|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 9, 2011 14:58:37 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 15:24:05 GMT -5
So wonderful to read Howard Mooney's thoughts again. I'm not sure what you were intending with this post, but thanks for the Mooney fix~
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Mar 9, 2011 17:04:11 GMT -5
I remember older workers talking about being "ordained by the spirit." I believe this arose largely in the context of others asking if we were ordained. I have never heard of any formal ordination, and that was sometimes referred to as being "ordained by men."
Sorry, I'm ready to go catch the bus in a few minutes, and haven't taken the time to read over the notes yet . . .
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 9, 2011 21:00:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 21:30:02 GMT -5
Nathan, You were in the Howard Mooney field: the notes of Howard make it sound like the call in to the ministry is the "ordination"; so I suppose the best date to use would be either the first time they spoke at convention or the first time they spoke as a worker. The individual could keep track of the date they knew beyond the shadow of the doubt they were called, but using the first time you spoke as a worker makes sense.
Be interesting to hear from some who were in the work: I never thought about it before and am glad for the chance to learn.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 10, 2011 4:48:27 GMT -5
What about the laying on of hands mentioned in Acts etc?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Mar 10, 2011 8:56:25 GMT -5
I guess I missed the bus that time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2011 12:18:02 GMT -5
I guess I missed the bus that time Does that mean you didn't speak at convention when you went out?
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Mar 10, 2011 18:37:34 GMT -5
Yes and that scared the h out of me,maybe that ordained me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2011 19:26:51 GMT -5
Lin, Based on what H. Mooney said and the letter to Cherie's late uncle, I assume speaking at conv is our "outward" form of ordination....and probably for EXACTLY the feeling you had!!!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Mar 10, 2011 23:52:47 GMT -5
I was told that the "laying on of hands of the presbytery" was simply the acceptance(sans physical laying on of hands in a ceremonial type way) of the new recruit by the older ones. The older workers would simply view the person, their testimony and ascertain that the testimony of their calling matched what they knew to be the calling of the Holy Spirit in their own lives.
There was no ceremony. No real beginning point. Simply sell all and then start doing what the older ones said to do. If it was to go to this or that convention and speak or simply just be in the cookhouse, that is what you were to do. If they sent you to another state to begin with, that is what you were to do. "Laying on of hands" simply meant in the work, "we accept you as one of us. Now do what we say."
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 11, 2011 0:19:42 GMT -5
Just seems a contradiction for a church that claims they follow the NT the most closely of any church on earth...not to actually, manually do the "laying on of hands" thing. Looks like they could at least say a prayer and blessing over a new baby worker when he first starts? Have a "confirmation" ceremony??
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Mar 11, 2011 8:26:17 GMT -5
That is how I read it. IT is how the early Apostles did it. God anoints the person, when the elders lay on of hands God reveals to them then or before. Through the spirit of revelation and the inner witness. Whether they are to be ordained or not. Laying on of hands provides the impartation to ordination. (Spiritual transferrence for explaination.) Impartion of power to do the work of the ministry. It is like confirmation with the Holy Spirit. One way of discovering fakes too
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Mar 11, 2011 8:33:13 GMT -5
~~ Yes, you're correct. A new worker Speaking at convention is a form of ordination (like laying on of hands so to speak) by letting the workers and friends know he/she been accepted in the ministry. I heard my calling in 1980 and I offered to Uncle Leo on the island of Guam. Offered it again in 1981 when I moved to Washington State... MOVED to Oregon offered again to Howard Mooney ;D in 1/1986 and started in the work 9/1986-94. [/color]
Nathan
I find this explanation very dodgy. How can someone talking be equal to the powerful tool of laying on of hands? or replace it. Im not suggesting you werent called Im responding to the first sentence. Its wobbly and not clear. The bible is clear about ordination/calling and anointing. There is an order. Its about being set apart for the ministry. Part of the equiping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 19:09:40 GMT -5
Nathan, Does it say anywhere that Jesus "laid his hands" on the apostles? I know he called them and sent them, but it sounds like the laying on of hands was added by the apostles themselves. Haven't had a chance to check yet for myself, but if Jesus didn't lay hands on anyone to "ordain" them, would we need to?
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Mar 11, 2011 21:56:58 GMT -5
~~ Yes, you're correct. A new worker Speaking at convention is a form of ordination (like laying on of hands so to speak) by letting the workers and friends know he/she been accepted in the ministry. I heard my calling in 1980 and I offered to Uncle Leo on the island of Guam. Offered it again in 1981 when I moved to Washington State... MOVED to Oregon offered again to Howard Mooney ;D in 1/1986 and started in the work 9/1986-94. [/color]
Nathan
I find this explanation very dodgy. How can someone talking be equal to the powerful tool of laying on of hands? or replace it. Im not suggesting you werent called Im responding to the first sentence. Its wobbly and not clear. The bible is clear about ordination/calling and anointing. There is an order. Its about being set apart for the ministry. Part of the equiping.[/quote] ~~ After ordination (laying of hands) speaking at convention the new workers are set apart for the work of the ministry by joining with older workers is part of their apprenticeship, training, and learning.... down the road when they have enough experiences they teach the new ones starting out like the Old workers had done for them.
