|
Post by jphillips on Dec 12, 2008 7:38:26 GMT -5
How did the Irish populace, in the early 1900s, get mystified by the '2x2' belief -- many knowing full well of its deception, that it was a man-conceived faith of WI?
Is Ireland/UK seeing a downswing in followers these days as in the U.S.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2008 7:41:05 GMT -5
I have no problem understanding how the Irish were taken in by William Irvine. What I can't get my head around is how the Scottish folks were taken in by him ?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 12, 2008 12:37:56 GMT -5
Because the irish are very heart-centered people, of course they would be quick to accept a heart-centerd church. Yes, amazing those hard-headed Scots ever took it in.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 12, 2008 17:19:05 GMT -5
We must remember that William Irvine and Edward Cooney were men with charisma and enthusiasm and such men usually attract a following, be they right or be they wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2008 9:33:01 GMT -5
I’m not sure that the Irish populace did get mystified by the 2x2 belief system in the early 1900’s. The issue of the foundation was not an issue in the early days - the Irish populace (or a small minority of the Irish protestant populace) understood perfectly well who William Irvine was and were quite happy to follow his newly established movement. In this they were no different to any other populace following a new religious leader whether it be Jesus, Mohammad or Joseph Smith.
The deception did not creep in until many years later, long after the departure of William Irvine and for reasons that were less than honourable. My experience on this board leads me to believe that the Irish were probably the least suckered by the deception and the Americans (perhaps) the most.
I believe that Irvinegrey is correct – the success of the movement in the early days was largely down to the charismatic preaching of Irvine and Cooney. (Eat your heart out Tommie Gamble!) Following their departure the rapid growth of the movement ceased as swiftly as it began with the hierarchy subsequently being content (perhaps more than content) merely to maintain the status quo. The hired hall behind the high hedge continues to be the preferred approach for recruitment of new members even today.
I’m beginning now to think of the 2x2s as two completely separate movements – the pre 1920’s and the post 1920’s movements (the transition took place over a number of years). The pre 1920’s movement is the one founded by William Irvine along the same lines as the Faith Mission, which preached in public that the Clergy were going to Hell, which eschewed formal organisation and focussed very much on evangelising. I now consider post 1920’s movement to have been founded by George Walker, the Carrols and Wilson Reid etc on the same lines as Cooneyism, which preaches in secret, is strictly organisation and is focussed less on evangelising and more on the cult of the worker and meeting. It is also responsible for promoting the ‘Great Deception’ that their church is from the beginning and for the strict upholding of the flawed Living Witness Doctrine. I don’t think you can pin the 2x2 deceit at the door of Irvine or Cooney – they may have been a tad deluded of course but outright deceivers they were not. Unlike those who came later. Who were guilty of both. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by melissa on Dec 13, 2008 10:04:05 GMT -5
and didn't they believe in leprachauns and fairies, ghosts and goblins?
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 13, 2008 11:02:51 GMT -5
I’m not sure that the Irish populace did get mystified by the 2x2 belief system in the early 1900’s. The issue of the foundation was not an issue in the early days - the Irish populace (or a small minority of the Irish protestant populace) understood perfectly well who William Irvine was and were quite happy to follow his newly established movement. In this they were no different to any other populace following a new religious leader whether it be Jesus, Mohammad or Joseph Smith. The deception did not creep in until many years later, long after the departure of William Irvine and for reasons that were less than honourable. My experience on this board leads me to believe that the Irish were probably the least suckered by the deception and the Americans (perhaps) the most. I believe that Irvinegrey is correct – the success of the movement in the early days was largely down to the charismatic preaching of Irvine and Cooney. (Eat your heart out Tommie Gamble!) Following their departure the rapid growth of the movement ceased as swiftly as it began with the hierarchy subsequently being content (perhaps more than content) merely to maintain the status quo. The hired hall behind the high hedge continues to be the preferred approach for recruitment of new members even today. I’m beginning now to think of the 2x2s as two completely separate movements – the pre 1920’s and the post 1920’s movements (the transition took place over a number of years). The pre 1920’s movement is the one founded by William Irvine along the same lines as the Faith Mission, which preached in public that the Clergy were going to Hell, which eschewed formal organisation and focussed very much on evangelising. I now consider post 1920’s movement to have been founded by George Walker, the Carrols and Wilson Reid etc on the same lines as Cooneyism, which preaches in secret, is strictly organisation and is focussed less on evangelising and more on the cult of the worker and meeting. It is also responsible for promoting the ‘Great Deception’ that their church is from the beginning and for the strict upholding of the flawed Living Witness Doctrine. I don’t think you can pin the 2x2 deceit at the door of Irvine or Cooney – they may have been a tad deluded of course but outright deceivers they were not. Unlike those who came later. Who were guilty of both. Matt10 I agree with much of what you write and perhaps I am mistaken in my understanding of what you have written about Edward Cooney but Edward's big, excommunicable sin was the fact that he didn't believe in the organisational structure that had developed and did believe in evangelising. Reid et al did much to promote the infallible nature of the workers (thereby not being accountable to any mortal) and somehow through their ministerings, the movement did morph into a rather secretive, almost underground movement where even laity were reluctant to share their beliefs with their neighbours and what joy they ought to have had in Christ was subdued to silence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2008 15:41:52 GMT -5
I can't help thinking that the good old fashioned evil of envy also played a major role in Cooney's excommunication. From what I have read none of his accusers could hold a candle to him in terms of preaching, charisma, godliness or gaining converts. Once Walker, the Carrols, Reid et al had carved out the continents between them, they must have viewed him as a potential threat to their empires and didn't wish to be usurped by him. His removal certainly left them answerable to no one.
