Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 8:39:46 GMT -5
Did you have the same feeling that you had as a child when you learned that Santa Clause didn't live in the North Pole? This is especially true if you were taught by your parents that the meetings had continued in an unbroken chain going back to the New Testament days. My parents believed it stayed in Europe after the New Testament era and slowly moved into England. Then the workers came to the US. I don't know how they felt about those who died before the first workers landed in the US around 1903.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 9:43:51 GMT -5
My father was a farmer become tradesman.......as he explained to me, he believed that there was a "word of mouth" succession from the workers back to Christ (and therefore, God). He likened this connection to the apprenticeship program in skilled trades, whereby the Master tradesman taught apprentices. The apprentices then became a Journeymen, who were then approved to teach the next generation of apprentices and so forth. I must admit that it was somewhat traumatic to discover that the actual history of the workers dated back a mere hundred years with no "word of mouth" succession. In fact, the rest of the worker's claims toppled like dominoes. They had a good run, though, bilking ignorant, isolated farmers, and even back then, they realized that education and communication were the biggest threats to their control. Most folks that I know of in the sect today are aware of its history, and were not so adversely affected by the knowledge as us who believed in the "word of mouth" claims. Most of the folks I am in contact with who are members of the sect are more akin to being social club members rather than the true believers of days gone by.
Edited to add: I let my father go to his grave with his firm belief in the workers. He had a hard enough life without learning he had been so deceived, and he truly enjoyed feeling that he was in "the-only-right-way".
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 10:47:45 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were. Think about it, what did you tell people you knew before you knew the real story? Were you lying?
-How did it get started that it went back in succession to the Apostles? I think it may have had something to do with Irvine pretty much ex-ing anyone that wouldn't subscribe and preach that we were the ONLY way. Read John Long's journal about his ex-communication. If I remember correctly, this is specifically why he was ex-communicated by a vote among quite a few workers led by Irvine. It was made clear that day the ramifications for any type of talk that there could possibly be another "right" church out there. This was in the very early stages of our fellowship.
-So now you have a church that from that point forward, any new convert believes that God has just led them to the ONLY right church. Since most believe that God's word has always been on earth, what else can be assumed other than this particular church must have gone all the way back to the Apostles.
This is just my supposition on how this got started. I don't believe anyone bald face lied to anyone.
- How did it affect me when I found out our true history? It didn't affect me much, other than I felt liberated. For a very long time I just couldn't subscribe to the fact that other Godly men and women that I knew that absolutely live their lives for God, and are just amazing people were getting sent to Hell by our merciful and kind Heavenly Father to be burned and tortured for all eternity. Some of these people were family whom we know very well. We were always told that "if they are honest, and have an honest heart, they will be led to Truth (meaning our fellowship). So when I learned our true history, it was liberating. It was like letting me out of a tiny little box that had my head bent to one side, and my legs wrapped around my ears. Did I feel betrayed? No, for the above reasons. Did it make me want to leave my fellowship? no. Where would I go, and would it be any better? Like I keep saying, we are made up of some very very good, Honest, (imperfect) Godly people, and we have very sweet fellowship. I won't go into all the reasons why, but once you come out of this little box, you realize that you didn't even begin to understand the real blessings of being a child of God. You start a new journey that has a lot more to do with a direct relationship with God, Christ, and the HP.
-Are there frustrations? yes of course. When you see people wrapped up so tight in that box you were in, it seems so clear now that they need to come out. You don't want to say things that are not well received. You try not to offend which for me isn't that hard. When you hear people give testimonies about the "Quack" that they had a conversation with (meaning someone from another denomination), sometimes it hard to bite your tongue. But that's ok, life is full of frustrations, and part of our success in life is how we deal with them.
OK, this is already waaay too long.
That's my take
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 14, 2015 11:17:10 GMT -5
I am unable to respond to the opening post right now, I have some errands to run. But I feel the need to weigh-in in support of jondough's post. He made the points I would make only did it much more precisely and compassionately. My feelings are so close to jondough's and yet I have not been in a Sunday morning meeting for nearly 50 years. I am an "ex" whose understanding and reactions run closely parallel to those expressed by jondough. Don't know what it all means but thought it was interesting enough to post.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 11:32:05 GMT -5
Jon, with all respect, why do you feel free to share your true beliefs with us here on the TMB, but not with your brethren in the meetings? You state that you don't want to say things that are not well received, and that you don't want to offend, but is that REALLY the reason? Your beliefs are just as valid as the next persons beliefs, and aren't meetings supposed to be about sharing beliefs and mutual spiritual growth? You state that it seems clear to you that there are people who need to come out of their box, yet you feel compelled to "bite your tongue". Why not share with THEM the journey you have been on? You seem to have found a light of sorts, but you're hiding it from the ones who would benefit from it the most!
