|
Post by someguy on Feb 18, 2009 21:46:51 GMT -5
I agree Jesus only. Somewhere along the line everything went off the rails and it went from being one of many ways to fellowship and worship to being the "only way". With this exclusivity came hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and a complete reversal of the original intent. What has started as a movement to get away from the religious system, has now become even worse then the very thing it was striving not to be.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 22:02:03 GMT -5
So true, Lin! However as there are religious buffs, there are history buffs in this world we live in.....and if a history is to be finalized, maybe it is wise to make sure that it is as near correct as possible....maybe I'm a bit of one too much of giving credit where credit is due, but then since it's purported that a lie has already been aired for over 100 yrs. about the truth's fellowship...I feel personally that to get it right the second 100 yrs. might be more helpful....I could be wrong, often am! I doubt the lie has been going anywhere near that long. Here's why: When early workers spoke of "what is from the beginning" they were not referring to the mission that William Irvine started. When they first started claiming "we did not start this Jesus' way" they were not referring to the mission William Irvine started. When they first started speaking of "the way of God" they were not referring to the mission William Irvine started. The mission William Irvine started evolved into a sect over time, contrary to the intention of the early workers. (Remember a number of them left or were booted because they couldn't stomach the evolving exclusivity). Then people started referring to the sect as "God's way". That is where it went wrong. As the mission William Irvine started evolved into an organization, so did perfectly innocent statements evolve into lies. jo, the wrong step was when WI as overseer embraced with undue enthusiasn the sermon that Joseph Kerr delivered as a very young worker of the LWD( I think this was before 1920)...all but 2 of those workers are said to have embraced the LWD and those two seemed to have been excommunicated by WI! It was very traumatic for those 2 to be turned on like that! Because of the intense fervor of zeal in those Christian revival times, many churches of that day embraced the idea that only they were the only right way! But that too has evolved into something far more accepting of one another...that is in most churches. The truth's fellowship got caught up in the idea and mixed it up with the scriptural truths that they had sought out to start with....just a grave problem with having had no basic written doctrine to start with...just men building on what already was and time and memory failure inserting its' influence to where it has become nothing more then the "commandments of men" become doctrine. "Form" being the largest component of the sect, that leaves out the "spirit led" components...which brings us right back to EC....he didn't think to divide the earth into "fields" with "overseers" was a way to go...no one seemed to want to listen...seems to me the success of the initial mission(movement) went to their heads....each wanting their own field to control....that still is a problem..... THOUGH to be completely fair, there are still some workers who have people's souls welfare at the utmost in their mind and heart.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 22:03:20 GMT -5
"Man's wisdom leads into a maze, and error grows in bypath ways, but hearts are filled with joy and praise, who see the truth in Jesus."
Those early workers saw the truth in Jesus, then over time this vision became corrupted so that the truth was seen in the organization.
The "Jesus only" message worked brilliantly at the turn of the 20th century and it would work brilliantly today IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 22:06:02 GMT -5
"Man's wisdom leads into a maze, and error grows in bypath ways, but hearts are filled with joy and praise, who see the truth in Jesus." Those early workers saw the truth in Jesus, then over time this vision became corrupted so that the truth was seen in the organization. The "Jesus only" message worked brilliantly at the turn of the 20th century and it would work brilliantly today IMO. And that's where our very personal relationship with our Lord and Saviour is our individual saving favor...we don't have to worry about what church doctrine doesn't agree with the scriptures because GOD will reveal the truth to us as He sees fit and He sees we're able! Take comfort in that and all else will pale in importance. The church is only a discipline that keeps our minds upon the Lord our God!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 22:09:07 GMT -5