I no longer believe any of it of course, but I would concede that while Irvine may well have had something of the night about him, Cooney did have a gift from the gods. Without him there would have been no 2x2 movement. I find his betrayal by those whom he rescued from obscurity to be right up there with those of Judas Iscariot and Marcus Junius Brutus. My mother has an old purple chair which she used to refer to as Wilson Reid's chair - I refuse to sit on it now. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 15, 2008 7:41:14 GMT -5
My mother has an old purple chair which she used to refer to as Wilson Reid's chair - I refuse to sit on it now. Matt10 You're funny Matt! You are right about Cooney's charisma and ability to draw and hold an audience. My father knew him well and though didn't much like him on a personal level, he willingly admits that he was a great orator. He well remembers the days he spoke in the Diamond in Enniskillen back in the 50's I suppose, and the crowds that drew around him to hear him speak. These of course, would have been people that would have known much about the fellowship and the split as Fermanagh as you may know, had a rather small population and a thriving grapevine for gossip throughout all communities but still they came to hear Cooney speak, even though they had no interest in following him. I expect envy may have been at the root of his excommunication but the Reid followers found it troublesome to try to delegate workers to certain fields only to find that Edward Cooney would roll up and have a mission perhaps just a few miles away. Cooney of course claimed that he was guided by the Spirit. Cooney at one point (not sure when exactly) started to preach OSAS doctrine which didn't go down well. Does anybody know more about that?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 6, 2010 11:42:17 GMT -5
I'm new to this board, but this is a question I've wondered about. I do see the difference between the 1920's 2x2s, and the post-1920s 2x2s. I have been researching whether Irvine was a FreeMason. Does anyone feel that Irvine's background in FreeMasonry helped develop the cult-like atmosphere of the post-1920's 2x2s? Thank you for any and all thoughts, quizzer
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 6, 2010 12:01:37 GMT -5
I'm new to this board, but this is a question I've wondered about. I do see the difference between the 1920's 2x2s, and the post-1920s 2x2s. I have been researching whether Irvine was a FreeMason. Does anyone feel that Irvine's background in FreeMasonry helped develop the cult-like atmosphere of the post-1920's 2x2s? Thank you for any and all thoughts, quizzer I don't have any deep interest in this topic, but just from the top of my head... By the post-1920 era William Irvine was well away from the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 6, 2010 20:17:28 GMT -5
I'm new to this board, but this is a question I've wondered about. I do see the difference between the 1920's 2x2s, and the post-1920s 2x2s. I have been researching whether Irvine was a FreeMason. Does anyone feel that Irvine's background in FreeMasonry helped develop the cult-like atmosphere of the post-1920's 2x2s? Thank you for any and all thoughts, quizzer Yes, definitely. If the root is bad, the fruit is also going to be bad.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 6, 2010 21:40:58 GMT -5
I'm new to this board, but this is a question I've wondered about. I do see the difference between the 1920's 2x2s, and the post-1920s 2x2s. I have been researching whether Irvine was a FreeMason. Does anyone feel that Irvine's background in FreeMasonry helped develop the cult-like atmosphere of the post-1920's 2x2s? Thank you for any and all thoughts, quizzer Yes, definitely. If the root is bad, the fruit is also going to be bad. However, the root is not in Irvine.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 6, 2010 22:15:32 GMT -5
I don't quite understand what you mean by the root not being in Irvine.
Does anyone know what the fruit of freemasonry is? How does that compare to the fruit in the meetings?
