Guest just wondering
Guest
|
Post by Guest just wondering on Jan 30, 2008 17:17:42 GMT -5
Aileen, I wonder if you are just trying to support and defend the meeting way, rather than to help it by posting true facts. Don't you think stating things as they are will encourage the powers that be to act more kindly, logically and consistently and to correct the wrongs of the past? Lying backfires and does more damage in the long run. There's a beautiful psalm that says ....God desires truth in the inward parts.... Revealing the wrong of our ways can help to purge and even cleanse and heal the wounds.
|
|
|
Post by Aint it the truth on Jan 30, 2008 17:36:46 GMT -5
my wife and I were married 25 yrs ago in the USA and she wore white, no problems. Workers and friends attended both the ceremony and the reception. It wasn't even an issue. Her mom said the workers might not like the "peeling off the garter" part and I told her that it would probably be a brother worker that would catch it!!
|
|
|
Post by layla on Jan 30, 2008 19:50:07 GMT -5
Very interesting thread but I don't think any one mentioned the reason why you could not wear white. Can any one give the reason or reasons though varied they may be?
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jan 30, 2008 23:49:51 GMT -5
Very interesting thread but I don't think any one mentioned the reason why you could not wear white. Can any one give the reason or reasons though varied they may be? Regarding weddings...I imagine because it was too "worldly". I was raised in MN w/my dad's roots being from Iowa. When I was young, the weddings from my dad's extended family were pretty un-wedding-ish. The workers frowned on anything that seemed like the "worldly" traditions. Women were married in a regular dressy dress, and men generally in a gray suit. Kind of like they were going to special meetings! That's definitely not the case in our end of the world now. When I was married in 91, some of the restrictions still applied.... no scoop necks or short sleeves on wedding dresses... lacey collars all the way up to the throat. But in the past 10 years I've seen weddings among very "hearty" meeting families w/very stylish spaghetti strap dresses. A ban on white clothing in general.... that's a new one to me! I remember when "colored" shoes (anything other than black, brown, tan or navy) were very much frowned upon.
|
|
|
Post by layla on Jan 31, 2008 0:14:23 GMT -5
Thanks Juliette. I think you are spot on. That just makes so much sense now that you write it out. Some of this stuff, you're just stumped on and wonder, what's the deal, but what you wrote would appear to be the/our perfect mindset. When I hear these things I just want to go into my closet and pray the lawd would jes beat these things outta me. I canst take enathing but a worker admonition or a frowning look (interpret dirty look here). Why can't I pray to my God about things instead of hiding behind a manmade religion?
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Jan 31, 2008 2:59:33 GMT -5
Aileen You may be B&R but I very much doubt that you're a world wide authority on the peculiarities of the so-called Truth. What makes you so certain in relation to your knowledge of the 2x2 position on the wearing of white wedding dresses in the UK? Is it because that it isn't what you wish to believe (this is called delusion) or is it because you have reliable information? If it is the latter it would strengthen your position to share such information with the doubters - which weddings have you attended in the uk, what workers were there, what type of dress was worn? For what it's worth traditional white wedding dresses were frowned upon in Ireland certainly until very recently (I can't speak for now) to the extent that they were preached against at Fermanagh convention by no higher authority than the right honourable Comrade Gamble himself. Furthermore 'advice' was also provided by the workers restricting the numbers at weddings - I think it forty was considered the maximum. I can't say that everyone abided by the guidance laid down but it was certainly the official 2x2 position and the happy couple would certainly have a visit from a worker prior to the great event to ensure the advice was indeed passed on. It is folly to attempt to write the history of the 2x2 sect as something that it isn't - it has all been tried before by those deemed greater in the 2x2 hierarchy than thou. Matt Matt: I didn't claim to be a "worldwide authority". But I do know about the UK. I've never been to the USA or most other countries, so cannot comment on what they get up to. I was married wearing a white dress, so was my mother. I've been to about 20 weddings over the last 10 years where most wore white. (I do remember one particular exception, where red was the colour. Not my choice I have to say) You ask what makes me so cetain about these facts? Its because my eyes told me. I was there, I saw it with my own eyes. I cannot beleive how anyone can say anything different. Now I know that in the USA and some other places things are different, they do things differently. But that doesn't mean its the same the world over, it seems not. I do not intend to name those people whose weddings I have attended. Not here. I've seen the destructive power of being identified on this board - life made a misery, plagued with phonecalls, letters emails visits even from those determined to talk a person out of our group.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Jan 31, 2008 3:05:33 GMT -5
Aileen, I wonder if you are just trying to support and defend the meeting way, rather than to help it by posting true facts. Don't you think stating things as they are will encourage the powers that be to act more kindly, logically and consistently and to correct the wrongs of the past? Lying backfires and does more damage in the long run. There's a beautiful psalm that says ....God desires truth in the inward parts.... Revealing the wrong of our ways can help to purge and even cleanse and heal the wounds. All I'm addressing here is the colour of wedding dresses. If you think thats some means of supporting (or otherwise) the "powers that be", then I think you're the one deluding themselves. Its a dress for goodness sake, not a doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Jan 31, 2008 3:07:01 GMT -5
A ban on white clothing in general.... that's a new one to me! I remember when "colored" shoes (anything other than black, brown, tan or navy) were very much frowned upon. I think people dream up new restrictions, rules etc to make up new ways to show our church as false.
