|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 13:22:49 GMT -5
Were there any 'red flag's that you noticed? I saw a couple of rough spots, but nothing that made me want to tear my shirt to bits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2009 13:27:58 GMT -5
Were there any 'red flag's that you noticed? I saw a couple of rough spots, but nothing that made me want to tear my shirt to bits. You mean in the article? I didn't read it to try to determine egregious errors, just skimmed it well enough to see that there was nothing balanced about it and that most of it sounded like it came direct from an ex......which I suppose it did really.
|
|
|
Post by gray on Aug 27, 2009 13:35:33 GMT -5
Of course, I do disagree with the Conclusion, as I said. However, given that the conclusion is based on a certain value bias quite in conflict with ours, and that that bias is understood, I don't really have a problem with it. The same as if a Buddhist or Taoist said I was on the wrong path; wouldn't really have much significance would it. I'm never perturbed by assessments of our belief; the only thing that gets my dander up is when those beliefs are misstated in the first place. I believe that the article author took pains to describe or characterize preaching as it has been preached. As opposed to saying "they say Jesus was just a man" or some such gross distortion. As far as 'expert' endorsement I assume you are being facetious so I won't tell you why I'm not an expert. That SOUNDS good, What. But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are. So while you may indeed get "purturbed" by the failure of outsiders to understand WHAT the 2x2 denomination believes - any time you like. I have already spent too much time TRYING to reason on this board. Bye now.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Aug 27, 2009 14:05:14 GMT -5
Of course, I do disagree with the Conclusion, as I said. However, given that the conclusion is based on a certain value bias quite in conflict with ours, and that that bias is understood, I don't really have a problem with it. The same as if a Buddhist or Taoist said I was on the wrong path; wouldn't really have much significance would it. I'm never perturbed by assessments of our belief; the only thing that gets my dander up is when those beliefs are misstated in the first place. I believe that the article author took pains to describe or characterize preaching as it has been preached. As opposed to saying "they say Jesus was just a man" or some such gross distortion. As far as 'expert' endorsement I assume you are being facetious so I won't tell you why I'm not an expert. That SOUNDS good, What. But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are. So while you may indeed get "purturbed" by the failure of outsiders to understand WHAT the 2x2 denomination believes - any time you like. I have already spent too much time TRYING to reason on this board. Bye now. Bye
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 14:15:14 GMT -5
Of course, I do disagree with the Conclusion, as I said. However, given that the conclusion is based on a certain value bias quite in conflict with ours, and that that bias is understood, I don't really have a problem with it. The same as if a Buddhist or Taoist said I was on the wrong path; wouldn't really have much significance would it. I'm never perturbed by assessments of our belief; the only thing that gets my dander up is when those beliefs are misstated in the first place. I believe that the article author took pains to describe or characterize preaching as it has been preached. As opposed to saying "they say Jesus was just a man" or some such gross distortion. As far as 'expert' endorsement I assume you are being facetious so I won't tell you why I'm not an expert. That SOUNDS good, What. But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are. So while you may indeed get "purturbed" by the failure of outsiders to understand WHAT the 2x2 denomination believes - any time you like. I have already spent too much time TRYING to reason on this board. Bye now. Was it something I said?
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Aug 27, 2009 14:17:03 GMT -5
"But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are."
