|
Post by ilylo on Feb 21, 2009 10:13:35 GMT -5
Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Not only that, but there are also hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they WERE lied to.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 21, 2009 10:19:17 GMT -5
Goody. So you are back to working on the statement again?
"At the turn of the 20th century..." then what comes next?
Clearday wrote
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 21, 2009 11:36:05 GMT -5
"At the turn of the 20th century..."
WI and co-workers founded/started the itinerant ministry that became the first tier of the truth's fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 11:43:01 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to.
Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 21, 2009 11:48:57 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. Or perhaps there are some mighty "hard hearts" out there--like those who tell the friends to burn the book? and make derogatory comments about its author Doug Parker to "poison the well"? etc etc? Many of us thank God for raising up Doug Parker!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 21, 2009 11:50:53 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. Awww Lin, perhaps you've hit the nail on the head...history isn't progressive, it's the past!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 11:59:36 GMT -5
Hard or satisfied hearts.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 21, 2009 12:03:26 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. Yeah. What a shame. Just imagine how refreshing your church would be if it had. Everyone would be truthful and honest. But apparently that will never be the case. Let the deception continue!
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Feb 21, 2009 13:20:20 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. I think it will be easier to skirt the WI issue today, even with the Internet accounting of WI's ministry, because all those who had firsthand knowledge of the late 1800s and early 1900s are gone. Today it's effortless for the Workers to toss aside any discrepancies as purported theories, assumptions, … as some exes sour grapes or distorted embellishment of facts and move forward; but they will willfully compromise, with half-hearted admissions, that WI was just an early Worker who went astray. Consequently, it will be left to the faith's followers personal discretion to make their own conclusion and decide if the WI chronicles are verifiable realities or misleading fallacies. And there will be many that accept it as accurate, but who will continue judging their faith as the most exactly aligned with the teachings of Jesus and his earthly path for salvation. If I professed today that would be my position.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 21, 2009 13:43:18 GMT -5
ManFred said Yes - what you describe is where many of us were at one time. We learned the history, concluded the church we were brot up in wasn't Jesus only true way on earth, but decided that it was "the closest" way so we would stick with it. Then we began to study the Bible like we'd never studied it before, very in depth, and discovered the following..and then we had to figure out how we were going to deal with this information; how to reconcile it to what we'd been taught from birth... Is it REALLY the Closest Way? www.tellingthetruth.info/questions_index/closestway.phpHow close do the workers REALLY follow Matt 10? www.tellingthetruth.info/questions_index/howclose.phpAnd we re-evaluated our priorities, values, etc. and reconciled this new information individually.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 21, 2009 14:09:41 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. The availability of the historical record is intended to benefit the unwillingly ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 14:19:45 GMT -5
The closest way to what? Cherie is what you have now the closest way to what? What does Matt 10 have to do with going to heaven? Closest represents compromise. I don't want the closest way, I want the real relationship with God.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 21, 2009 15:03:46 GMT -5
What percentage of friends do you think know the Irvine story? IMO, close to 90% of those under 60 in our local area, know.
A significant percentage of those have adapted the facts to a succession belief of one kind or another.
I also have come to believe that the legalistic aspects of our fellowship are much stronger in the West, although ironically the East seems more conservative. (Actually it makes sense when you think about it).
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Feb 21, 2009 16:38:52 GMT -5
ManFred said Yes - what you describe is where many of us were at one time. We learned the history, concluded the church we were brot up in wasn't Jesus only true way on earth, but decided that it was "the closest" way so we would stick with it. Then we began to study the Bible like we'd never studied it before, very in depth, and discovered the following..and then we had to figure out how we were going to deal with this information; how to reconcile it to what we'd been taught from birth... Is it REALLY the Closest Way? www.tellingthetruth.info/questions_index/closestway.phpHow close do the workers REALLY follow Matt 10? www.tellingthetruth.info/questions_index/howclose.phpAnd we re-evaluated our priorities, values, etc. and reconciled this new information individually. So then your advice would be for me to re-evaluate my priority, my values and reconcile this new information via my individual thinking? I'm neither convinced that I should take myself so seriously, nor am I convinced that I'm understanding what you really meant. My point is not to disparage any of this, as I find the history of the group most intriguing and most interesting. Hopefully your efforts and the effect of your efforts will not discourage any in their walk with God. My existence has never been so close to the center of the fellowship as yours once was. Although my viewpoint is not from the center, it is certainly not from the fence line either. Discovering more about the history of the group makes me realize how rare and how fragile this fellowship really is in a human sense. It is only through God's care and leading that it hasn't already become non-existent. I must also say as you did, that being confronted with the history has caused me to read, pray and meditate with a sharper focus than ever before. This hasn't been in vain because I have been caused understand with a greater awareness than ever before. I also understand that the devil is in the details, if that is what one is looking for!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 21, 2009 18:22:22 GMT -5
Ron - my comments were not meant to be advice to you...sorry I didn't make that plain.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 18:33:03 GMT -5
Ron When stones are being thrown duck? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 21, 2009 19:28:30 GMT -5
There are disparages offered from someone's viewpoint of whether the truth's fellowship is the "closest"...that is a subjective finding, IMO!
I think as ronhall mentioned, something that causes us to search and meditate within the scriptures is very good for us....but only if we keep Jesus before when we do that...because then the scriptures can become another history lesson, no?