|
|
|
Post by the pure bride on Jan 31, 2008 3:29:57 GMT -5
When me and my sister got married white was banned for wedding dresses - workers would not attend weddings unless the reception was in a home and the bride. It was standard practice that the bride would not wear white.
A bride in white is a symbol of the bride of Christ. Is the church going to be pure or colored? Are the workers going to offer a less than pure bride? To me it is surely an example of how the workers see the bride of Christ. Sin rather than pure. Another thing that makes me realize how far from the truth this group is.
|
|
|
Post by caith on Jan 31, 2008 5:34:02 GMT -5
"a white dress".
For me that phrase would imply something sold obviously as "a wedding dress". It might well be ivory or cream, etc., but it would look like a standard 'worldly' wedding dress - long, lots of material in the skirt, possibly with a veil, and certainly not something you'd haul out for to wear again, even to a formal event.
Growing up in Ireland i can't remember a problem with white as a colour - in fact from memories of weddings in the family, everyone chose white/ivory/cream. But the dress itself would have been a dress and not A Dress - and not by choice, either.
Oh, the subtle difference between a white dress and A White Dress ;D
caith whose mother got married in dark blue velvet.
|
|
Guest just wondering
Guest
|
Post by Guest just wondering on Jan 31, 2008 10:29:40 GMT -5
One of the reasons given apart from the usual ""worldly" reason was that it was copying the traditional churches. Anything held in a church or to do with a church was taboo. Therefore to wear full regalia white dess and veil was a church thing.
|
|
Guest just wondering
Guest
|
Post by Guest just wondering on Jan 31, 2008 10:57:54 GMT -5
Aileen, I wonder if you are just trying to support and defend the meeting way, rather than to help it by posting true facts. Don't you think stating things as they are will encourage the powers that be to act more kindly, logically and consistently and to correct the wrongs of the past? Lying backfires and does more damage in the long run. There's a beautiful psalm that says ....God desires truth in the inward parts.... Revealing the wrong of our ways can help to purge and even cleanse and heal the wounds. All I'm addressing here is the colour of wedding dresses. If you think thats some means of supporting (or otherwise) the "powers that be", then I think you're the one deluding themselves. Its a dress for goodness sake, not a doctrine. Just look at that sentence!!! last but one. Is that all you are addressing? You claim that workers approve of and watch TV. Now you are claiming that they do not object to a white bridal gown!! You claim to live in the UK. Why not address speaking the TRUTH, would that be hard? If you genuinely don't know then find out before you make even lore sweeping assertions!! Whether the rules are good or bad matters less than the falsehood around them. Sweeping them under the carpet does not change the fact that the rules have damaged and been hurtful to the people in the way for a few generations. Personally most people inside or outside do not object to workers making rules
|
|
Guest just wondering
Guest
|
Post by Guest just wondering on Jan 31, 2008 11:08:58 GMT -5
They do however strongly object to the cover up and FALSEHOOD.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jan 31, 2008 11:50:06 GMT -5
A ban on white clothing in general.... that's a new one to me! I remember when "colored" shoes (anything other than black, brown, tan or navy) were very much frowned upon. I think people dream up new restrictions, rules etc to make up new ways to show our church as false. The strange and inconsistent rules were not what led me out of this church, although they did give me a lot to think about. It was ultimately the exclusive doctrine that I couldn't live with... it seemed like blasphemy to me. This subject comes up a lot on this board.... rules that some have heard of and others haven't. It just goes to show how subjective the rules actually are, and how they can be specific to the region or the head workers in the area. If you're questioning my word on the shoe color rule, I guess I could ask my mom to "testify", but she probably thinks this site is the work of the devil, so that probably wouldn't happen. She was from Ohio, where the rules were even more strict. Some friends in MN convinced her that the pair of purples shoes they were looking at to go with her dress would actually be okay and not against the workers' views in MN. This was in the 80's, and I'm sure people within the fellowship now wouldn't think twice about what color their shoes are.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Jan 31, 2008 11:56:54 GMT -5
It very revealing that those claiming to know different are those that live in another country. I've told it as it is (re TV and white wedding dresses).