How could any one person determine this? No-one? For myself, I can say that it has been done in my hearing (to me, last century).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 14:22:19 GMT -5
Were there any 'red flag's that you noticed? I saw a couple of rough spots, but nothing that made me want to tear my shirt to bits. You mean in the article? I didn't read it to try to determine egregious errors, just skimmed it well enough to see that there was nothing balanced about it and that most of it sounded like it came direct from an ex......which I suppose it did really. I don't know. It sounded to me like the person was trying to characterize fairly accurately the kinds of things being said from the platform. "Balanced" is a lot to expect, I think. I would say the article moves up a notch from character assassination (i.e. the 2x2s are all perverts and psychopaths) to a religious critique (i.e. the 2x2s are all going to Hell, probably). I can handle the latter because that's not in their hands anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 27, 2009 16:00:27 GMT -5
"But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are." How could any one person determine this? No-one? For myself, I can say that it has been done in my hearing (to me, last century). This article is extremely poor journalism IMO but I can understand the difficulty outsiders have in pinning down the doctrine of the 2x2 church. Workers tend to preach confidently in meetings, but get them to defend their doctrine to outsiders and they struggle. An example of this would be Willis Propp's court transcript. I think the early apostles would have been just as clear both in their message to outsiders and their message to believers - as would the early workers. The apostles preaching, and that of the beginning workers, was focused on Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. Workers today tend to focus on their organization as the way, the truth and the life. PS: I don't want to give the impression that all workers are always wrong. I just wish the good ones would do more to pull their errant colleagues into line.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 27, 2009 16:36:53 GMT -5
"But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are." Why should they?? Why should that have to happen when God promised to write his doctrine on the hearts and minds of men and women?? Why is there so little faith that God will do what he said, and that the unity Jesus prayed about and God promised will be a reality when we men get our own carnal opinions and interpretations out of the way?? One cult characteristic is an authoritarian top down rigid defining of beliefs. That's part of how groups turn into cults. For the most part that does not happen in the friends and workers fellowship, there is an amazing amount of freedom allowed for individuals to come to their own conclusions - to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling". Think about it. People see it too, I usually get asked what keeps the various home meetings from going off on their own tangents with so little top down control? Well what does? Workers cracking whips? Workers ruthlessly hypnotizing the friends into mindless robotic zombies?? Not in the meetings I've been in. It's really weird that kind of freedom get criticised the way it does. The workers should write group doctrine and exercise more top down control. Bizarre. The moment some men start defining to other men what and how they should think problems arise - in a pretty serious way that is preempting the Spirit's work. Why?? Why not just step our old man aside and let the Spirit and God do the work they are perfectly capable of doing?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 27, 2009 17:02:30 GMT -5
Jesse, there will always be criticism no matter what. If it's justified, let's take a look at ourselves. If its not justified, let it blow over.
As clearday wrote:
On one hand it is "loosely-knit" and "semi-autonomous", and on the other hand people's lives are dominated by the workers. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 17:04:20 GMT -5
"But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are." How could any one person determine this? No-one? For myself, I can say that it has been done in my hearing (to me, last century). This article is extremely poor journalism IMO but I can understand the difficulty outsiders have in pinning down the doctrine of the 2x2 church. Workers tend to preach confidently in meetings, but get them to defend their doctrine to outsiders and they struggle. An example of this would be Willis Propp's court transcript. I think the early apostles would have been just as clear both in their message to outsiders and their message to believers - as would the early workers. The apostles preaching, and that of the beginning workers, was focused on Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. Workers today tend to focus on their organization as the way, the truth and the life. PS: I don't want to give the impression that all workers are always wrong. I just wish the good ones would do more to pull their errant colleagues into line. Willis couldn't have done too bad a job, as I believe the lady he was supporting won the case. (I stand corrected on this).
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 17:07:53 GMT -5
Jesse, there will always be criticism no matter what. If it's justified, let's take a look at ourselves. If its not justified, let it blow over. As clearday wrote: On one hand it is "loosely-knit" and "semi-autonomous", and on the other hand people's lives are dominated by the workers. Which is it? The DCI article doesn't contain both statements, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 27, 2009 18:10:28 GMT -5