jo, the wrong step was when WI as overseer embraced with undue enthusiasn the sermon that Joseph Kerr delivered as a very young worker of the LWD( I think this was before 1920)...all but 2 of those workers are said to have embraced the LWD and those two seemed to have been excommunicated by WI! It was very traumatic for those 2 to be turned on like that! Because of the intense fervor of zeal in those Christian revival times, many churches of that day embraced the idea that only they were the only right way! But that too has evolved into something far more accepting of one another...that is in most churches. The truth's fellowship got caught up in the idea and mixed it up with the scriptural truths that they had sought out to start with....just a grave problem with having had no basic written doctrine to start with...just men building on what already was and time and memory failure inserting its' influence to where it has become nothing more then the "commandments of men" become doctrine. "Form" being the largest component of the sect, that leaves out the "spirit led" components...which brings us right back to EC....he didn't think to divide the earth into "fields" with "overseers" was a way to go...no one seemed to want to listen...seems to me the success of the initial mission(movement) went to their heads....each wanting their own field to control....that still is a problem..... THOUGH to be completely fair, there are still some workers who have people's souls welfare at the utmost in their mind and heart. William Irvine started going wrong before that. He got the idea that clergy were of the devil. That may well have been true in some cases, but he made the mistake of condemning all cleargy. You might be thinking of the time William Irvine tested a convention meeting, asking who thinks clergy are saved. Only John Long and Goodhand Pattison professed non-exclusivity.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 18, 2009 22:13:13 GMT -5
I think it was those 2 men who were excommunicated very roughly for not professing exclusivity. You're right WI was actually going wrong all the time...the more I hear about what he did and said, the more I'm convinced and that makes me sad about those who elevated him to some kind of god stature! Put him in as big boss! His sickness has permeated the whole movement from day one....but then that is jmo! And that isn't worth a plug penny!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 18, 2009 22:29:53 GMT -5
I think it was those 2 men who were excommunicated very roughly for not professing exclusivity. You're right WI was actually going wrong all the time...the more I hear about what he did and said, the more I'm convinced and that makes me sad about those who elevated him to some kind of god stature! Put him in as big boss! His sickness has permeated the whole movement from day one....but then that is jmo! And that isn't worth a plug penny! Goodhand Pattison wasn't excommunicated, probably because he wasn't in the work and was a highly respected man in his community. Pattison knew William Irvine very well, and he knew the mission that William Irvine started very well. When he wrote his account it was many years afterwards, yet looking back he spoke highly of William Irvine. I wouldn't write the man off as bad all along. I believe God used him powerfully for a time. None of us know how we would have behaved if walking in his shoes.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 19, 2009 9:06:09 GMT -5
Alfred Magowan was probably present at John Long's excommunication, for he wrote in Outline of Peculiar People (NOTE: J.L. = John Long; W.I. = Wm Irvine): "July 1907 Crocknacrieve, Ballinamallard, Co. Fermanagh A Large Tent With A Platform & Several Preachers On It. About A Thousand People Facing It. J. L. Preaching.
J.L: "There was no tobacco in the Ark." (Voice of W.I. from behind)--"John, tell them there were no Clergy in the Ark!" (The preacher is thrown off his line by this strange interruption and sits down as soon as he can bring his speech to a hasty conclusion.)
W.I.: "John was always the Brake on our Progress. When we set out to follow Jesus, he was selling Books and settled as a Methodist. He was convinced that we were right and cast in his lot with us. But he was not convinced that the Clergy were wrong, and there has always been a holding back in him. For years he has been dragging his feet on the ground to hinder our going on, and let him prove whether God will be with him as He has been with us. All those stand up who believe that J.....W..... is in Hell!!" [Author’s Note: J.W. was probably John Wesley, founder of Methodism) (Nearly all stand up, those who remain seated provoke W.I. to wrath, and he makes uncomplimentary remarks about their quadruped connections!) (One of John's English friends rises and begins to speak).
Englishman: "It is not for us to discover the present whereabouts of the souls of men who are dead. They may not be where we think they are, and what we say about them can neither injure them nor help us. It is for us to look to ourselves that we may not come to where we say they are."
W.I.: "John can go and take his friends with him." …(Some hours later two visitors go for a walk, and talk together.)
First Visitor: "What do you think of it?" Second Visitor: "You mean what do I think of HIM! First Visitor: "I suppose so. It seems to be him, and he seems to be it, and the people seem satisfied to have it so. There is something strange about it." Second Visitor: "Is it a weakness in them?"
First Visitor: "No, it seems to be a power in him. He has a strong personality, and they like it. " Second Visitor: "Did you see how they looked after him when he walked across the court yard?"
First Visitor: "I would like to come back a few years from now, and see how this work grows." Second Visitor: "They will not worship him long. He has been set on a Pinnacle on the Temple, and no man can remain there long without a fall."
First Visitor: "He seems to be a man of strong will." Second Visitor: "Strong-willed men very often are weak in the presence of temptation. When he falls, it will be a heavy fall.