I remembered what one of the gentlest, kindest older workers told me when I was very very young and we had some very hard Wed. nite studies to try and get something out of....I told him I just wasn't getting anything worth speaking about....he replied, "Just try to see Jesus in what you read. And if you can't see Jesus in what you read. Then go read Jesus where you know He's very vividly spoken about. Then you will have food and to spare." A very wise thing to try to keep in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Feb 21, 2009 19:48:41 GMT -5
Ron When stones are being thrown duck? LOL Good advice, lin . . . . quack! quack! quack! quack! Or did I misunderstand something again? :>)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 20:01:05 GMT -5
Goody. So you are back to working on the statement again? "At the turn of the 20th century..." then what comes next? Clearday wrote I'm not sure what the "goody" is about. Different people require different levels of knowledge. For most 20 year olds, "our worker mission started around 1900" is really about all they want to know, and many others will find that sufficient. Cramming a lot of detail someone's throat is not a good thing. For those who want more, a professional third party historian could provide it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 20:04:50 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. It sure didn't lin. Thousands of friends were told it was a pack of lies and told to burn it. The issuance of the Secret Sect was the perfect timing to correct the lies. It was a "teaching moment", but it only brought more lies. We really have to get honest about this.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 21, 2009 20:40:44 GMT -5
It's remarkable that more than a quarter century after "the news" of the beginnings of the ministry group came out in the Secret Sect, we are still unable to simply acknowledge the beginning of the mission around 1900. Had we humbled ourselves and acknowledged the truth back then, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of posts on the subject here today, nor would there be hundreds of people leaving the meetings because they felt lied to. Sounds to me like The Secret Sect didn't accomplish a lot. It sure didn't lin. Thousands of friends were told it was a pack of lies and told to burn it. The issuance of the Secret Sect was the perfect timing to correct the lies. It was a "teaching moment", but it only brought more lies. We really have to get honest about this. I suspect the fellowship would be in much better shape today if overseers had responded honestly and openly when the Secret Sect was first published.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 21, 2009 20:51:34 GMT -5
It sure didn't lin. Thousands of friends were told it was a pack of lies and told to burn it. The issuance of the Secret Sect was the perfect timing to correct the lies. It was a "teaching moment", but it only brought more lies. We really have to get honest about this. I suspect the fellowship would be in much better shape today if overseers had responded honestly and openly when the Secret Sect was first published. Now to be fair, I have to wonder how many of the workers actually themselves knew the real facts...maybe they felt the Secret Sect was written by someone biased against the truth? That was the impression I had....not that I'm saying that is so, but it makes it understandable if the objections against it were because "they thought it to be biased." Right? Wasn't it by that time, that all of the original workers were dead and gone? Was there anyway without a lot of digging in places where angels dare not to tread a problem? I'm not sure, but I'm trying to be fair now......I'd sure hate to say that a lie was purposefully perpetuated by all! But I can understand a reluctance to accept something they had no way of proving one way or another and the disinclination to get into it....knowing full well that research would take lots of time and energy! Just some wondering thoughts, is all! You know I think about the Secret Sect, the TTT, Dr. J's historical accounting and think about the difference in which they were obtained and then offered.....that has to have some great effect on the willingness of those in power to accept each one of them, doesn't it? I am in no way trying to infer any of the 3 or any other accounting is better then another...but I do know that it is human nature to resist that which came about with more stress and unpleasantness then that which tried to consider all feelings, all thoughts...and proceeded to be offered with the same consideration of fellow man!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 21:08:47 GMT -5
How bad a shape is the fellowship in? We still have meeting every Sunday,and Wednesday night. Did God get weak. Is God blind. As it says "Is His hand shortened"
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 21:12:00 GMT -5
History is fact from a perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 21:23:30 GMT -5
How bad a shape is the fellowship in? We still have meeting every Sunday,and Wednesday night. Did God get weak. Is God blind. As it says "Is His hand shortened" I was at a gospel meeting in a major US city this week. There were about 25 attend. I attended many gospel mtgs in that city when I was young and it was a large vigorous group. Needless to say I was quite set back by the change over just one generation, even accounting for the economic refugees getting out of that city. The trend in the developed world is relentlessly down, as it is in some of the developing countries which were established many decades ago. There has to be a "new wineskin" of truth and love, we can't continue sewing new patches on old garments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 21:30:50 GMT -5
siwells wrote:
It's difficult for me to make excuses for the reaction to the Secret Sect even though you are right that many workers didn't know the truth of the history. Rather than attacking the integrity of the author, we should have collectively sat down and examined the book for fact and error. Then we should have embraced the truth of it, and pointed out the errors, whatever they may have been. Anyone mature and thoughtful would have done that. Instead we reacted like children getting criticized by erstwhile friends and things only got worse from there.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 21, 2009 22:15:08 GMT -5
I was not attacking the author. I was making a point that this revelation of Irvine,and the history is not a new drill,and don't expect it to do much harm. If they felt it was important,I believe it would be changed. If opposition to this way would kill it,it would have been dead long ago. As far as numbers are concerned,we live in a different age. They used to pack a school house. I don't think there is enough witnessing being done anyway by worker or member.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 21, 2009 22:23:35 GMT -5
This could still be done...it's not too late...
Clearday wrote
|
|