|
Post by bubbles on Aug 31, 2014 5:43:36 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! Lol.. Hmm. Dont fall into that trap. Steve You say friends and some workers were concerned They AR and review just want details. Then they will shun then division comes Its happened before with Edward Coonie and also Canada a few yrs bk.
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 31, 2014 5:58:15 GMT -5
Steve Wonder if Jack Carroll was open with anonymous "many friends" (and workers)? I don't understand your obsession about anonymity. Jack Carroll taught that the workers should be open with the whole church. I doubt that he knew every person in the meeting when he delivered that sermon, so he was effectively speaking to anonymous people. If the fellowship has nothing to hide there should be no problem in answering the simple question "has the fellowship accumulated significant funds?"
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 31, 2014 5:58:21 GMT -5
Virgo
Its not new for people to approach leaders with concerns. There are clear guidelines if how to go about it and also leaders should not be threatened or fearful when this happens. They should be mature enough and secure enough in their relationship with the holy spirit to move forward and deal with the situation. Whatever it is. To turn on and accuse those asking the question shows immaturity, insecurity, a lack of love, a lack of concern. Remember the letter is a letter of concern if it was a letter of accusation that would be dealt with differently.
Part of leadership is prayfully protecting those in your care.
Its taken boldness, courage and leaning on the power of the lord to put pen to paper. Maybe the leaders are interpreting it as a judgement and critisism instead of seeing the truth and hearts behind the letter.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 31, 2014 18:33:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Aug 31, 2014 18:49:37 GMT -5
I don't understand your obsession about anonymity. Jack Carroll taught that the workers should be open with the whole church. I doubt that he knew every person in the meeting when he delivered that sermon, so he was effectively speaking to anonymous people. If the fellowship has nothing to hide there should be no problem in answering the simple question "has the fellowship accumulated significant funds?" glad you said 'effectively' speaking to anonymous people. That was some clever logical gymnastics you did to arrive at the conclusion that Jack would speak openly to friends and workers who communicated with him but would conceal or refuse to reveal their identify to him. I do not think one moment that Jack Carroll would have been open with people who would not be open with their identity Please yourselves.....continue with your present 'smoke and mirrors' anonymous "many friends" and workers approach. If any on the 'many friends' and workers are more than 'smoke and mirrors' then I guess they'll be writing a letter to Alan with their names signed at the bottom. Your well known actions in hounding people to find out their identity and then threatening them with disclosure are one of the reasons why people choose to remain anonymous. There are other factors, including the shunning that occurs within the fellowship. Some people don't care about that personally but do care about the impact on members of their family and thus choose to remain anonymous. You present a clear message that disclosure will be reluctant, if at all... Jack presented a clear message to be open and frank about financial matters including to 'outsiders' who ask about our finances. "I hope you will feel free to be frank and candid with them, so that you won't convey the impression that this is some kind of a great secret society you are in. We teach nothing in private that we are not prepared to proclaim from the house tops to all men, for anything we teach can be read by all men in the pages of God's own book."
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 31, 2014 19:23:49 GMT -5
Elizabeth, Aah I see, the discussion you have on that closed forum hasn't included material such as the rhetoric questions (as the ex on this thread described them) of the opening post of this thread. Please pm me when you find someone/people from the fellowship with whom you are able to have mutually beneficial and good dialogue with on the opening post of this thread, I'd be interested to know and see it. A number from the fellowship have posted on this thread but all expressed disagreement and rejections of your thoughts. thanks! review 005 Review you seem to have forgotten this post, seems you are not keeping your word on a public forum, so what would happen if people sent letters with their names on them to AR ? History has proven what happens when people in the "Way" question.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 31, 2014 19:24:48 GMT -5
Bring back honest men like Jack Carroll and maybe it will bring back a few of the honest folk who have left. But then I do not know what else Jack preached - sure there are some sermons around though.
Many people request information and report things in society with the knowledge they can remain anonymous but,
Review005, I wonder why you are so keen for others to attach their names to letters while you remain hidden on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 31, 2014 19:28:56 GMT -5
Bring back honest men like Jack Carroll ... Hard to know if he was honest in all his doings. Hard to know what his opinion would be today on the matter of finances and disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 19:43:22 GMT -5
The irrelevant accusation of hounding has nothing whatsoever to do with what I suggested. I would not even be privy to the correspondence!!! You present a clear message that disclosure will be reluctant, if at all...You have with your logical gymnastics again somersaulted through some intricate manoeuvre to arrive at a message that has not been in my mind. You again quote Jack C. I doubt Jack Carroll or any responsible brother would be open or enter discussion or correspondence with friends and workers who conceal their identity. Ahhh…yes. review005 – the reincarnation of noels. Or, gee, would that be, like, a phoenix rising from the ashes? It takes me a while sometimes to make the connections… You know well that your obsession with anonymity here is only because you want to hunt the dissenters down and bring them into line. To be very clear, it is only when YOU are NOT anonymous yourself that you have any right to make ANY comments about any other people who (wisely – obviously) choose to remain somewhat anonymous. Would you like me to out you? I could. I post under my real name and location (Canada) and have been an ex for many years, so there is NOTHING you could possibly do to materially impact my life. However, I have a (grudging) admiration for you, that you continue to pop up on this forum. That is not an easy thing to do. I still have hope that you will listen to your heart instead of the winds of (2X2) politics. I know you are better than this. P.S. I was raised on "Jack Carroll always said..." It was a real eye-opener to me to find out what feet of clay he really had. But still, I do not mind that my mother frequently referenced Jack Carroll - it was really her reaching for the deepest truest part of herself when she found herself in disagreement with some of the prevailing "wisdom" in the local 2X2 community. For that, I will be eternally grateful. P.P.S. If you want to know who my mother was, I will be happy to tell you. At her funeral, the officiating workers referred to her as a "Mother in Israel" and as someone who really had "the kernel". Maybe you could get her "member in good standing" status revoked because she raised the likes of me.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 20:19:03 GMT -5
SharonArnold you wrote: "You know well that your obsession with anonymity here is only because you want to hunt the dissenters down and bring them into line."