You've told it as you think it is based on your experience in another country (which experience I don't dispute). I think it ridiculous that workers should get involved in these matters, and wonder how much you folk let them get involved.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jan 31, 2008 12:13:02 GMT -5
It very revealing that those claiming to know different are those that live in another country. I've told it as it is (re TV and white wedding dresses). You've told it as you think it is based on your experience in another country (which experience I don't dispute). I think it ridiculous that workers should get involved in these matters, and wonder how much you folk let them get involved. I think it was more common twenty years ago, when I was younger. I remember my mom stressing out when she ran to the mall on Sunday, worrying that someone would see her. I remember workers preaching against matters like this at gospel meetings. I don't think you see so much of this now. It's an interesting question you ask "how much you folk let them get involved". If I were to try and speak for those (like my mom and others her age) who let the workers get involved, I guess I would say that if you believe what you were told that the workers are God's sent messengers, that they should be treated as those who must answer for your souls, and that this is the "only way" to a saved eternity, then I guess you better let the workers opinions dictate your life if you want to stay on the inside. Like I said before, relatives of mine were "exed" because they wouldn't get rid of their TV. Looking back, I'm guessing it was a battle of wills and the TV was just the form the battle took at that time.
|
|
|
Post by white on Jan 31, 2008 12:40:16 GMT -5
;D Maybe the reason the brides can't wear white has to do the the 'reason' they are getting married. ;D
|
|
|
Post by huhh on Jan 31, 2008 12:44:34 GMT -5
Just looked at our wedding pictures.
The wedding was small, in a home, by a judge, workers were there.
The bride wore white, the groom wore white, the best man wore white.
This was in the midwest, late 70's.
(guess the reason above did not apply either)
|
|
|
Post by worn white on Jan 31, 2008 12:48:25 GMT -5
I coulda worn white when I got married because I was a v....n
|
|
|
Post by justreading on Jan 31, 2008 23:59:00 GMT -5
Julliette I attended your and J wedding. It was the second wedding (I was somewhat young at the time) I had attended. I was very appreciative that our family was invited, as we were ones that did not have to many "privileges". I have always looked up to you and J (you are about ten years older than I) and was wondering if you could expand on the "exclusive doctrine".
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Feb 1, 2008 0:27:20 GMT -5
Hello, justreading:
Now you have me very curious, wondering who you are! I'm glad you enjoyed the wedding, and I hope you're doing well!
By "exclusive doctrine" I mean the belief that only those who are a part of the "truth" fellowship and profess through the workers are saved. This includes the condemnation of other faiths and ministers as "false", and denies the work of God in the lives of those who are not part of the friends and workers religion. I also see connected to this the belief that the friends and workers' religion is the "Truth" vs. Jesus being the truth. To me, this is close to blasphemy... denying God's work in others and taking the place of judgment. I'm not sure I do the best job explaining this, so I'm going to copy something that someone else posted on another thread. This is from a letter that a man name Phil Andrews wrote in 1994.
Feel free to register and send me a PM (Personal Message) or send me an e-mail at julistucker@earthlink.net!