Paul wrote in II Timothy 2:2 And the things has heard of me among many witnesses, the same entrusted thou to faithful men, who shall be able to TEACH others.I never in my 2x2 life witnessed the laying on of hands and new workers prayed over and set apart. If they do that why do they do it secretly why not in the main meeting tent with all the saints prayfully involved. They dont equip the saints for the work of the ministry if they did every soul within the 2x2 would be activated and in dsicpliship. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Mar 12, 2011 14:42:44 GMT -5
1) The laying on of hands= portrays the bestowing of blessing/approval from one to another.
The workers do NOT follow The act of laying on of hands ..... BUT they show the bestowing of blessing from one to another.... when a new worker speaks at convention. I saw things in much this same way while in the work, Nathan, and I still have no "issue" with it. The teaching, instruction, approval of a Godly person can have a greater effect than something that can become a form - whether we're speaking of formal schooling, "papers," or the laying on of hands in a ritual sense. I say this rather carefully, as there are ways in which the lack of things "formal" tends to cover over problems and to prevent discussion. And I do not mean to criticize organizations that do formal teaching and laying on of hands either - many of these practices - or the absence of them - can be used in both helpful and hurtful manners. Depends on who's using them and their purposes in doing so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 15:17:52 GMT -5
Ritual and tradition can be wonderful things as long as all those involved look beyond the external form to what is really being celebrated or taught. The absence of the ritual neither assures the understanding nor speaks to the lack thereof. I like a touch of tradition or ritual myself.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 12, 2011 16:05:18 GMT -5
This whole "speaking at convention" thing does not reflect my experience. I started in the work in Texas in October; conventions having finished in July. My first speaking engagement was at a Sunday gospel meeting in Dallas, Texas USA. From there I went with my companion to our field in Amarillo, Texas and spent the next months preaching the gospel at a Knights of Pythias hall in Amarillo and at a Girl Scouts House in Pampa, Texas. Special meetings came in December; more gospel meetings in the winter and spring of 1980, then conventions in July. My ordination required a flight from Dallas to Houston on Southwest Airlines in October, 1979, to meet with Hubert Childers in the home of the grandparents of WithOpenEyes (an occasional TMBer). I started in the work 2 weeks later.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Mar 12, 2011 20:38:58 GMT -5
It also speaks "lay hands suddenly on no man." How does this fit into your interpretation Nate?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Mar 12, 2011 22:48:23 GMT -5
It also speaks "lay hands suddenly on no man." How does this fit into your interpretation Nate? I'm not Nate, but this does bring to mind a situation, in which we were discussing a family from the continent that talked of moving to a certain place out here. A sister worker was just sure that they would be a great help, etc., and I suggested we not be too hasty, but just wait and see. Well, she was certain from their letter, that they were just great. A few weeks later (we were all together for a few weeks for preps/convention), I realized we had heard no more from her about them. I asked, and she told me she had received a letter from a worker who knew them, saying they weren't so great. No mention of our previous discussion. Now, a lot of things could be going on here in a "power play" sense, but my point is that I actually mentioned the verse about "laying hands suddenly on no man," as I felt it related to the situation there - not hastily putting a "seal of approval" on someone. This didn't mean to suspect them either, but rather to get acquainted with them, see how they conducted themselves, etc. With the few friends in these spots, this talk implied a meeting being soon placed in that home. I had brought up this verse before with this particular sister, in another situation that made me very nervous, and I got a scowl, and her explanation of this verse seemed to be "Don't hit anybody." I assume Paul didn't have to advise a younger worker (Timothy?) in this manner . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 22:56:31 GMT -5
I had brought up this verse before with this particular sister, in another situation that made me very nervous, and I got a scowl, and her explanation of this verse seemed to be "Don't hit anybody." I assume Paul didn't have to advise a younger worker (Timothy?) in this manner . . . Don't hit anybody?....well that's good practical advise, but...I'm sort of having trouble hearing Paul say that to Timothy!!!
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Mar 13, 2011 2:01:17 GMT -5
From what I understand of the laying on of hands in Acts, this was an act of passing on the apostleship to those who had not seen Christ and should continue.
It does seem to be scriptually supported.
Also, to suggest that a new worker's first 'sermon' is symbolic of, or represents laying on of hands is one of the weakest arguments I've seen on this board.
Let's face it, there is no formal ordination of ministers in the Truth fellowship. New workers receive no formal training or book learnin' but are put into an unstructured traineeship. I'll leave it at that as I'm no authority, but it seems a little strange that a simple and meaningful ceremony of prayer and laying on of hands is not conducted, publicly or privately to ordain them.
|
|