Kindly explain how I will do this in the context of the discussion of this thread. Not quite sure what you are asking... I'm a little slow sometimes... However, in encouraging people to write to AR, that is basically outing them. I also know that you are an active PM'er - and after your PM's some really interesting people have dropped off this board. Don't get me wrong - I am really happy that you do show up here - and I think there is something really good, powerful, and true within you. You wouldn't show up here otherwise. But I also suspect that you use some of your gleanings from this board as political fodder within the 2X2 system. That's really not cool. P.S. I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 20:21:43 GMT -5
SharonArnold you wrote: "You know well that your obsession with anonymity here is only because you want to hunt the dissenters down and bring them into line."
Kindly explain in the context of the present discussion of this thread. "Would you like me to out you?"
Wow... using threat eh? "I still have hope that you will listen to your heart instead of the winds of (2X2) politics. I know you are better than this."
You amuse me with the knowing, superior and mocking tone of this statement! That was not superior or mocking, and I am sorry that it came across that way. Looking into your eyes here (if I could) - I really know that you are better than this (i.e., tracking down dissenters).
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 31, 2014 20:31:34 GMT -5
SharonArnold you wrote: "You know well that your obsession with anonymity here is only because you want to hunt the dissenters down and bring them into line."
Kindly explain in the context of the present discussion of this thread. "Would you like me to out you?"
Wow... using threat eh? "I still have hope that you will listen to your heart instead of the winds of (2X2) politics. I know you are better than this."
You amuse me with the knowing, superior and mocking tone of this statement! That was not superior or mocking, and I am sorry that it came across that way. Looking into your eyes here (if I could) - I really know that you are better than this (i.e., tracking down dissenters). I wonder sometimes if posts are read with the demeanor of the reader (as if the reader was writing) and not of the (real) writer.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 31, 2014 20:52:35 GMT -5
Mary Do you consider writing a personal letter to someone and posting on a forum where anonymity is commonly used and accepted to be the same? Depending on past experience and if the person I am writing to can be trusted. Seems as if people have good reason for remaining anonymous in their letters to workers. I remember a time when the workers preached at convention to throw out any letters that do not have the persons name on. That was in reference to the letters that were going to professing people in the mid 1990s. I know I would take seriously any letters that came to me whether they had a name on them or not. I would be the one struggling to try and think who it would be so I would be the one struggling for not being content. It would not alter the context of what the writer was saying. I would be the one with the problem but I would need to own and deal with my own feelings. Like they say curiosity killed the cat.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 31, 2014 20:57:17 GMT -5
So few read and post because they have been told those on the board are bitter exes. They are afraid that their faith might be shaken when they read the truth. We were conditioned to not have anything to do with those who have left. Families are usually an exception.
How come you post here and not other workers? What draws you here, review005.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 21:12:08 GMT -5
Not quite sure what you are asking... I'm a little slow sometimes... If you had read the thread before posting the statement, you likely wouldn't have. I am unable to understand it's relevance in the context of the discussion of this thread. I still don’t have a clue what either you or I am talking about here. I also know that you are an active PM'er - and after your PM's some really interesting people have dropped off this board. I am unaware of this please pm me with their poster names. Oh…no, no, no. Not even going to go there. Don't get me wrong - I am really happy that you do show up here - and I think there is something really good, powerful, and true within you. You wouldn't show up here otherwise. But I also suspect that you use some of your gleanings from this board as political fodder within the 2X2 system. That's really not cool. This statement is a reflection of the perception you have of the fellowship. I'm glad it isn't the reality I experience! I almost never use the word “reality” without at least mentally placing it in quotes, so I respect what you are saying. P.S. I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about. Is this your explanation of the threat you made? It amuses me 'f&w's get criticized, 'pulled through the mud' But it ok for posters on TMB to threatened and then without apology explain it away as 'I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about'. No wonder so few f&ws know about TMB and if they do know so few post or read. My saying "How would you like it if I outed you?" was not a threat, it was more of a rhetorical question. (However, I am perfectly capable of making threats (and carrying them through).) This would not particularly be one of those situations though. However, I would really like to see you respect other people’s anonymity as much as you yourself would prefer to remain anonymous.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 31, 2014 21:26:49 GMT -5
You are asking Sharon to break peoples confidentiality Why are you so interested in peoples names?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 21:37:25 GMT -5
Hey you could probably be a more careful with how you word your posts. You describe: " Would you like me to out you? I could." as rhetorical, I'll take your word for it. To be quite clear, my question of “Would you like me to out you?” was rhetorical. My statement of “I could.” was not. I know exactly who you are. The 2X2 world is a very small community – do not doubt it. I have no percentage or interest in outing you. None. As I’ve stated before, I have a grudging respect for you showing up here. But, please, for one moment, place yourself in the shoes of ones that you are trying to “out”.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2014 22:50:39 GMT -5
P.S. I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about. Isn't this like saying "I would never do anything unethical unless I had a good reason." "I will follow my moral compass unless I get a better offer".