First Visitor: "But if he does not fall." Second Visitor: "It has always been so, and God has had to turn His back on His people for their good."
First Visitor: "Did you notice how easily he disposed of the man called John? It was like sending him into Outer Darkness. Excommunication has been the Great Weapon and the Chief Weakness of Organised Religious Bodies." Second Visitor: "If human families were as brittle as Religious Societies, a man would hardly know from one day to the next, where he was. Still there has been such a thing as Fellowship which survived Threats, Torture and Death."
First Visitor: "There is more of the family spirit here than in the Churches." Second Visitor: "I hope it lasts, even grows, but there's much against it. The strong-willed man would dispose of others as he disposed of John and nobody would raise a voice against it."
First Visitor: "They are afraid of him and still they like him. It is a pity there is no check on him, or that they cannot control their love, and keep it from becoming worship." Second Visitor: "I heard it said that in letters they use a capital "H" when they mention him. They do it unconsciously, not knowing that they are thereby declaring their idolatry."
First Visitor: "They speak of him as a man raised up." Second Visitor: "They will trace their Spiritual Genealogy to him."
First Visitor: "I hear they are doing it now, and many have already given up what they call their old profession, and refer to him as the beginning of a new order, as Adam was the beginning of human descent." Second Visitor: "What fools these mortals be!"
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 19, 2009 9:14:54 GMT -5
John Long expressed his feeling of being robbed of his right to fellowship in the movement he helped to start: "Many years have passed away; and time did much to correct extremes; yet I cannot say that the Go-Preacher mission from that time ever did the same soul saving work that characterized the original years of the work. They still exist in an exclusive manner and are more careful in preaching, and modified in their tone. Of the wrong done to me at that time, there has been no public confession or acknowledgment; it severed me from some of my near relatives; and robbed me of my privilege, namely the right of fellowship in the mission I helped to start...I never undervalued or denied the blessing and help that William Irvine’s testimony was to me; and it was a great pity for me to have to leave them; yet because of the exclusiveness and error they went into, it was a great liberation as well; also I had more access to the different sects with the gospel; and more money to abound as well. God saved me from exclusiveness ____ would debar usefulness, and ever since I claim the right of having fellowship with every member of the body of Christ; and preaching the gospel to every creature, entering every open door." (From: John Long's Journal) It would only be seven (7) years later, in 1914, when Wm Irvine would be told by Jack and Bill Carroll that the workers would no longer submit to his leadership, and he would be ousted from the fellowship which he helped to start, and of which he was the undisputed leader from its inception. Like John Long, he would suffer the pain of rejection by his peers, and feel the pain of betrayal. Just fourteen (14) years later, Ed Cooney, who helped tremendously in the group's start, would also feel the pain of rejection, as his fellow workers cast him out. Interesting that the group would rid itself of the very ones who gave birth to it and gave their lives to its cause. A few years after Wm Irvine was cast out, he wrote to a worker on the 1905 list: "...and nothing pleases them better than when someone can speak more evil of the man to whom they owe all they have. Only the few who refuse to measure Jesus, Paul, Peter or John, Samson or David, or any of God's Anointed by their sins, or by the evil report about them, were saved in any age. Moses made 250 men Princes in Israel, who became famous in the congregation of men of renown, such as many of those [workers] whom I made Princes in the Israel of today [The Testimony]; they set themselves against Moses, making a strong case against him, leading many people with them - what was their end?...Their righteousness today before men and their princely position and fame in the congregation and the renown they have made for themselves, will not stand up against their violation of Mercy to The Man God chose to make them [workers] and place them where they are today.” (March 2, 1921 Letter to Willie Abercrombie) John Long wasn't the only one to be cast out by Wm Irvine from the convention platform: “In 1907, he (Percy Abbott) got his choice at a large convention of going home—not allowed to preach any more, or go out to America and prove himself. This he heard from a public platform thru Mr. Irvine’s lips. He immediately jumped to his feet to justify himself, but Mr. Irvine told him to sit down, adding, 'I know what I’m talking about.' So rather than being sent home, he came to America…” (Willie Edwards 6/15/41 Letter to Bill McCann*) John Long wasn't