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 12:08:42 GMT -5
Did you have the same feeling that you had as a child when you learned that Santa Clause didn't live in the North Pole? This is especially true if you were taught by your parents that the meetings had continued in an unbroken chain going back to the New Testament days. My parents believed it stayed in Europe after the New Testament era and slowly moved into England. Then the workers came to the US. I don't know how they felt about those who died before the first workers landed in the US around 1903. My observation has been that in general, that "feeling" you mention is in direct proportion to how firmly a person believed in the myth, and how long they believed in it. Obviously, those who never believed in it in the first place were not troubled one way or the other. If a person learned how the fellowship came to be at around 8 or so years of age (somewhere around the age of learning about the myth of Santa) they might be somewhat bothered, but would soon get over it. However, if a person spends half a lifetime or more firmly believing, they tend to have a longer lasting trauma, whether they were an active member or an "unwilling" ex. Our fellow contributor Jon is reluctant to elucidate others in the fellowship (old-timers?) out of compassion, I think, as was I with regards to my own father. I certainly did not believe that Dad's understanding of the situation would have any bearing on his eternal destiny. I however did spend several years in Hell here on Earth due to my delusions....after all these many years I still harbor some unexpressed anger which finds it way out here on TMB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 12:10:24 GMT -5
I believe I could fellowship with a room full of Jondoughs and enjoy the experience. Sadly, many including my close family aren't like that. Any hint that people in other churches might be saved would get you labeled as a trouble maker, weak saint or on the verge of losing out.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 12:11:40 GMT -5
Jon, with all respect, why do you feel free to share your true beliefs with us here on the TMB, but not with your brethren in the meetings? You state that you don't want to say things that are not well received, and that you don't want to offend, but is that REALLY the reason? Your beliefs are just as valid as the next persons beliefs, and aren't meetings supposed to be about sharing beliefs and mutual spiritual growth? You state that it seems clear to you that there are people who need to come out of their box, yet you feel compelled to "bite your tongue". Why not share with THEM the journey you have been on? You seem to have found a light of sorts, but you're hiding it from the ones who would benefit from it the most! I do, I just don't shove it down their throats
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 12:15:24 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were. Think about it, what did you tell people you knew before you knew the real story? Were you lying? Interesting question, Jon. The way I see it, If we told them "I beleive....." then we were not lying; that was our belief. But if we stated our belief as though it were a fact rather than as our belief, then we were certainly telling an un-truth. A deliberate lie? No. Fine line sometimes...
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 12:19:33 GMT -5
I believe I could fellowship with a room full of Jondoughs and enjoy the experience. Sadly, many including my close family aren't like that. Any hint that people in other churches might be saved would get you labeled as a trouble maker, weak saint or on the verge of losing out. Thanks Walker. Take my word for it, when the people that are in their 30s and less (under 40) become the majority of our fellowship, our fellowship will be made up of a majority of "jondoughs". Again, I am only speaking in my neck of the woods. I don't know what goes on in other countries.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 12:21:15 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were. Think about it, what did you tell people you knew before you knew the real story? Were you lying? Interesting question, Jon. The way I see it, If we told them "I beleive....." then we were not lying; that was our belief. But if we stated our belief as though it were a fact rather than as our belief, then we were certainly telling an un-truth. A deliberate lie? No. Fine line sometimes... At the time, we thought we "knew". We didn't know it was just a "belief". So we most likely shared it as though it was fact, without the qualification of "I believe".
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 12:34:28 GMT -5
Did you have the same feeling that you had as a child when you learned that Santa Clause didn't live in the North Pole? This is especially true if you were taught by your parents that the meetings had continued in an unbroken chain going back to the New Testament days. My parents believed it stayed in Europe after the New Testament era and slowly moved into England. Then the workers came to the US. I don't know how they felt about those who died before the first workers landed in the US around 1903. My observation has been that in general, that "feeling" you mention is in direct proportion to how firmly a person believed in the myth, and how long they believed in it. Obviously, those who never believed in it in the first place were not troubled one way or the other. If a person learned how the fellowship came to be at around 8 or so years of age (somewhere around the age of learning about the myth of Santa) they might be somewhat bothered, but would soon get over it. However, if a person spends half a lifetime or more firmly believing, they tend to have a longer lasting trauma, whether they were an active member of and "unwilling" ex. Our fellow contributor Jon is reluctant to elucidate others in the fellowship (old-timers?) out of compassion, I think, as was I with regards to my own father. I certainly did not believe that Dad's understanding of the situation would have any bearing on his eternal destiny. I however did spend several years in Hell here on Earth due to my delusions....after all these many years I still harbor some unexpressed anger which finds it way out here on TMB. One of my major concerns is that my children don't get a double message. Example, my girls are allowed to wear pants to school, but they are always required to wear a dress to meeting. We have explained to them that not only is it because