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Aug 7, 2010 5:26:46 GMT -5
Freemasonary is a cult. They speak curses over themselves and their families.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 7, 2010 11:38:21 GMT -5
A cult, however it is defined, is satan worship. One of the fruits of satan worship is sexual immorality.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 7, 2010 13:41:53 GMT -5
However, I don't think it follows that all sexually immoral people are Satan worshippers.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 7, 2010 14:39:45 GMT -5
Nope, but where there is sexual immorality you will find satan's influence. You do not have to be directly involved with freemasonry to be influenced by it. The children of freemasons suffer the consequences of their vows to satan. Just like the children of Israel who took on the daughters of Balak's kingdom. Satan sets up schemes because he cannot be everywhere at once. That is why our warfare is not only against the principalities and powers but also the schemes. If his schemes can cause us to sin, he does not have to be present to curse us. Jesus has made it possible that once we start down a path of cursing, He can turn us around, take away the shame and guilt and set us on the right path. The devil makes effort to convince us that it is impossible to repent(if we are trying to change) or convince them that immorality is not wrong(when they do not want to change).
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 7, 2010 18:57:14 GMT -5
Here's the way I see it after a year or so of immersing myself in the history or the F&W.
Irvine saw, as others saw, gross spiritual discrepancies between the contemporary methods of Christian worship of his time and what he read about such in the Bible. He gathered attention to the problem and also gathered a following by identifying such discrepancies as he saw them and and proclaiming a better way.
The better way he and his early followers envisioned was experimental and like true experiments it wasn't known at the time how things would come together and turn out. The early workers who signed on were dedicated and sincere, for the most part, and had the ideal of a contemporary New Testament ministry as a goal. Irvine as a social experimenter, was a strong leader initially, but soon lost absolute control over the movement as it grew geographically and found himself relegated to an obscure position. This was good because it allowed cooler heads to prevail and carry on. A similar fate later happened to Cooney who apparently financed the movement early on.
Presently, the fellowship has spread world-wide with many workers and followers. Of course, problems developed within the church, even today. Some problems are thought to be prevalent because of the way the ministry lives amongst the members, but when I see the actual facts, I see these as very sporadic and isolated events, although all collected together in one place such as the Wings site it seems greater.
While I might choose certain aspects to be somewhat different, I value the absence of tangible items such as dedicated church buildings for worship, pipe organs, choirs, committees, programs, entertainment, etc. because I could easily get wrapped up in service to those and miss the simple message of Christ. So I'm content and do not feel I got suckered by William Irvine, nor do I feel the Irish got suckered. Overall, I have benefited much more than I have spent. Hard to get a better deal than that!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 8, 2010 14:00:11 GMT -5
Here's the way I see it after a year or so of immersing myself in the history or the F&W. Irvine saw, as others saw, gross spiritual discrepancies between the contemporary methods of Christian worship of his time and what he read about such in the Bible. He gathered attention to the problem and also gathered a following by identifying such discrepancies as he saw them and and proclaiming a better way. The better way he and his early followers envisioned was experimental and like true experiments it wasn't known at the time how things would come together and turn out. The early workers who signed on were dedicated and sincere, for the most part, and had the ideal of a contemporary New Testament ministry as a goal. Irvine as a social experimenter, was a strong leader initially, but soon lost absolute control over the movement as it grew geographically and found himself relegated to an obscure position. This was good because it allowed cooler heads to prevail and carry on. A similar fate later happened to Cooney who apparently financed the movement early on. Presently, the fellowship has spread world-wide with many workers and followers. Of course, problems developed within the church, even today. Some problems are thought to be prevalent because of the way the ministry lives amongst the members, but when I see the actual facts, I see these as very sporadic and isolated events, although all collected together in one place such as the Wings site it seems greater. While I might choose certain aspects to be somewhat different, I value the absence of tangible items such as dedicated church buildings for worship, pipe organs, choirs, committees, programs, entertainment, etc. because I could easily get wrapped up in service to those and miss the simple message of Christ. So I'm content and do not feel I got suckered by William Irvine, nor do I feel the Irish got suckered. Overall, I have benefited much more than I have spent. Hard to get a better deal than that! Spirituality has been changing always. There is going to be another huge shift I believe towards a greater understanding spiritually somewhat like the age of enlightenment changed the face of religious thought then. We need to look at how we can expand our understanding of life and god and bring that into the current religions. We are virtually trying to live in a 21st century world using 1st century and earlier religious beliefs. It's pretty much dividing our world and killing us imo. It's time to look at that and focus on what works if we want to continue to live anything like we are now accustomed to.
|
|