the only one who did not agree with the new Only Way Concept; that no clergy outside their group were saved; and that no one was saved before they came in contact with Wm Irvine or one of his workers. John Hardie held out for awhile. And though Ed Cooney went along with it for awhile, he renounced this belief in 1914, and he was eventually put out of the fellowship for not believing and teaching it. Ed Cooney wrote Alice Flett about the group's change in beliefs: "Two Heresies arose amongst us at this time, started largely by Joseph Kerr, who said no one could be saved who had not met William Irvine, or some of those in fellowship with him. Others held that only through sister or brother workers could any be saved, and that these workers must be William Irvine's associates. In 1914, I declared that I returned to the gospel William Irvine and I with others, preached for some years before these Heresies were introduced." THE CHIEF OFFENCE for which Ed Cooney was excommunicated in 1928 was that he did not go along with the change in beliefs; i.e. that others were NOT born again BEFORE meeting Wm Irvine. Cooney wrote in a letter to "My dear Sister" dated May, 1930: "In the beginning we were all free to express the revelation God made clear in our hearts...William Irvine, John Hardie, and some others at the beginning believed they were born again in Babylon, but I am sorry to say that I accepted the flesh and blood revelation through Joe Kerr, backed by William Irvine, that previous to meeting him we were unregenerate. John Hardie for many years refused to accept this, then I took up the same position as John. In 1914, God showed me the pre-eminence William got through this error, leading together with other things to his ceasing to be the humble brother amongst brethren he was at the beginning. I am sorry to say that John Hardie has embraced the error he stood out against for so long. Wilson McClung declared that this, which he calls Babylonish testimony, is my chief offence. I am happy to be back at the place we occupied for 4 years after God called William Irvine and others of us to rebuild Jerusalem. [NOTE: the 4 years would be 1901 the year Cooney started preaching through 1905 when Kerr started the Only Way Heresy] I have been excommunicated by my fellow workers, and hundreds of saints and eight workers have been put outside the camp with me." FROM: www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/07wmibook.php
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 10:47:50 GMT -5
You know this account Cherie just reprinted from JL made me thing of what the Bible says those who kill by the sword will die by the sword. Maybe it takes some time in man's measurement of time, but it sure does seem to occur. What I'm saying is this, we know the harsh treatment that JL received at the hands of WI and in a few years, WI received the same treatment. Is it right? There is no love and mercy in it for sure....but that is the way of man and God sees fit to have those who make others suffer to suffer in kind! May God have mercy on all of us! Right?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 10:51:12 GMT -5
It just seems to me that it wouldn't be a long stretch of fact to say the "founders" were WI, JL and EC....because each of them seem to have had a good deal of input as to what was done at a given time in the evolving formation of what is today's truth's fellowship. Maybe that's just my opinion, but from all that is written, I have to grant that JL and EC had a big effect upon the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 19, 2009 12:55:44 GMT -5
It just seems to me that it wouldn't be a long stretch of fact to say the "founders" were WI, JL and EC....because each of them seem to have had a good deal of input as to what was done at a given time in the evolving formation of what is today's truth's fellowship. Maybe that's just my opinion, but from all that is written, I have to grant that JL and EC had a big effect upon the fellowship. Having a big effect is not a good reason to consider someone a founder. Often a founder will kick something off, and others will pick it up and run with it.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 19, 2009 12:59:54 GMT -5
I suppose I should repost this here. I was sitting in a gospel meeting over a year ago where the older brother fully admitted that you cannot trace this "way" back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. True story Nate, I was there.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 19, 2009 13:49:19 GMT -5
I suppose I should repost this here. I was sitting in a gospel meeting over a year ago where the older brother fully admitted that you cannot trace this "way" back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. True story Nate, I was there. I wish more workers would reveal just this tiny tidbit... Workers have told reporters this same thing and its been in the newspapers...but few friends know about it. Did he say anything else along that line? How did he lead up to speaking this info? What state and who was this worker? Was there an "after meeting" response about it?