of respect to the meetings, but that some still believe that pants are a man's dress only - which it used to be years ago. We tell them - that for this reason, you don't want to offend anyone, and that we do feel it is more respectful anyway to wear a dress to meeting. They completely understand this, and have no problem with it. I know growing up, us children wished so much that we didn't happen to be one of the lucky lottery winners that were raised in this. To us, it was just all about rules (unwritten). I hated trying to explain to my friends at school why we did certain things. I really didn't have an explanation. I remember just telling them that "it was against my religion". I want my children to love our fellowship, and even at an early age, enjoy the blessings of what it's really all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 12:52:04 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were..... This is just my supposition on how this got started. I don't believe anyone bald face lied to anyone .... I was bald faced lied to. A senior worker publicly preached in a mission I attended that (I'm quoting him here) 'we are the only church on earth not started by a man' in the midst of a sermon about God not dwelling in buildings made with hands and any church started by a man being a false church. Soon afterwards he came to my house and I asked him about this. He continued to claim this was a true statement. I then asked him about William Irvine. He told me that he didn't know anything about William Irvine. I challenged him on this and he told me he didn't know anything about William Irvine because 'we don't keep any records'. I proceeded to tell him what I had recently learned about William Irvine. He then did a U turn of gigantic proportions and told me that I didn't really know anything about William Irvine and that he knew more about William Irvine than I ever would. I interpreted this as an attempt to shut the conversation down. He then went to the toilet. When he was at the toilet his junior companion broke the awkward silence by apologising and admitting that there were attempts to cover up the history in the past and that it was wrong. I retain a lot of respect for this man. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the senior worker. However I realise now that he was merely a tool of the system and having yielded his life to such a foolhardy belief system he is more to be pitied. It still doesn't change the fact that what he told me was bald faced lies. Bald faced lies and bo!#ocks. (No offence intended). Matt10
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 13:09:06 GMT -5
I believe I could fellowship with a room full of Jondoughs and enjoy the experience. Sadly, many including my close family aren't like that. Any hint that people in other churches might be saved would get you labeled as a trouble maker, weak saint or on the verge of losing out. Thanks Walker. Take my word for it, when the people that are in their 30s and less (under 40) become the majority of our fellowship, our fellowship will be made up of a majority of "jondoughs". Again, I am only speaking in my neck of the woods. I don't know what goes on in other countries. I think you are right about that, Jon. Since the beginning of the fellowship, each new generation could make a similar statement (different issues). The current generation (under 40) is almost unrecognizable as being a continuation of the original, it has evolved so greatly generation to generation. Most of the younger folk are politely and respectfully non-confrontational, and merely wait for the old folks and their old ideas to die out. I am in my 60s, and could not put up a decent pretense of believing what the oldsters believed (Since my teens)I felt that my very presence in the meeting implied agreement with them. The oldest practicing members I have know during my time are now either dead or in their 90s. My sister is a current member, and in her 60s. She believes much like you have stated here, and she is open with me, an ex, where she would not be nearly as open with many fellow members and workers. I have appreciated her ability to open and honest with me, but am saddened that she feels it necessary to mask her true feelings with those she fellowships with. I feel that it borders on dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe she's just being considerate of others who hold beliefs that she feels are inconsequential. Go along to get along.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 13:14:59 GMT -5
One of my major concerns is that my children don't get a double message. They will, I did. Kids are honest. They have to learn how to be two-faced from us.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 13:22:38 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were..... This is just my supposition on how this got started. I don't believe anyone bald face lied to anyone .... I was bald faced lied to. A senior worker publicly preached in a mission I attended that (I'm quoting him here) 'we are the only church on earth not started by a man' in the midst of a sermon about God not dwelling in buildings made with hands and any church started by a man being a false church. Soon afterwards he came to my house and I asked him about this. He continued to claim this was a true statement. I then asked him about William Irvine. He told me that he didn't know anything about William Irvine. I challenged him on this and he told me he didn't know anything about William Irvine because 'we don't keep any records'. I proceeded to tell him what I had recently learned about William Irvine. He then did a U turn of gigantic proportions and told me that I didn't really know anything about William Irvine and that he knew more about William Irvine than I ever would. I interpreted this as an attempt to shut the conversation down. He then went to the toilet. When he was at the toilet his junior companion broke the awkward silence by apologising and admitting that there were attempts to cover up the history in the past and that it was wrong. I retain a lot of respect for this man. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the senior worker. However I realise now that he was merely a tool of the system and having yielded his life to such a foolhardy belief system he is more to be pitied. It still doesn't change the fact that what he told me was bald faced lies. Bald faced lies and bo!#ocks. (No offence intended). Matt10 Hi Matt10, I make no excuse for wrong behavior. If someone bald-faced lied to you, then that's what they are (at least at the time) is/was a "bald-faced lair". I have no respect for liars - fellowship or secular, to me it really doesn't matter. Its a character flaw. But again, for the most part, I believe the reason most explained it as they did was for the reason I explained above - not because they were lying.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 14, 2015 13:55:07 GMT -5