Jesse, there will always be criticism no matter what. If it's justified, let's take a look at ourselves. If its not justified, let it blow over. As clearday wrote: On one hand it is "loosely-knit" and "semi-autonomous", and on the other hand people's lives are dominated by the workers. Which is it? The DCI article doesn't contain both statements, does it? No, that statement is in the CRI article gray quoted.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 19:09:56 GMT -5
The DCI article doesn't contain both statements, does it? No, that statement is in the CRI article gray quoted. Whoops. That's the one I meant. I could find the first part but not the second part.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 27, 2009 19:41:57 GMT -5
EXACTLY! Thanks, Jesse. "But so far no one fromn the 2x2 denomination has clearly stated to even its professing member WHAT the beliefs are." Why should they?? Why should that have to happen when God promised to write his doctrine on the hearts and minds of men and women?? Why is there so little faith that God will do what he said, and that the unity Jesus prayed about and God promised will be a reality when we men get our own carnal opinions and interpretations out of the way?? One cult characteristic is an authoritarian top down rigid defining of beliefs. That's part of how groups turn into cults. For the most part that does not happen in the friends and workers fellowship, there is an amazing amount of freedom allowed for individuals to come to their own conclusions - to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling". Think about it. People see it too, I usually get asked what keeps the various home meetings from going off on their own tangents with so little top down control? Well what does? Workers cracking whips? Workers ruthlessly hypnotizing the friends into mindless robotic zombies?? Not in the meetings I've been in. It's really weird that kind of freedom get criticised the way it does. The workers should write group doctrine and exercise more top down control. Bizarre. The moment some men start defining to other men what and how they should think problems arise - in a pretty serious way that is preempting the Spirit's work. Why?? Why not just step our old man aside and let the Spirit and God do the work they are perfectly capable of doing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2009 19:56:57 GMT -5
This article is extremely poor journalism IMO but I can understand the difficulty outsiders have in pinning down the doctrine of the 2x2 church. Workers tend to preach confidently in meetings, but get them to defend their doctrine to outsiders and they struggle. An example of this would be Willis Propp's court transcript. I think the early apostles would have been just as clear both in their message to outsiders and their message to believers - as would the early workers. The apostles preaching, and that of the beginning workers, was focused on Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. Workers today tend to focus on their organization as the way, the truth and the life. PS: I don't want to give the impression that all workers are always wrong. I just wish the good ones would do more to pull their errant colleagues into line. Willis couldn't have done too bad a job, as I believe the lady he was supporting won the case. (I stand corrected on this). True, she won the case, but that doesn't mean that Willis swayed it one way or the other. He did give answers that would be difficult for a judge to take issue with. Eyewitnesses tell me that Arends, the lawyer for the other side, was a poor cross examiner. If you recall, the sideshow on the custody case was a move by Arends to ask the judge to rule the church as a cult. This case made a weekly magazine at the time because it was a unique sort of case. The idea was that the mother was in a cult so therefore the father should get the child. The judge refused to rule one way or the other so the cult issue became a non-issue in the custody decision. Obviously the judge didn't feel that Willis represented a danger to the child due to church practices and beliefs.
|
|
Byron
Senior Member
VIA Admin
Posts: 220
|
Post by Byron on Aug 27, 2009 22:49:17 GMT -5
Though the Desert In A Cult With No Name
Reading though the cries of foul, those rabid railings of indignation, the sheer outrage levied towards an outsider who would dare to be much more scathing than any criticism presented by bitter exes, confirms everyone completely missed the point.
Anyone outside with the barest understanding of a legalistic environment can clearly see the open sores in the church, but I still was amazed in how hauntingly accurate Mr. Armstrong is in his analogies.
Let's revisit some highlights, shall we?
"It is the very anonymity and simplicity of the No-Names and their followers that enables the group to grow largely undetected, like termites in the woodwork of a home, noticed only when the damage becomes too costly to ignore."
And it shall no longer be ignored.
"Using the methods that have served them since Irvine and Cooney, the No-Names continue today to capitalize on that human desire to know something special, or to be something special..."
How true of all of us...it is human nature.
"Many intelligent people have been drawn into cult teaching. Like the frog in the pot, the heat is turned up gradually, imperceptibly, until the victim is cooked without having suspected a thing."
Weren't we all.....and have the scars to prove it. Like many,I was cooked in the womb..
"Mind-controlling cults are much like that prison island. For most of the cult prisoners, walls are unnecessary to keep them inside. Fear of what an escape attempt could mean provides a deterrent more formidable than any prison walls. Those who begin to question the doctrine of salvation by obedience face the stark prospect of walking away from all of their remaining friends—perhaps even close family members.
Yet, there are many who do walk away, some of them still able to trust God despite what others have done in his name."
And that brings us to that point I mentioned........... wonder how blistering Mr. Armstrong would have been after 4 days of convention............ouch!