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 19, 2009 13:58:58 GMT -5
I suppose I should repost this here. I was sitting in a gospel meeting over a year ago where the older brother fully admitted that you cannot trace this "way" back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. True story Nate, I was there. Did he say anything else along that line? How did he lead up to speaking this info? What state and who was this worker? Was there an "after meeting" response about it? Hey Cherie, It happened in British Columbia. The worker was Garth Cook. But this isn't the first time he has said this. I believe he said this at Didsbury convention (Alberta) a few years ago. If I remember correctly (but I might be mistaken) Edgar heard something about that or was there. I think it was posted on here at one time. To be honest, I can't really remember how he led up to it but I do believe he just was chatting about God raising up men to bring about His "true way" again and there really wasn't any response afterwards at least with those I chatted to. I chatted to a couple people who were quite impressed that he would admit that. But all that I talked to weren't surprised as all of us know of the origins of our "way". I wasn't going around and asking others what they thought.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 19, 2009 15:05:28 GMT -5
I suppose I should repost this here. I was sitting in a gospel meeting over a year ago where the older brother fully admitted that you cannot trace this "way" back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. True story Nate, I was there. I applaud this worker, but part of the confusion is caused by semantics. Another worker will say "this way is from the shores of Galilee". What is meant by "this way". Does it mean "this church"? If so, it's correct to say it can't be traced back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. If "this way" means a method of preaching some will say "this is how it was done on the shores of Galilee and this is how its still done today". If "this way" means "God's people" some will say "from the days of Adam God has raised up people to serve him and still today he is doing that with us".
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Feb 19, 2009 15:41:49 GMT -5
I suppose I should repost this here. I was sitting in a gospel meeting over a year ago where the older brother fully admitted that you cannot trace this "way" back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. True story Nate, I was there. I applaud this worker, but part of the confusion is caused by semantics. Another worker will say "this way is from the shores of Galilee". What is meant by "this way". Does it mean "this church"? If so, it's correct to say it can't be traced back further than the late 1890's from the British Isles. If "this way" means a method of preaching some will say "this is how it was done on the shores of Galilee and this is how its still done today". If "this way" means "God's people" some will say "from the days of Adam God has raised up people to serve him and still today he is doing that with us". I never asked him what he meant when he said that in gospel meeting so anything more I could add would only be my own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 17:01:42 GMT -5
Seems to me that people who'd be dissatisfied enough to be looking for a new church, new religion might just be so anxious to find something more promising that they would hear the word "this is how it was done on the shores of Galilee" and think that "this" meant the very "church" or "religion" they were new to was the VERY one they were looking for, because it went all the way back to the shores of Galilee....then think if they tell that to others and esp. if some of them become workers and preach it to others...simply because that was what they were looking for! It is sad how we can so easily misconstrue one another's words, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 19, 2009 18:37:13 GMT -5
Sharon,
At what point do you stop laying blame on the people who have been lied to and start assigning blame to the liars themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 20:37:24 GMT -5
Sharon, At what point do you stop laying blame on the people who have been lied to and start assigning blame to the liars themselves? Precisely what I'm trying to do, iliyo....there was someone somewhere at sometime who heard what they wanted to hear and perpetuated a lie....I in no way have said when that happened because I was not alive back in the early 1900's....so get off of it, iliyo!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 19, 2009 20:56:55 GMT -5
Sharon, At what point do you stop laying blame on the people who have been lied to and start assigning blame to the liars themselves? Precisely what I'm trying to do, iliyo....there was someone somewhere at sometime who heard what they wanted to hear and perpetuated a lie....I in no way have said when that happened because I was not alive back in the early 1900's....so get off of it, iliyo! My concern is that the lies are ongoing. Some workers are still giving the distinct impression that their organization has been continuous since the shores of Galilee. And believe me, they get anoyed when I question them about it. The ministry is not yet being honest.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 21:20:03 GMT -5
Precisely what I'm trying to do, iliyo....there was someone somewhere at sometime who heard what they wanted to hear and perpetuated a lie....I in no way have said when that happened because I was not alive back in the early 1900's....so get off of it, iliyo! My concern is that the lies are ongoing. Some workers are still giving the distinct impression that their organization has been continuous since the shores of Galilee. And believe me, they get anoyed when I question them about it. The ministry is not yet being honest. It's truly a hard thing to correct a century old untruth....but to be fair, did those who grabbed the untruth really consider what they were grabbing onto? Were they being single minded and thinking that because they were earnestly trying to follow Jesus' commission in Mt. 10 plus formulate the church as in Acts. they had no idea they were forging an untruth? Doesn't the Bible speak about having cloudy vision? Having something within a vision that distorts the real truth? I'm not saying the beginning workers were blind nor trying to be dishonest....they just didn't see the longterm effects of what they grabbed onto!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 19, 2009 21:35:23 GMT -5
