Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 8:10:36 GMT -5
Any one can baptise someone. How would that work? Do you mean that literally? Any person can baptise someone else? Could a Methodist baptise someone into the Catholic faith for example? Or do you mean any person who shares the same beliefs could baptise another believer? In that case, how does it differ from the theory that 'life begets life'? Jesus said "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" - it is the role of those that are sent to preach the gospel to baptise those that believe.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 8:25:23 GMT -5
Hey Matt10: How much of a thread like this, and book like this, and the book you mention, isn't ultimately a farce? If 2x2s aren't condemned to hell what's the point? Jesse, I'm trying not to read too much into your question "If 2x2s aren't condemned to hell what's the point?" but I admit I'm struggling. Can you expand on that question a bit? You could start with what's the point of what? The point of the new book? Of this debate about cults? Of TMB? Of the whole kit & caboodle? Something else? What's it all about Alfie? Thanks for that, Gene; now I'm depressed..... Lol.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 8:34:31 GMT -5
Though I also never heard it identified as TLD when I heard it and was taught it by workers and parents as a child, I believed it for years. And yes, I was taught it openly in meetings as a child, as something to believe true with all of my being.
To believe ONLY workers carried a true message of life, because they heard it through someone who had life. That is the core of TLW doctrine. No, I never knew where that doctrine came from. And yes, perhaps I did need to be set free from that teaching in order to even be aware of it as untrue. Nonetheless, I heard it taught word for word, only life begets life and compared to what I have come to know now as the 2&2 preacher's belief and doctrine that so controlled my earlier life.
For me also, it has been a journey from cult teachings to Christ and Life. I think I'd be okay with a discussion of the 'LBL' doctrine - for lack of a better term - as it is more descriptive of something people actually say and believe. And if someone wants to argue that came from TLW I'm okay with that too, although it may be difficult to prove. The thing about 'LBL' is that it allows for exceptions. It's also more in the nature of a received notion - a grass roots idea that a lot of people subscribe to and pass around - not so much a top-down "doctrine" pushed on people.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 8:40:37 GMT -5
What Hat maybe ask Felicity what her view is on this, its seems that she believes the "Living Witness Doctrine" even though they don't realise where it came from ! I can't ever recall having heard the term "Living Witness Doctrine" used, apart from on the internet, but I certainly believe in the ministry established by Jesus on earth. For anyone who believes they can find Jesus without a 'living witness' on earth, who do you think has the power to baptise you ? The first workers baptised each other if I recall the history. And Irvine knew about the LWD - which is documented on TTT. He was introduced to it by Hmmm, gotta look it up - Joe Kerr maybe? The one piece of the LWD that people leave out is that Irvine was the exception to the rule. He received a revelation and was the "prophet" that started (or re-started) the whole thing. Not surprising that he got the boot as he was corrupted by the power he held.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 10:01:35 GMT -5
Philip baptized the eunuch. Philip wasn't a homeless preacher and he wasn't sent "two by two".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 10:32:36 GMT -5
Philip baptized the eunuch. Philip wasn't a homeless preacher and he wasn't sent "two by two". Philip baptized many people in Acts 8, but they didn't receive the Holy Ghost until the two workers (Peter & John) came.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 10:49:26 GMT -5
The eunuch returned to Ethiopia and it is unlikely that he would have encountered "workers" there. But he received salvation and it wasn't through a "worker".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 11:00:29 GMT -5
The eunuch returned to Ethiopia and it is unlikely that he would have encountered "workers" there. But he received salvation and it wasn't through a "worker". It looks like Philip left home to preach the gospel, does that not make him a 'worker'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 11:07:36 GMT -5
No, I don't think he left home at all. He was an evangelist as all practising Christians should be. He had a home in Caesarea and we read in Acts 21 that Paul and his companions entered into the home of Philip the evangelist. He was a married man with a family.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 6, 2015 11:13:15 GMT -5
The eunuch returned to Ethiopia and it is unlikely that he would have encountered "workers" there. But he received salvation and it wasn't through a "worker". It looks like Philip left home to preach the gospel, does that not make him a 'worker'? Doesn't the regional Overseer have to approve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 11:25:04 GMT -5
No, I don't think he left home at all. He was an evangelist as all practising Christians should be. He had a home in Caesarea and we read in Acts 21 that Paul and his companions entered into the home of Philip the evangelist. He was a married man with a family. Yeah, I know, he had 4 daughters who prophesied, but "all the cities" he preached in must have been pretty close together if he could manage without leaving home
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 6, 2015 11:34:06 GMT -5
I can't ever recall having heard the term "Living Witness Doctrine" used, apart from on the internet, but I certainly believe in the ministry established by Jesus on earth. For anyone who believes they can find Jesus without a 'living witness' on earth, who do you think has the power to baptise you ? The first workers baptised each other if I recall the history. And Irvine knew about the LWD - which is documented on TTT. He was introduced to it by Hmmm, gotta look it up - Joe Kerr maybe? The one piece of the LWD that people leave out is that Irvine was the exception to the rule. He received a revelation and was the "prophet" that started (or re-started) the whole thing. Not surprising that he got the boot as he was corrupted by the power he held. What Hat ~ You gave me a perfect introduction to my next post about Joe Kerr who first introduced the Living Witness Doctrine at convention in Ireland and in 1903, which was adapted by Irvine in 1904 as their gospel message. Ironically, Joe Kerr got excommunicated from the 2x2's in 1916 for refuting the same doctrine he introduced as heresy. He wasn't the only one who felt this way ~ Edward Cooney and about 100 others also considered it heresy and were also excommunicated for not wanting to preach it as 2x2 doctrine. You can read about this on Cherie's TTT site as shown below. The letters written by Joe Kerr later shows his change of heart and recognition of his error in thinking back when he was in her early 20's, too. www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/kerrjoe.php www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/15wmibook.php
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 11:34:53 GMT -5
There's "leaving home" and there's "leaving home"!