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 23:07:23 GMT -5
P.S. I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about. Isn't this like saying "I would never do anything unethical unless I had a good reason." "I will follow my moral compass unless I get a better offer". Hmmm... I don't have a particular problem with either of those. Should I? Perhaps I should take myself more seriously? I don't think I've ever had any illusions that my moral compass is superior to anyone else's. I am perfectly aware of what I am capable of (even the not so nice parts). I am learning to own it all and I am finding that is a very comfortable place to be.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 31, 2014 23:19:47 GMT -5
P.S. I would never out you unless you really hurt someone I care about.
Shouldn't we need to care about everyone who is 'hurt,' not just those that we know & 'care about?'
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 31, 2014 23:26:36 GMT -5
Isn't this like saying "I would never do anything unethical unless I had a good reason." "I will follow my moral compass unless I get a better offer". Hmmm... I don't have a particular problem with either of those. Should I? Perhaps I should take myself more seriously? ??? I don't think I've ever had any illusions that my moral compass is superior to anyone else's. I am perfectly aware of what I am capable of (even the not so nice parts). I am learning to own it all and I am finding that is a very comfortable place to be. Of course you should not have a problem. Many people don't have a commitment to ethical behavior and weigh the pros and cons of each opportunity. No one suggested that your moral compass was superior to anyone else's. I certainly would not argue the point.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 23:39:54 GMT -5
Hmmm... I don't have a particular problem with either of those. Should I? Perhaps I should take myself more seriously? I don't think I've ever had any illusions that my moral compass is superior to anyone else's. I am perfectly aware of what I am capable of (even the not so nice parts). I am learning to own it all and I am finding that is a very comfortable place to be. Of course you should not have a problem. Many people don't have a commitment to ethical behavior and weigh the pros and cons of each opportunity. No one suggested that your moral compass was superior to anyone else's. I certainly would not argue the point. And I most certainly will not be shamed by it.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Aug 31, 2014 23:41:21 GMT -5
Shouldn't we need to care about everyone who is 'hurt,' not just those that we know & 'care about?' Yeah, probably. It's just harder know when someone has been hurt if we do not know them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 23:43:00 GMT -5
Steve Encourage your 'many friends' and 'workers' to write to Alan individually with their concerns and encourage them to sign their name at the end. let's see what happens! Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? what are they going to do with these millions?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 1, 2014 0:22:57 GMT -5
Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? what are they going to do with these millions? They could always seek my advice...lol
|
|
|
Post by stevnz on Sept 1, 2014 0:55:34 GMT -5
Do you care if there are unknown millions of dollars held by elders for the benefit of our fellowship? what are they going to do with these millions? I am impressed by the model shown in Acts 6, where the apostles openly delegated the appointment of trustees/deacons to the church members, “while we give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” [NIV We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.] As Paul said, when he delegated the handling of financial gifts to a brother elected by the friends, “avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” [ NIV We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.] We could also consider Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 1:36:30 GMT -5
what are they going to do with these millions? I am impressed by the model shown in Acts 6, where the apostles openly delegated the appointment of trustees/deacons to the church members, “while we give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” [NIV We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.] As Paul said, when he delegated the handling of financial gifts to a brother elected by the friends, “avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” [ NIV We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.] We could also consider Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. what do you think they are going to do with the millions?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 1, 2014 2:43:53 GMT -5
what are they going to do with these millions? I am impressed by the model shown in Acts 6, where the apostles openly delegated the appointment of trustees/deacons to the church members, “while we give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” [NIV We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.] As Paul said, when he delegated the handling of financial gifts to a brother elected by the friends, “avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” [ NIV We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.] We could also consider Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. Steve All the best with that. Ive found that while leaders will preach this they really dont want to be that liberal with the finances. In most churches. My view on this and it is personal a viewpoint Sell the idolatrous edifaces give to the poor make radical changes and support those in need. Now that excites me beyond belief.
|
|