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 27, 2009 23:10:52 GMT -5
Wonder if the judge would have changed his mind when he found out that Willis ex communicated a lot of followers and for the reasons he did. I am sure he would have thought this man is a control freak who cuts any who speak out against him.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 27, 2009 23:46:54 GMT -5
Willis couldn't have done too bad a job, as I believe the lady he was supporting won the case. (I stand corrected on this). True, she won the case, but that doesn't mean that Willis swayed it one way or the other. He did give answers that would be difficult for a judge to take issue with. Eyewitnesses tell me that Arends, the lawyer for the other side, was a poor cross examiner. If you recall, the sideshow on the custody case was a move by Arends to ask the judge to rule the church as a cult. This case made a weekly magazine at the time because it was a unique sort of case. The idea was that the mother was in a cult so therefore the father should get the child. The judge refused to rule one way or the other so the cult issue became a non-issue in the custody decision. Obviously the judge didn't feel that Willis represented a danger to the child due to church practices and beliefs. So here we have a child's future hung in the balance based on what people think of our church. Perhaps I could use this on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 28, 2009 0:01:53 GMT -5
Wonder if the judge would have changed his mind when he found out that Willis ex communicated a lot of followers and for the reasons he did. I am sure he would have thought this man is a control freak who cuts any who speak out against him. Willis hadn't got around to booting people out at that point it seems: ______________________________________________________ Question: Let’s say that the Worker says to the Friend that I don’t want you to attend Meeting any more. Now, where would the Worker -- or where would the Friend appeal that decision to? Answer: I -- I haven’t any experience of asking a person to stay away from a Meeting. Question: Okay. But I’m giving you a hypothetical issue, and the question isn’t whether or not you know of people who have been told to stay away from Meeting. The issue is if that decision was made, where would the Friend appeal that decision to. Would he come to you? Answer: They could come to me. The reason that a person would be asked to stay away from a Meeting, I know of some instances when that has happened, but the reason for it is -- well -- well advised that it’s not proper, and they are only asked to stay away from a Meeting for a time, with a thought of returning. Question: Now, if a Friend has done something wrong, my understanding is that they might have Meeting pulled from their house or they might not be allowed to participate in Meeting; is that correct? Answer: A meeting pulled from a house is if the Workers aren’t welcome in the house. Question: Now, would you agree that your group has various rules about conduct and what is expected of people? Answer: We don’t have rules and regulations, and if they are interpreted as such, we are sorry. We encourage people, as we said. We are not directors of man’s conscience, we are just ministers of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Aug 28, 2009 14:23:44 GMT -5
One cult characteristic is an authoritarian top down rigid defining of beliefs. That's part of how groups turn into cults.... It's really weird that kind of freedom get criticised the way it does. The workers should write group doctrine and exercise more top down control. Bizarre. The moment some men start defining to other men what and how they should think problems arise - in a pretty serious way that is preempting the Spirit's work. Interesting perspective, Jesse
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2009 17:09:42 GMT -5
One cult characteristic is an authoritarian top down rigid defining of beliefs. That's part of how groups turn into cults.... It's really weird that kind of freedom get criticised the way it does. The workers should write group doctrine and exercise more top down control. Bizarre. The moment some men start defining to other men what and how they should think problems arise - in a pretty serious way that is preempting the Spirit's work. Interesting perspective, Jesse It is an interesting way of looking at it. The problem with no formal doctrinal or procedural structure is that the informal structure takes over, and the dominant people control it at their own will. Ideally it is God who directing it, but we all know how quick people are to usurp God when they get a chance. The period of excommunications in Alberta was characterized by people telling others to "just obey the workers", "the workers are closer to God so we need to do what they say". Folks knew things were not right but held on to those ideas to convince themselves to keep their heads down. Even the workers were promoting the idea that "even when we are wrong we are right". An overseer advised people to go along with the workers because of "who they are". These are the kinds of things that occur when there is no formal doctrines and procedures. In a crisis, the informal organization becomes cult-like with both top-down authoritarianism and bottom up dependency. Had there been more open, formal and predictable procedures for problem solving, perhaps the crisis in Alberta may have been averted. The fellowship lost a lot of good people, and another lot of good people moved to the periphery of the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 28, 2009 18:20:26 GMT -5
Interesting perspective, Jesse It is an interesting way of looking at it. The problem with no formal doctrinal or procedural structure is that the informal structure takes over, and the dominant people control it at their own will. Ideally it is God who directing it, but we all know how quick people are to usurp God when they get a chance.