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 6, 2015 11:48:19 GMT -5
Here's some basic information from my earlier reference as to how the Living Witness Doctrine (LWD) first got introduced as the basis of the 2x2 gospel message for those who may not be familiar with this history. (I believe there's a typo. error in the year of Crocknacrieve Convention ~ it should be 1903 instead of 1905?) Here's a reference from the other article pertaining to Edward Cooney's excommunication over the LWD in which the date is of 1903-1904 is given by Patricia Roberts who wrote a book on Cooney. www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/15wmibook.php www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/kerrjoe.php
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 12:01:27 GMT -5
Jesse, there is no hell. Hell is merely an imaginary place created in the imagination as a result of being overexposed to certain religious belief systems. So need to concern yourself with such hypothetical questions. Instead rejoice in the fact that belief in hell can be overcome and satan banished from the garden. Matt10 so Jesus didn't actually mean what He said about that imaginary place? I've long forgotten what the bible claims Jesus said about hell. Indeed I no longer pay much attention to what is written in the bible. I've asked before on the board why I should pay attention to what is written in the bible and no one provided me with a convincing answer. This is one thing that 2x2s and ex2x2s, trinitarians and non trinitarians, and those who think it's a cult and those who don't think it's a cult, all had in common. As to what Jesus meant what he said whenever he said what the bible claims that he said about hell, well, even if I knew what he said that wouldn't necessarily mean that I knew what he meant. And, of course, we have no way of knowing whether everything Jesus said was correct or whether it was recorded or translated correctly even though some here may wish to believe differently. I still maintain it's an imaginary place albeit one which can seem so very real that it makes people fearful. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by mdm on May 6, 2015 12:05:13 GMT -5
People are baptised in other churches by ministers Yes, by ministers, not just by random members of the congregation. That makes the ministry essential wouldn't you think? Actually, not all denominations believe that baptism has to be done by a minister. I've seen it done by lay members.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 6, 2015 12:30:08 GMT -5
Here's Joe Kerr's letters in 1956 in which he refutes the Living Witness Doctrine and explained how William Irvine changed it to reflect himself as being the living source of life along with his co-workers. This was written 40 years after he left the fellowship in 1916 by being ex-communicated for refusing to teach the Living Witness Doctrine, because he considered it heresy.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 6, 2015 12:34:34 GMT -5
I experience cognitive dissonance over a god who inspires the writer of the 139th Psalm (a favorite of mine from my early teens) yet on this thread appears to require that just the right people in a particular organization's hierarchy be in place in order for him to "descend upon" someone new or to "recognize" their baptism as being valid.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 6, 2015 12:37:22 GMT -5
Hey Matt10: How much of a thread like this, and book like this, and the book you mention, isn't ultimately a farce? If 2x2s aren't condemned to hell what's the point? Jesse, I'm trying not to read too much into your question "If 2x2s aren't condemned to hell what's the point?" but I admit I'm struggling. Can you expand on that question a bit? You could start with what's the point of what? The point of the new book? Of this debate about cults? Of TMB? Of the whole kit & caboodle? Something else? If 2x2s are not condemned to hell for what they are being criticised about, then what is the point of all the apostate rhetoric? Is writing a book like "Cult to Christ" a way for the author to lay up treasure in Heaven? Elizabeth hasn't answered.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 13:00:04 GMT -5
The first workers baptised each other if I recall the history. And Irvine knew about the LWD - which is documented on TTT. He was introduced to it by Hmmm, gotta look it up - Joe Kerr maybe? The one piece of the LWD that people leave out is that Irvine was the exception to the rule. He received a revelation and was the "prophet" that started (or re-started) the whole thing. Not surprising that he got the boot as he was corrupted by the power he held. What Hat ~ You gave me a perfect introduction to my next post about Joe Kerr who first introduced the Living Witness Doctrine at convention in Ireland and in 1903, which was adapted by Irvine in 1904 as their gospel message. Ironically, Joe Kerr got excommunicated from the 2x2's in 1916 for refuting the same doctrine he introduced as heresy. He wasn't the only one who felt this way ~ Edward Cooney and about 100 others also considered it heresy and were also excommunicated for not wanting to preach it as 2x2 doctrine. You can read about this on Cherie's TTT site as shown below. The letters written by Joe Kerr later shows his change of heart and recognition of his error in thinking back when he was in her early 20's, too. www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/kerrjoe.php www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/15wmibook.php How did you determine that Cooney and Kerr, individually or collectively, were excommunicated for refuting the Living Witness Doctrine. That's news to me. To tell you the truth, my feeling is that the LWD left the f&w along with Irvine and Kerr. I've never seen it really associated with anyone else. Sure, there are references to it, but sermon texts in its favour? I could be proven wrong; I'm just saying I haven't seen anything. (There is or was a sermon archive and it might be worthwhile searching it on "living witness" or "life by life".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 13:02:30 GMT -5
