they said I was right they weren't prepared to fix it. Some of the workers know there are some serious flaws and don't agree with the way things are run but they won't stick their neck out. I was thinking using media and Seeing a senior worker sitting there saying things are wrong and speaking openly and honestly would make people question and maybe not put up with so much rubbish. Put it into perspective - it's not all about the "spirit" and airy fairy stuff. The way is not perfect and God is not in control it's people controlling this. See some behind the scenes stuff instead of seeing the stage. This is not about bitterness - it is about showing the organisation as it is. There is a common misconception that people who leave are bitter. We know a lot of people who have left, who are faithfully serving Christ - I actually don't anyone who is bitter about their experience. Disappointed - yes but not bitter as is often characterised. From the workers' viewpoint it must be challenging to see the number who have left and involved in other Christian churches. It must be difficult for them to understand. But if we can uphold the gospel and share our joy in serving Christ it is a powerful testimony for the One who has shown us immeasurable grace. 'Bitter' is just a universal word used for anyone who's left regardless of the circumstances. It's convenient. Once upon a time I wouldn't ever have wanted to speak to any of those 'bitter' people! I'm a bit the same Ross, don't know any 'bitter' people who've left (however I do know a few that still go to meetings I might consider to be bitter!) more like disappointed.
|
|
mira
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by mira on Jun 21, 2014 4:41:29 GMT -5
In Australia it is illegal to stop someone from coming to a church gathering, regardless of whether or not it's in a private home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 9:04:17 GMT -5
In Australia it is illegal to stop someone from coming to a church gathering, regardless of whether or not it's in a private home. We were told not to go to fellowship by John. Head worker of Vic. My husband was from outside and had been divorced 10 years previously. He wanted to profess. We were shut out for 9 years. We had to sell our home and leave the state. Another girl married a man not professing and she was cut off from fellowship completely as well. A man from here was kicked out because he was going out with a catholic girl they wouldn't let her profess so he married in the Catholic Church and the professing relies stood outside and wouldn't go in. That must have been a spectacle. He is a doctor and since had two men coming to him for help because the workers sleeping with their wives. They can and they do shut people out - just the wrong ones. They chase us out and keep the creepy ones. They weren't going to let us near the Ivanhoe church in Vic with the super rich and ruffle any feathers there.
|
|