Jon, with all respect, why do you feel free to share your true beliefs with us here on the TMB, but not with your brethren in the meetings? You state that you don't want to say things that are not well received, and that you don't want to offend, but is that REALLY the reason? Your beliefs are just as valid as the next persons beliefs, and aren't meetings supposed to be about sharing beliefs and mutual spiritual growth? You state that it seems clear to you that there are people who need to come out of their box, yet you feel compelled to "bite your tongue". Why not share with THEM the journey you have been on? You seem to have found a light of sorts, but you're hiding it from the ones who would benefit from it the most! Blacksheep ~ My thoughts parallel very closely to yours! If you can't be real with your personal thoughts about God within your own Sunday Morning Meeting without offending some other members with more exclusive mindsets, you are not really "free." I realize Jondough is not exclusive himself, but it seems he may be the minority within his meeting? I know the feeling well from past professing days myself. Some of the "special" comments began grating on a "raw nerve" over time, as I had a number of good friends on the outside who were genuine Christians and did have a real relationship with God ~ more than I ever did. They actually had something more that I knew I lacked in a fuller measure and it really convicted me. I also "bit my tongue" for a number of years over my observations of folks living within a "box of their own making." Consequently, I can't begin to express my joy over the freedom to be my true self after leaving the group and eventually finding a Bible-based church that really met my spiritually needs as the Bible began to be opened up to me under expository teaching. www.lifeway.com/pastors/2014/01/08/seven-qualities-of-expository-preaching/ Seven Qualities of Expository Preaching www.gotquestions.org/expository-preaching.html What is Expository Teaching
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 14, 2015 14:23:00 GMT -5
I wanted to share a little more about my experiences with the "double message" that I as a child learned.
At some point in my teens, I asked my father, "Do you personally believe that following [insert worker non-rule here] is required of us by God? I want your honest answer." His reply went something like this: "No, I don't believe that following [insert worker non-rule here] is required by God, but some folks in our fellowship do believe that it is, so we must follow [insert worker non-rule here] so as not to confuse those of a lesser understanding. We don't want to be stumbling blocks to them." My reply was, "So, we have to follow rules that are not scriptural so as to not confuse those folks who are confused? Sounds like the Tower of Babel to me! A bunch of confused individuals trying to build a way to Heaven!"
I have to say here that we children were not repressed in everyday life; we played team sports, went to some movies, had pop records and a hi-fi, celebrated Christmas with gifts, etc, but we learned we had to hide certain aspects of our lives from the workers and certain of the friends. It felt dishonest and deceitful then, and it still does now.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 14, 2015 14:32:48 GMT -5
Thanks Walker. Take my word for it, when the people that are in their 30s and less (under 40) become the majority of our fellowship, our fellowship will be made up of a majority of "jondoughs". Again, I am only speaking in my neck of the woods. I don't know what goes on in other countries. I think you are right about that, Jon. Since the beginning of the fellowship, each new generation could make a similar statement (different issues). The current generation (under 40) is almost unrecognizable as being a continuation of the original, it has evolved so greatly generation to generation. Most of the younger folk are politely and respectfully non-confrontational, and merely wait for the old folks and their old ideas to die out. I am in my 60s, and could not put up a decent pretense of believing what the oldsters believed (Since my teens)I felt that my very presence in the meeting implied agreement with them. The oldest practicing members I have know during my time are now either dead or in their 90s. My sister is a current member, and in her 60s. She believes much like you have stated here, and she is open with me, an ex, where she would not be nearly as open with many fellow members and workers. I have appreciated her ability to open and honest with me, but am saddened that she feels it necessary to mask her true feelings with those she fellowships with. I feel that it borders on dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe she's just being considerate of others who hold beliefs that she feels are inconsequential. Go along to get along. Blacksheep ~ I got to the same place as you did over 20 years ago when I was 45 years old. I'm also in my mid-60's now and back in time I began to feel like a hypocrite for tolerating quietly what went against my grain in exclusive thinking. Namely, being better than others and on some "higher plateau" due to being a member of some "one and only way" of belief that supposedly went back to the early New Testament church. Unfortunately, that wasn't the truth, but a concocted story by the early workers who excommunicated their unstable leader and tried to "erase" his memory by creating some new story line. Incidentally, William Irvine wasn't the only one who got this idea in his mind. There were other "one and only" ways cropping up in the 19th century, such as the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Church of Christ, etc., with their own concocted stories promoted by their leadership. It was called the Restoration Movement of the 19th century, which was an attempt to return to "primitive Christianity" in its earliest form. In fact, here's a thread I started back in November 2014 on the "Birth of Exclusivity Within the 2x2's." professing.proboards.com/thread/22516/birth-exclusivity-2x2s Birth of Exclusivity within the 2x2's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement Restoration Movement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 15:17:00 GMT -5