The period of excommunications in Alberta was characterized by people telling others to "just obey the workers", "the workers are closer to God so we need to do what they say". Folks knew things were not right but held on to those ideas to convince themselves to keep their heads down. Even the workers were promoting the idea that "even when we are wrong we are right". An overseer advised people to go along with the workers because of "who they are". These are the kinds of things that occur when there is no formal doctrines and procedures. In a crisis, the informal organization becomes cult-like with both top-down authoritarianism and bottom up dependency. Had there been more open, formal and predictable procedures for problem solving, perhaps the crisis in Alberta may have been averted. The fellowship lost a lot of good people, and another lot of good people moved to the periphery of the fellowship. While it is true that on occasion dominant people begin to assert themselves in areas where they see little formal doctrinal or procedural structure, it isn't long before their ideas and assertions amount to nothing. I'm totally sure that had those who first stuck their noses in the W.P. dealings in the Alberta case, just kept a meek and quiet spirit until the whole of it was known, it all would have become a non-issue. By jumping in, in a dominant way, many were hurt in the outcome, some perhaps eternally. It's not about obeying the workers, but about obeying God in giving his servants space and liberty to do His work. I'm completely in agreement with Jesse on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 28, 2009 18:28:44 GMT -5
The problem with no formal doctrinal or procedural structure is that the informal structure takes over, and the dominant people control it at their own will. Ideally it is God who directing it, but we all know how quick people are to usurp God when they get a chance. The period of excommunications in Alberta was characterized by people telling others to "just obey the workers", "the workers are closer to God so we need to do what they say". Folks knew things were not right but held on to those ideas to convince themselves to keep their heads down. Even the workers were promoting the idea that "even when we are wrong we are right". An overseer advised people to go along with the workers because of "who they are". These are the kinds of things that occur when there is no formal doctrines and procedures. In a crisis, the informal organization becomes cult-like with both top-down authoritarianism and bottom up dependency. Had there been more open, formal and predictable procedures for problem solving, perhaps the crisis in Alberta may have been averted. The fellowship lost a lot of good people, and another lot of good people moved to the periphery of the fellowship. The quickest way to weaken the fellowship is for ordinary members to lose their moral compass. The same goes for any group of people, including a whole nation, when ordinary people trust their leaders. Nazi Germany would be an example of this phenomenon. Hitler pulled Germany out of the doldrums and made her strong, so it would be best just to trust him to know what is best for the future, right? Willis and his staff would have saved themselves and others a lot of grief by listening to the concerns rather than silencing them. We all make mistakes and we all need to move on, but I'm concerned that our church hasn't repented from the folly of the past.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 28, 2009 19:39:52 GMT -5
Look who showed up on TMB! See attached. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2009 22:58:45 GMT -5
It's no coincidence it seems. This site engages some sort of "smart" advertising. I noticed on a thread where homosexuality was being discussed, a gay dating service was advertised. And most often some sort of religious advertising is going on. Interesting system to pick up on key words and fit the ads into the right forums and threads.
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Aug 28, 2009 23:25:10 GMT -5
For some reason no one is advertising a better cult. Guess the 2x2s are too much competition. Brad It's no coincidence it seems. This site engages some sort of "smart" advertising. I noticed on a thread where homosexuality was being discussed, a gay dating service was advertised. And most often some sort of religious advertising is going on. Interesting system to pick up on key words and fit the ads into the right forums and threads.
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Aug 28, 2009 23:40:43 GMT -5
Hah, ha ha ha ha Ooooohh ha ha ha ha ha Eeee ee ee a ha ha ha aha Ooooh heee e eheeeee hee e ee eee OOOOOOOhh ah haaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaa Oh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhgh haa hah ahha Eheh hhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeee Oh my gut hurts
aw hah ha hah ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeee ee Really? Interview a worker about their doctrines and beliefs?ah hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaa aaaaaaaaaaaaa I needed that laugh so bad. aha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaa ahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oooohhhhhhhhh heeeeeeeeee heeee eheee heeee oooooh haaaaaaaaaaa haa aa a aaa Eeeeeeeeehe eeeeehh eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Ahhhhh ha hah ahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oooooooooooo eeeee hhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeee Thanks clearday, you're a great jester.
ah hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I'ld like to see a list of workers that would like to be interviewed!ah hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Insider? I thought they were called "friends"?
Oh, not an "outsider"?aha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaa ahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oooohhhhhhhhh heeeeeeeeee heeee eheee heeee ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa oooooooooo haaa ha haa Brad I think the article deserves a thorough analysis from an insider. I would like to do it but don't have the time. This guy claims excellent sources ("good and solid") and then names the KLewis book. I wonder if he is interested in buying a share in the Brooklyn Bridge? He should have gone right to the source, ask a few workers or friends, or have a look at the Dr. Jaenen book, written by an eminent scholar. Including the Lewis book would then make it a fair and balanced article.
|
|