My concern is that the lies are ongoing. Some workers are still giving the distinct impression that their organization has been continuous since the shores of Galilee. And believe me, they get anoyed when I question them about it. The ministry is not yet being honest. It's truly a hard thing to correct a century old untruth....but to be fair, did those who grabbed the untruth really consider what they were grabbing onto? Were they being single minded and thinking that because they were earnestly trying to follow Jesus' commission in Mt. 10 plus formulate the church as in Acts. they had no idea they were forging an untruth? Doesn't the Bible speak about having cloudy vision? Having something within a vision that distorts the real truth? I'm not saying the beginning workers were blind nor trying to be dishonest....they just didn't see the longterm effects of what they grabbed onto! I don't know who is to blame, but God knows. All I know is that a lie has developed one way or another and continues to be told. Those who tell it may not know it is a lie, so that's where you and I come in Sharon. Someone has to tell them there's no Santa Claus! I'd prefer it to come from overseer level, but overseers either don't know the truth, don't think the truth is important, or can't bring themselves to inform their staff.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 19, 2009 21:38:40 GMT -5
Sharon, At what point do you stop laying blame on the people who have been lied to and start assigning blame to the liars themselves? Precisely what I'm trying to do, iliyo....there was someone somewhere at sometime who heard what they wanted to hear and perpetuated a lie....I in no way have said when that happened because I was not alive back in the early 1900's....so get off of it, iliyo! Exactly... here you go again blaming the listener and not the liar. When are you going to spell my name correctly, sewells?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 19, 2009 21:41:12 GMT -5
My concern is that the lies are ongoing. Some workers are still giving the distinct impression that their organization has been continuous since the shores of Galilee. And believe me, they get anoyed when I question them about it. The ministry is not yet being honest. It's truly a hard thing to correct a century old untruth....but to be fair, did those who grabbed the untruth really consider what they were grabbing onto? Were they being single minded and thinking that because they were earnestly trying to follow Jesus' commission in Mt. 10 plus formulate the church as in Acts. they had no idea they were forging an untruth? Doesn't the Bible speak about having cloudy vision? Having something within a vision that distorts the real truth? I'm not saying the beginning workers were blind nor trying to be dishonest....they just didn't see the longterm effects of what they grabbed onto! There you go again. Blame the listener and not the liar. tsk tsk tsk By the way, it's spelled I-L-Y-L-O. It's an acronym, which stands for "open your eyes and smell the coffee."
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 19, 2009 21:44:51 GMT -5
It's truly a hard thing to correct a century old untruth....but to be fair, did those who grabbed the untruth really consider what they were grabbing onto? Were they being single minded and thinking that because they were earnestly trying to follow Jesus' commission in Mt. 10 plus formulate the church as in Acts. they had no idea they were forging an untruth? Doesn't the Bible speak about having cloudy vision? Having something within a vision that distorts the real truth? I'm not saying the beginning workers were blind nor trying to be dishonest....they just didn't see the longterm effects of what they grabbed onto! There you go again. Blame the listener and not the liar. tsk tsk tsk By the way, it's spelled I-L-Y-L-O. It's an acronym, which stands for "open your eyes and smell the coffee."You cannot see the circle of perpetuated untruth? Smell the coffee and whatever else suits your fancy? ? It started with the beginning workers who "heard" a young worker spell out the LWD and then they told it like they "heard" it....now that's according to what's been printed over and over on this very website....though the "young worker" denied he preached that sermon! So it has been a vicious cycle or circle over and over....once heard and told, once heard and told, once heard and told, once heard and told....No way is that excusing the telling nor the hearing....it just is!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 19, 2009 21:46:05 GMT -5
LOL... there you go again. Even in that post, you start with the "first listener" and place all the fault on that person instead of the liar. What a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 20, 2009 8:45:06 GMT -5
Yes I can generally read most words and what I read said ..from ITS beginning.What that means is that either those who say that WI was the first are lying, or John Long was lying. I am not getting into the argument about who is right or wrong but there is a contradiction here. I won't be losing sleep over it Todd, the reference is dealing with the beginning of the fellowship, NOT who began it. Your argument is like arguing over a tin of beans and who tinned them. Two separate issues. Ram, remember that we are talking about the ministry here. You haven't started ministry until you start ministering, but if JL was in the ministry from the begining then he was either the first, or equal first. If someone had already started ministering, then he wasn't there from the beginning. Now I am starting to lose sleep over it
|
|