I stumbled on it quite by accident I typed in George walker for reasons that I don't know and whamo all the anti-truth sites came up I was troubled for about 1 week then I stumbled upon nathans story of irvines sister and things made sense again...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 15:30:46 GMT -5
I was bald faced lied to. A senior worker publicly preached in a mission I attended that (I'm quoting him here) 'we are the only church on earth not started by a man' in the midst of a sermon about God not dwelling in buildings made with hands and any church started by a man being a false church. Soon afterwards he came to my house and I asked him about this. He continued to claim this was a true statement. I then asked him about William Irvine. He told me that he didn't know anything about William Irvine. I challenged him on this and he told me he didn't know anything about William Irvine because 'we don't keep any records'. I proceeded to tell him what I had recently learned about William Irvine. He then did a U turn of gigantic proportions and told me that I didn't really know anything about William Irvine and that he knew more about William Irvine than I ever would. I interpreted this as an attempt to shut the conversation down. He then went to the toilet. When he was at the toilet his junior companion broke the awkward silence by apologising and admitting that there were attempts to cover up the history in the past and that it was wrong. I retain a lot of respect for this man. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the senior worker. However I realise now that he was merely a tool of the system and having yielded his life to such a foolhardy belief system he is more to be pitied. It still doesn't change the fact that what he told me was bald faced lies. Bald faced lies and bo!#ocks. (No offence intended). Matt10 Hi Matt10, I make no excuse for wrong behavior. If someone bald-faced lied to you, then that's what they are (at least at the time) is/was a "bald-faced lair". I have no respect for liars - fellowship or secular, to me it really doesn't matter. Its a character flaw. But again, for the most part, I believe the reason most explained it as they did was for the reason I explained above - not because they were lying. There's no 'if' Jon. There's no question of misinterpreting the facts as I have presented them. I think using the word 'if' risks giving the impression that there is some doubt in your mind. If you have reason to doubt what I have written it would be better if you would say so in order that I can respond. I have noted what might be interpreted as a move by current members to attempt to down play the cover up of the history, to suggest that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the history did not happen. Your initial statement could well be interpreted as part of that move whether you intended it to or not. You may well not believe that anyone deliberately misrepresented the true history of the sect. However anyone who has spent time here could not help to gain a sense that a deliberate cover up of the history took place at least by some workers in some areas at some time. In view of this I suspect that your belief may be based either on wishful thinking or on a refusal to accept the claims made by other posters in spite of the consistent theme. I would doubt that you are in a better position to judge what went on in some areas that those who were associated with the sect for twenty or thirty or more years there. I would also challenge you on your claim that this as merely a character flaw. Again I think this is downplaying the issue. I put it to you that this was not merely a character flaw in this man but part of a more systemic problem within the system. This particular worker wasn't the only who I heard preached a similar misleading line but merely the only one who I challenged when having knowledge of the true history. I would go as far as to suggest that deliberately misrepresenting the true history of the group was the policy of some senior workers in some areas at one time. Finally I note you are now using the term 'for the most part'. Again I fear that use of this term might also be interpreted as attempting to downplay the issue. I have given you one firm example of bald faced lying (your term) about the history. What would it take to persuade you to acknowledge that there was a concentrated effort at one time by a significant number of senior workers in a number of different areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 14, 2015 15:59:23 GMT -5
Thanks Walker. Take my word for it, when the people that are in their 30s and less (under 40) become the majority of our fellowship, our fellowship will be made up of a majority of "jondoughs". Again, I am only speaking in my neck of the woods. I don't know what goes on in other countries. I think you are right about that, Jon. Since the beginning of the fellowship, each new generation could make a similar statement (different issues). The current generation (under 40) is almost unrecognizable as being a continuation of the original, it has evolved so greatly generation to generation. Most of the younger folk are politely and respectfully non-confrontational, and merely wait for the old folks and their old ideas to die out. I am in my 60s, and could not put up a decent pretense of believing what the oldsters believed (Since my teens)I felt that my very presence in the meeting implied agreement with them. The oldest practicing members I have know during my time are now either dead or in their 90s. My sister is a current member, and in her 60s. She believes much like you have stated here, and she is open with me, an ex, where she would not be nearly as open with many fellow members and workers. I have appreciated her ability to open and honest with me, but am saddened that she feels it necessary to mask her true feelings with those she fellowships with. I feel that it borders on dishonesty. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe she's just being considerate of others who hold beliefs that she feels are inconsequential. Go along to get along. I guess it depends on the person's level of comfort with 'go along to get along'. If we have to do it to the degree where we are living a double life and then we are not living with integrity and then we start to feel the effects of that. We must be true to ourselves or we start to resent it. Some can not rock the boat because their need to be part of a group is higher than there need to be themselves. Some feel like they are living a lie and just can't do that without feeling like a hypocrite. That's how it got for me. I was living a double life and I was just agreeing with people and really didn't agree. Of course part of it was necessary because I still lived at home, but I hated it and I resented being unable to do anything different or be punished. As an adult that ended. Since then I probably have more of an adverse reaction to being asked to just 'go along to get along' and I don't do much of that anymore. I do understand not wanting to offend and sometimes I will go that extra mile and just leave things alone. I never found out the truth about the Truth until after my parents passed away. But like others here, I don't think I would have told them. There would be no point so late in their lives. Both were in their 90's and both professed in their teens. It was their life. Blacksheep, I totally understand what you mean about your dad. My dad was also very proud that he had found the 'only true way' and he would have been devastated or possibly not believed it if he had found out. He wore his elder of Sunday morning meeting as a badge of honor.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 14, 2015 16:03:10 GMT -5
Hi Matt10, I make no excuse for wrong behavior. If someone bald-faced lied to you, then that's what they are (at least at the time) is/was a "bald-faced lair". I have no respect for liars - fellowship or secular, to me it really doesn't matter. Its a character flaw. But again, for the most part, I believe the reason most explained it as they did was for the reason I explained above - not because they were lying. There's no 'if' Jon. There's no question of misinterpreting the facts as I have presented them. I think using the word 'if' risks giving the impression that there is some doubt in your mind. If you have reason to doubt what I have written it would be better if you would say so in order that I can respond. I have noted what might be interpreted as a move by current members to attempt to down play the cover up of the history, to suggest that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the history did not happen. Your initial statement could well be interpreted as part of that move whether you intended it to or not. You may well not believe that anyone deliberately misrepresented the true history of the sect. However anyone who has spent time here could not help to gain a sense that a deliberate cover up of the history took place at least by some workers in some areas at some time. In view of this I suspect that your belief may be based either on wishful thinking or on a refusal to accept the claims made by other posters in spite of the consistent theme. I would doubt that you are in a better position to judge what went on in some areas that those who were associated with the sect for twenty or thirty or more years there. I would also challenge you on your claim that this as merely a character flaw. Again I think this is downplaying the issue. I put it to you that this was not merely a character flaw in this man but part of a more systemic problem within the system. This particular worker wasn't the only who I heard preached a similar misleading line but merely the only one who I challenged when having knowledge of the true history. I would go as far as to suggest that deliberately misrepresenting the true history of the group was the policy of some senior workers in some areas at one time. Finally I note you are now using the term 'for the most part'. Again I fear that use of this term might also be interpreted as attempting to downplay the issue. I have given you one firm example of bald faced lying (your term) about the history. What would it take to persuade you to acknowledge that there was a concentrated effort at one time by a significant number of senior workers in a number of different areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect? Matt10 Matt, Since you are claiming a conspiracy that is quite significant, which workers specificallty were a part of this cover-up? Most workers I know have read pretty clearly in the bible how God feels about liars. I trust what you have explained above about your experience is true (even though I have no idea who Matt10 is, as you don't have any idea who Jondough is). But I do know that theres always a few bad apples or "Tares" as the bible calls it. But a Matt10 on TMB is going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority of Workers are "bald-faced liars" and part of a conpiracy cover-up. I knew Uncle Willie Jamison personally, and I can tell you that there is NO WAY he would have bald-faced lied. Period. Maybe not talked about it, but no way he just lied about it. Leo Stancliff, same thing. There are many others. So I'd like to know who besides the one you had your experience was part of this conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2015 16:08:06 GMT -5
-Why were we lied to? I don't think we were. Think about it, what did you tell people you knew before you knew the real story? Were you lying? -How did it get started that it went back in succession to the Apostles? I think it may have had something to do with Irvine pretty much ex-ing anyone that wouldn't subscribe and preach that we were the ONLY way. Read John Long's journal about his ex-communication. If I remember correctly, this is specifically why he was ex-communicated by a vote among quite a few workers led by Irvine. It was made clear that day the ramifications for any type of talk that there could possibly be another "right" church out there. This was in the very early stages of our fellowship. -So now you have a church that from that point forward, any new convert believes that God has just led them to the ONLY right church. Since most believe that God's word has always been on earth, what else can be assumed other than this particular church must have gone all the way back to the Apostles. This is just my supposition on how this got started. I don't believe anyone bald face lied to anyone.That's my take No one needs to use a "bald face" lie in order to deceive people.
Just not discussing what was known and knowingly allowing people to believe something that wasn't true, -an omission of the truth, -(a failure to do something, especially something that one has a moral or legal obligation to do) -is every much a deception as the actual commission of an "bald face" lie, as you call it.
And, please, -don't try to tell me that didn't happen!