Philip baptized the eunuch. Philip wasn't a homeless preacher and he wasn't sent "two by two". Yes, I've actually heard workers speak on this in support of baptism NOT by workers. We also on occasion (Ontario, Canada) have had friends lead gospel meetings. There have been 'open meetings' as well, but on rare occasion, a friend speaking from the platform.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 6, 2015 13:05:08 GMT -5
Jesse ~ I'm just a little curious as to why you are so concerned over somebody exercising their "freedom of expression" in writing a book about their life experience to help others avoid the pitfalls of religious cults? I do realize that "speaking your mind" within the 2x2's is somewhat Taboo and can get you in deed Dutch with the workers with sanctions to follow. However, Elizabeth is no longer a member of this group and doesn't have to abide by any worker restrictions either. She is also a Christian who has moved on in her walk with Christ and not some apostate as some F&W's like to refer to ex-members of the group. Perhaps such a practice should send up some RED FLAGS itself?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 13:05:11 GMT -5
Here's Joe Kerr's letters in 1956 in which he refutes the Living Witness Doctrine and explained how William Irvine changed it to reflect himself as being the living source of life along with his co-workers. This was written 40 years after he left the fellowship in 1916 by being ex-communicated for refusing to teach the Living Witness Doctrine, because he considered it heresy. Where do you see Joe Kerr was "ex-communicated for refusing to teach the Living Witness Doctrine". Might be there but I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on May 6, 2015 13:09:32 GMT -5
What Hat ~ You gave me a perfect introduction to my next post about Joe Kerr who first introduced the Living Witness Doctrine at convention in Ireland and in 1903, which was adapted by Irvine in 1904 as their gospel message. Ironically, Joe Kerr got excommunicated from the 2x2's in 1916 for refuting the same doctrine he introduced as heresy. He wasn't the only one who felt this way ~ Edward Cooney and about 100 others also considered it heresy and were also excommunicated for not wanting to preach it as 2x2 doctrine. You can read about this on Cherie's TTT site as shown below. The letters written by Joe Kerr later shows his change of heart and recognition of his error in thinking back when he was in her early 20's, too. www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/kerrjoe.php www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/15wmibook.php How did you determine that Cooney and Kerr, individually or collectively, were excommunicated for refuting the Living Witness Doctrine. That's news to me. To tell you the truth, my feeling is that the LWD left the f&w along with Irvine and Kerr. I've never seen it really associated with anyone else. Sure, there are references to it, but sermon texts in its favour? I could be proven wrong; I'm just saying I haven't seen anything. (There is or was a sermon archive and it might be worthwhile searching it on "living witness" or "life by life". What Hat ~ You can find the information yourself about the excommunications of Edward Cooney and Joe Kerr at the links above. Joe Kerr was booted out in 1916 and Edward Cooney in 1928 for their objections to the Living Witness Doctrine and what it stands for as incorporated into their gospel message by William Irvine in 1904. Just read Joe Kerr's letters for the reasons he gave for calling it HERESY, which are similar to Cooney's. You can also check the diagram I gave earlier showing the dates when all this transpired under Cherie's TLC informational site shown below. thelibertyconnection.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=256:living-witness-doctrine-who-was-first&catid=21:history&Itemid=32
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on May 6, 2015 13:11:59 GMT -5
Jesse ~ I'm just a little curious as to why you are so concerned over somebody exercising their "freedom of expression" in writing a book about their life experience to help others avoid the pitfalls of religious cults? I do realize that "speaking your mind" within the 2x2's is somewhat Taboo and can get you in deed Dutch with the workers with sanctions to follow. However, Elizabeth is no longer a member of this group and doesn't have to abide by any worker restrictions either. She is also a Christian who has moved on in her walk with Christ and not some apostate as some F&W's like to refer to ex-members of the group. Perhaps such a practice should send up some RED FLAGS itself? Well, she's just told Jesse and others they are in a cult, so backlash should be expected. The fact is though, "Cult to Christ" is just a narrative that is out there, and Elisabeth can't be held totally accountable for buying in to it. There are countless "from Cult to Christian" narratives which serve to affirm one thing or the other - spiritual certitude, feeling of well being, social exclusivity - and so on. And the friends have such narratives also.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 6, 2015 13:25:12 GMT -5