Juli
Here are two paragraphs from Phil Andrew's letter:
2. The proclamation of being the Truth. I now see how presumptuous of God we have been in allowing this name to stick to our fellowship. It may border on Blasphemy. Jesus proclaimed himself the Truth, and now a body of believers, proclaim they are the Truth. In essence saying we are equal with God. Blasphemy. In saying we are the Way is much the same. The Truth is Jesus, the Way is Jesus. The person of Jesus Christ revealed to us and in us is the rock upon which he proclaimed he would build his church. Recently I have heard many say that it was revealed to them that this fellowship was the right way. The scriptures do not point to a body of believers, but to Christ himself as the revealed way. Jesus has revealed himself to me and I have neither had or seek any continuing revelation. Hence I cannot be in a fellowship teaching the doctrine of continuing revelations aside from revelations about the person of Jesus Christ.
3. The proclamation that all other bodies of believers are false and lost. Who am I to judge another mans servant much less God’s children? Continually there is blanket condemnation rendered to all outside the fellowship. Yes there are false religions, false individuals, but even as God allows the tares to abide with the wheat he does not condemn the whole field. Who are you and I to do so? I have much enjoyed fellowship with other believers over the years and now embrace them without reservation as brothers and sisters in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Tell the truth on Feb 1, 2008 20:00:16 GMT -5
[ quote author=aileen board=general thread=1189022431 post=1201798614]It very revealing that those claiming to know different are those that live in another country. I've told it as it is (re TV and white wedding dresses).
You've told it as you think it is based on your experience in another country (which experience I don't dispute). I think it ridiculous that workers should get involved in these matters, and wonder how much you folk let them get involved.[/quote][/color] The UK IS another country and in the UK the rules are not as you describe, non-existant. Workers do NOT watch TV, would not accept an invitation to do so. If they did they would be asked to LEAVE. The friends are preached into NOT having or using a TV. The friends are told NOT to wear white wedding dresses. Those who do so disobey the workers. This is according to the workers in the UK. Please check with the overseers inthe UK. Ask them their views. You wouldn't want to be breaking the rules by ignorance, would you? They will never contradict the teachings of the past workers, will they? After all if something is WRONG it cannot suddenly be RIGHT. Who agrees with the rule or not is another matter, but the rules exist as laid down by the workers.
|
|
|
Post by lying versus truth on Feb 1, 2008 20:10:33 GMT -5
Isn't it amazing how people will break the rules and then cover up. The double standards are the most sickening thing and most destructive. Having so many silly rules is sad, ignoring the rules is probably a good idea, but the deviousness is so obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Wrong or Right on Feb 1, 2008 20:17:33 GMT -5
That's just it. Teaching Wrong for Right. Those in charge cannot get it right now without admitting that they got it wrong in the first place. They deny there are any rules because ther NEVER should have been any enforced. They've dug themselves into a pit. THE ONLY WAY OUT IS TO COME CLEAN.
|
|
|
Post by where is Rebecca on Feb 1, 2008 21:15:17 GMT -5
Okay, seeing that this is an Irish/English/Scottish mosh pit going on, do any of you know what happened to Rebecca Kerr, Scottish worker in the US for several years and then on to "rest" in the 90s or so?
|
|
|
Post by Julie Hayes Guest on Feb 1, 2008 21:29:30 GMT -5
What happened to Julia Hayes? UK worker England. I think? Anybody know where she is?
|
|
|
Post by Missing persons on Feb 1, 2008 21:35:55 GMT -5
Someone said the other day that Denise Eliot, Irish worker is not on the list. Where is she?
No one has heard of Ruth Brown for some time, or the Bell brothers?
Where are they all?
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Feb 1, 2008 21:48:30 GMT -5
One of the reasons given apart from the usual ""worldly" reason was that it was copying the traditional churches. Anything held in a church or to do with a church was taboo. Therefore to wear full regalia white dess and veil was a church thing. I think you're right. I know at home it was taboo to do ANYTHING that the Catholic Church was doing or what appeared to be related to it. Being a separated people I think meant to be separated from the Catholic Church!!!!! I know I asked mum growing up why we didnt wear white wedding dresses and she said because that is what the Catholics do. Most would say the "world" but to us "the world" was the Catholics! Im not sure now if things have changed in Ireland but up to a few years ago they were still getting married in off-white. Always was strange to me why they didnt want to appear "pure".... maybe they didnt go "all the way" so they weren't completely defiled? ? ROFL
|
|