I've known even young workers who were deceived by such an omission of truth about the **TRUTH**.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 14, 2015 16:17:30 GMT -5
From my perspective (yes I know Jesse ), I was taught that it was a church that was not man made and went back to the shores of Galilee. Then it would be added that those other churches are all started by man, not Jesus. What would anyone get from that statement? That the way called the 'Truth' had been around ever since Jesus was alive in an unbroken line of workers that were taught by the apostles and then sent out to teach. That isn't how it happened so how is that not lying? If we know someone has the wrong understanding of something we have said it is only right that we correct that misunderstanding. It's about integrity imo. But that didn't happen. In some cases, like in Matt 10's case when he asked them outright, they lied. They had the chance to clear up a misunderstanding and they choose to lie about it and continue the misunderstanding. That is not honest. Those who taught this and didn't know any better, I have no problem with. I thought I was in a church that was the only way and that it was started by Jesus and I told people that. I actually believed it was one of the only ones that could claim that right up until I came on here and learned differently. I hadn't been part of the Truth for almost 40 years and it hit me like a ton of bricks. So I can only imagine what it might have been like for others who had spent their whole lives in the church and then finding out. I wonder if I would be a Christian today if I hadn't believed that everyone other than those who professed were going to hell. If I had grown up in a church that didn't have almost the entire population on earth going to hell would I have ever questioned the morals of that God? I don't know. So in many ways I am glad I didn't know and that I did question the exclusivity teachings because I don't know if I would ever have reached the level of understanding about religious beliefs and religions today and become a person who does not believe there is any God of any variety.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 14, 2015 16:20:02 GMT -5
There's no 'if' Jon. There's no question of misinterpreting the facts as I have presented them. I think using the word 'if' risks giving the impression that there is some doubt in your mind. If you have reason to doubt what I have written it would be better if you would say so in order that I can respond. I have noted what might be interpreted as a move by current members to attempt to down play the cover up of the history, to suggest that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the history did not happen. Your initial statement could well be interpreted as part of that move whether you intended it to or not. You may well not believe that anyone deliberately misrepresented the true history of the sect. However anyone who has spent time here could not help to gain a sense that a deliberate cover up of the history took place at least by some workers in some areas at some time. In view of this I suspect that your belief may be based either on wishful thinking or on a refusal to accept the claims made by other posters in spite of the consistent theme. I would doubt that you are in a better position to judge what went on in some areas that those who were associated with the sect for twenty or thirty or more years there. I would also challenge you on your claim that this as merely a character flaw. Again I think this is downplaying the issue. I put it to you that this was not merely a character flaw in this man but part of a more systemic problem within the system. This particular worker wasn't the only who I heard preached a similar misleading line but merely the only one who I challenged when having knowledge of the true history. I would go as far as to suggest that deliberately misrepresenting the true history of the group was the policy of some senior workers in some areas at one time. Finally I note you are now using the term 'for the most part'. Again I fear that use of this term might also be interpreted as attempting to downplay the issue. I have given you one firm example of bald faced lying (your term) about the history. What would it take to persuade you to acknowledge that there was a concentrated effort at one time by a significant number of senior workers in a number of different areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect? Matt10 Matt, Since you are claiming a conspiracy that is quite significant, which workers specificallty were a part of this cover-up? Most workers I know have read pretty clearly in the bible how God feels about liars. I trust what you have explained above about your experience is true (even though I have no idea who Matt10 is, as you don't have any idea who Jondough is). But I do know that theres always a few bad apples or "Tares" as the bible calls it. But a Matt10 on TMB is going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority of Workers are "bald-faced liars" and part of a conpiracy cover-up. I knew Uncle Willie Jamison personally, and I can tell you that there is NO WAY he would have bald-faced lied. Period. Maybe not talked about it, but no way he just lied about it. Leo Stancliff, same thing. There are many others. So I'd like to know who besides the one you had your experience was part of this conspiracy. Jon, my parents knew the early workers. My grandfather professed in 1915. Why didn't they know? I knew Willie Jamison too. Why did he not correct an incorrect assumption if he was so honest. It is a sign of integrity if you are aware that someone has misunderstood something to clear up that misunderstanding even though it might be in your best interests to just let it ride. That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Aug 14, 2015 16:43:03 GMT -5
Matt, Since you are claiming a conspiracy that is quite significant, which workers specificallty were a part of this cover-up? Most workers I know have read pretty clearly in the bible how God feels about liars. I trust what you have explained above about your experience is true (even though I have no idea who Matt10 is, as you don't have any idea who Jondough is). But I do know that theres always a few bad apples or "Tares" as the bible calls it. But a Matt10 on TMB is going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority of Workers are "bald-faced liars" and part of a conpiracy cover-up. I knew Uncle Willie Jamison personally, and I can tell you that there is NO WAY he would have bald-faced lied. Period. Maybe not talked about it, but no way he just lied about it. Leo Stancliff, same thing. There are many others. So I'd like to know who besides the one you had your experience was part of this conspiracy. Jon, my parents knew the early workers. My grandfather professed in 1915. Why didn't they know? I knew Willie Jamison too. Why did he not correct an incorrect assumption if he was so honest. It is a sign of integrity if you are aware that someone has