Jesse ~ I'm just a little curious as to why you are so concerned over somebody exercising their "freedom of expression" in writing a book about their life experience to help others avoid the pitfalls of religious cults? I do realize that "speaking your mind" within the 2x2's is somewhat Taboo and can get you in deed Dutch with the workers with sanctions to follow. However, Elizabeth is no longer a member of this group and doesn't have to abide by any worker restrictions either. She is also a Christian who has moved on in her walk with Christ and not some apostate as some F&W's like to refer to ex-members of the group. Perhaps such a practice should send up some RED FLAGS itself? You got the meaning of apostate wrong. One hallmark of an Apostate is one who misrepresents the beliefs, values and doctrines of their former church. You did that in your post and elsewhere on this thread. And it's what a lot of exe rhetoric does. All I'm doing is asking some simple questions.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on May 6, 2015 13:45:50 GMT -5
Jesse, I'm trying not to read too much into your question "If 2x2s aren't condemned to hell what's the point?" but I admit I'm struggling. Can you expand on that question a bit? You could start with what's the point of what? The point of the new book? Of this debate about cults? Of TMB? Of the whole kit & caboodle? Something else? If 2x2s are not condemned to hell for what they are being criticised about, then what is the point of apostate rhetoric? Is writing a book like "Cult to Christ" a way for the author to lay up treasure in Heaven? Elizabeth hasn't answered. I am interested in your answers to gene's questions. My "no" answer reflects my opinion that "Hell" only exists the minds of those who believe in it. (Nod to Matt10) Although I feel love for many people I grew up around who remain in the 2×2's, including many family members, and even some workers, I also believe that in my experience, the group met/meets most, if not all of the cult descriptors that fixit shared early in the thread...including a very clear teaching that anyone outside of the group is headed to a "Lost Eternity". The cult-like characteristics aren't a problem for F&W who are happy enough with the way things are. For some of us who have believed and then have needed to leave....that process has sometimes been wrenching....and liberating...and may feel very much lIke leaving a cult. I can understand how someone might feel inspired to write about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on May 6, 2015 14:03:40 GMT -5
"The Validity of the Formula
Scholars such as David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, and Brian R. Wilson challenge the testimonies of apostates, who crying the word “cult” with stories often so compelling and frightening are just accepted as true by society and the media without question. One can almost imagine a similar situation centuries ago when a disgruntled former affiliate could conduce a woman before the establishment by simply accusing her of being a “witch”, and immediately bring upon her a terrible stigma—being able to use a known effective social weapon even for their own personal ends.
Wilson found that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents, turning them into major incidents. Bromley and Shupe discuss “captivity narratives” that depict the time in the group as involuntary and point out that the apostate is likely to present a caricature of his former group. Massimo Introvigne, president of CESNUR, found in his study of the New Acropolis in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming “professional enemies” of the group they leave.[1]
Wilson states “Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader.” [2]
“Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group”—David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, “The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil,” in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156
In a 1997 interview with Time Magazine, Gordon Melton (a research specialist with the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California) asserts that anti-cult figures give too much credence to the horror stories of “hostile” former cult members, which he says is “like trying to get a picture of marriage from someone who has gone through a bad divorce.” [4]
References
1. Wikipedia’s page on Cults: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
2. Wilson, Bryan R. (1994). Apostates and New Religious Movements. Oxford, England, UK.
3. Wilson, Bryan R. (1992). The Social Dimensions of Secretarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society. USA: Oxford University Press. p.19. ISBN-13: 978-0198278832.
4. Bonfante, Jordan (1997). ‘Apologist’ Versus ‘Alarmist’. Santa Barbara, USA. Time Magazine Vol. 149 No. 4: www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970127/religion.apologist.html"
Great post, Jesse. Please keep that one handy. It may prove useful again.
|
|