misunderstood something to clear up that misunderstanding even though it might be in your best interests to just let it ride. That's how I see it anyway. My family ties go back at least 10 years further: my Dad's stepgrandfather was one of Jack C's earliest converts in WA. (JC came down the river in a canoe by himself, no companion, and that began the lifelong connection.) They (with Dad in tow) spent hours with JC, driving him to special mtgs, conventions, gospel mtgs, any where JC needed to go, they took him--from Canada to Ca to AZ--and they didn't know the history either. My Mom professed in JC's missions but she figured out that it didn't go all the way back by the fact that no one had any relatives in this way before the Irish group. Dad and his Mom told her she was wrong. Mom heard my brother tell someone we belonged to the church that Jesus started and she told him not to say that because it wasn't true. My brother said "that's what the workers say." LOL: it makes her sound like she wasn't professing but she definitely was and she believed it was the 'one right way' anyway. In the West, I think it was a case of careful preaching in the beginning (read JC's early notes on the need for the right form of ministry) and wishful thinking on the part of the listeners. If you present the form of ministry as an "eternal principle" and don't speak to the history, then the next generation honestly doesn't know it hasn't always been around and they truly believe it goes "all the way back." I sure did, and I didn't learn of WI until I was 58 years into the fellowship. Learning of the history didn't bother me--but the way the workers I tried to talk to about it did bother me. Nonetheless, it wasn't why I left. However, I don't mean this to say that Matt 10 wasn't lied to; I'm not doubting his testimony at all and don't want it to sound that way. I'm just saying what it looks like to me from the perspective of my family's history and a huge box of old Jack C's notes that Truth Archive and TLT now have. It was an inconvenient truth then and now. Most of the folks in my union mtg had no clue about it, young or old. The history should be respected; I certainly do. But honesty trumps history.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 16:46:37 GMT -5
There's no 'if' Jon. There's no question of misinterpreting the facts as I have presented them. I think using the word 'if' risks giving the impression that there is some doubt in your mind. If you have reason to doubt what I have written it would be better if you would say so in order that I can respond. I have noted what might be interpreted as a move by current members to attempt to down play the cover up of the history, to suggest that deliberate attempts to misrepresent the history did not happen. Your initial statement could well be interpreted as part of that move whether you intended it to or not. You may well not believe that anyone deliberately misrepresented the true history of the sect. However anyone who has spent time here could not help to gain a sense that a deliberate cover up of the history took place at least by some workers in some areas at some time. In view of this I suspect that your belief may be based either on wishful thinking or on a refusal to accept the claims made by other posters in spite of the consistent theme. I would doubt that you are in a better position to judge what went on in some areas that those who were associated with the sect for twenty or thirty or more years there. I would also challenge you on your claim that this as merely a character flaw. Again I think this is downplaying the issue. I put it to you that this was not merely a character flaw in this man but part of a more systemic problem within the system. This particular worker wasn't the only who I heard preached a similar misleading line but merely the only one who I challenged when having knowledge of the true history. I would go as far as to suggest that deliberately misrepresenting the true history of the group was the policy of some senior workers in some areas at one time. Finally I note you are now using the term 'for the most part'. Again I fear that use of this term might also be interpreted as attempting to downplay the issue. I have given you one firm example of bald faced lying (your term) about the history. What would it take to persuade you to acknowledge that there was a concentrated effort at one time by a significant number of senior workers in a number of different areas to deliberately misrepresent the history of the sect? Matt10 Matt, Since you are claiming a conspiracy that is quite significant, which workers specificallty were a part of this cover-up? Most workers I know have read pretty clearly in the bible how God feels about liars. I trust what you have explained above about your experience is true (even though I have no idea who Matt10 is, as you don't have any idea who Jondough is). But I do know that theres always a few bad apples or "Tares" as the bible calls it. But a Matt10 on TMB is going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority of Workers are "bald-faced liars" and part of a conpiracy cover-up. I knew Uncle Willie Jamison personally, and I can tell you that there is NO WAY he would have bald-faced lied. Period. Maybe not talked about it, but no way he just lied about it. Leo Stancliff, same thing. There are many others. So I'd like to know who besides the one you had your experience was part of this conspiracy. Lets be clear. I would not use the term liar to describe any worker. You couldn't have missed the fact that the term I used in every single paragraph in my response bar the first one was 'deliberately misrepresent the history'. I'm really not sure why you choose to use the term 'liar' in response to a post in which I have clearly, frequently and unambiguously used a completely different term. You also won't have missed the fact that I haven't used the word liar at all. Liar is a very strong term and one which I wouldn't use even in relation to the worker who I referred to. I certainly don't think he told me a bald faced lie (I'm using your term) because he was a liar. I think he told me it because it was the policy of the sect to which he belonged and which as a senior worker he was obliged to go along with. As I stated clearly earlier I think he was operating merely a tool of the system and therefore it is the system rather than the individual worker which is where the problem lies (claiming it is one or two bad apples is another attempt to downplay it.) Most of the workers I knew were sincere in their belief in their God and in their belief system, a belief system which unfortunately was/is deeply flawed. Finally I would remind you that it was you who made the original claim and it is I responded to you providing you with evidence of a case which calls your original claim into question. Of course I wouldn't suggest that you base your view solely in what I tell you. I suggest that you seek wider views here and then draw your conclusion. I look forward to it. Regards. Matt10
|
|