|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 8:50:17 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 8:50:17 GMT -5
This is a new thread in response to a thread in which Rational said: I, believe that Rational is spot on in his analysis of that. And I am glad to see that he doesn't believe that folks with dissenting views are preaching heresy. My opinion: CSA isn't as big of a concern to the workers as the threat of so-called heresy. Or to the Catholic leadership either. The current Pope was a previous head of the commission to quiet those that talked about CSA ( www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html)- because CSA isn't a "real" threat to the system as this crime can be blamed on a person (as is so often noted by the system apologists- it isn't the system- but the person- the cover up means nothing to system minded people), but anyone pointing out to others that the "emperor has no clothes" or showing the "man behind the curtain" is a very REAL threat to those in power and that is why the workers react more harshly against those folks. See the continued attacks on Cherie Kropp for telling the truth, as an example. But, as Ken asked in another post. What is the heresy? I have posted several statements that the workers will not like- but my statements are true: 1) the fellowship was started by a man- William Irvine 2) people must believe that the church with no name is the only right church- if they don't, then their vision is not clear- say the workers. 3) the workers are God's only true ministers. They are as the apostles of old. They are apostles. All other preachers are hirelings. That's it. All 3 things are true statements believed by most workers. I confirmed #2 and #3 with an overseer recently (based on the many denials from system minded folks here that say that those 2 things are no longer believed.) So, how can it be heresy to speak the truth? I am amazed at the lengths that folks will go to to deny/distort #2 and #3 above. It is what we believe. Why the shame? Why the fear? Why is it considered "exposing" the fellowship to speak plainly about what we believe? But, since there isn't a uniform believe in statements #2 and #3 above (#1 seems to be fact), then are those the don't believe that this is the only right way, or that the workers are apostles- are they the heretics? There is no uniform PUBLIC belief about #2 and #3. And how can it be considered heretical NOT to believe in a man made system? I like the system, but I don't worship it, therefore I think folks should be able to freely offer their opinions about things that they feel are issues without fear of being branded a heretic, trouble maker, etc. By the way, the Slate.com article about the CSA cover-up within the Catholic Church is very interesting. www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 9:56:50 GMT -5
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 9:56:50 GMT -5
This is a new thread in response to a thread in which Rational said: I, believe that Rational is spot on in his analysis of that. And I am glad to see that he doesn't believe that folks with dissenting views are preaching heresy. You are misrepresenting what I said. The judgement on what is and is not heresy can only be made by someone who does or does not share a belief with the person speaking. As I said, christians have so many beliefs, some conflicting, that what is preached might be gospel to one and heresy to another. The fact that I selected Martin Luther as an example should have made it clear that there is data to show that people with dissenting views are, according to some, preacing heresy. So you are providing examples of teaching that might be considered heresy by the F&W. These are believed by most workers?Confirming statements with a single overseer is not a very high standard of proof. The rest was a bit convoluted to follow. Perhaps a believer can figure it out!
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 10:05:23 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 10:05:23 GMT -5
This is a new thread in response to a thread in which Rational said: I, believe that Rational is spot on in his analysis of that. And I am glad to see that he doesn't believe that folks with dissenting views are preaching heresy. You are misrepresenting what I said. The judgement on what is and is not heresy can only be made by someone who does or does not share a belief with the person speaking. As I said, christians have so many beliefs, some conflicting, that what is preached might be gospel to one and heresy to another. The fact that I selected Martin Luther as an example should have made it clear that there is data to show that people with dissenting views are, according to some, preacing heresy. So you are providing examples of teaching that might be considered heresy by the F&W. These are believed by most workers?Confirming statements with a single overseer is not a very high standard of proof. The rest was a bit convoluted to follow. Perhaps a believer can figure it out! Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent what you wrote (and that is why I including a link to the original thread- so that your statement could be read in context.) But that was my honest interpretation of what you wrote. But, be that as it may, your additional qualifications don't make it any clearer to me how I misinterpreted what you wrote. As far as a very high standard of proof, my highest standard of proof is that I have been taught that this fellowship is the only right way by the workers for over 30 years. I have heard that message in countless gospel meetings and conventions. I have spoken about that in meeting many, many times myself. Not once has anyone questioned me. I have been questioned many times, though, on why I no longer feel that the workers are God's only true servants, and that other preachers of other denominations can carry the true gospel of Christ as well. It is amazing to me at how many people are so ashamed at publicly acknowledging the true doctrine of the church with no name. You grew up in the fellowship as well. I am surprised that you play along as if you don't know what the commonly held belief is. This does make me question if you are truly as objective as you try to portray. And not to pick on you alone, most of the system minded friends that post on this board try and claim like that isn't the belief any longer.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 10:09:54 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 10:09:54 GMT -5
The rest was a bit convoluted to follow. Perhaps a believer can figure it out! The reason that it is convoluted is because of the church with no name believing and teaching one set of beliefs in private/but portraying a different set of beliefs in public - it is convoluted and confusing. Just like most lies are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 10:36:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 10:36:29 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them.
There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 13:02:12 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on May 21, 2012 13:02:12 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them. There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all. While I believe that this is true, I think many people within the fellowship are not aware that the workers have a high degree of consensus on a highly particular view of Bible doctrine. That particular view is best expressed with the idea that the only way to Jesus is through the meeting in a home, and the workers without a home. In our own case, I know that I didn't hear that expressed until we had contact with workers in western Canada many years after we professed. The difference between regions, I'm thinking, is not so much a discrepancy in doctrine, but a reticence in laying out some aspects of doctrine that would commonly be challenged or refuted within orthodoxy. It's a difficult issue. For example, if a worker runs into a strong Trinitarian Christian who is interested in home meetings, how do they deal with the Trinitarian-ism? Do they butt heads on it, or quietly preach what they believe and see if there is a response? The problem for workers is that they may see dissent as disloyalty. Of course, if you think the workers are not God's only true servants, then dissent does become disloyalty. Most wise people in the fellowship will keep such dissenting thoughts to themselves. Young people who have little at stake will often leave the fellowship because of disbelief, not in the Bible, but disbelief in various particulars of the friends' doctrine.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
Post by kencoolidge on May 21, 2012 13:38:34 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them. There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all. CD Appreciate your thoughts. I would like to add as I have in other post that rather than talking about unity in the kingdoms sense we end up talking about uniformity. Unity has to do with the will of God for His People no matter where located they love and respect the Body (Church). Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; So I would agree for the most part there is uniformity amonst the overseers but unity speaks of another thing. There is no division in the body and this pointed out in many places. That's the unity that God wants to see in his people. No one can call Jesus Master except through the Holy Spirit. The same yesterday today and forever. The Holy Spirit , God and Jesus the son agree and we as children begotten of the Holy Spirit are one= UNITY ken
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 13:49:20 GMT -5
Post by rational on May 21, 2012 13:49:20 GMT -5
You grew up in the fellowship as well. I am surprised that you play along as if you don't know what the commonly held belief is. This does make me question if you are truly as objective as you try to portray. And not to pick on you alone, most of the system minded friends that post on this board try and claim like that isn't the belief any longer. I have not been to a meeting in many decades. Things change, I do not know nor would feel comfortable in guessing what others believe.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 15:42:12 GMT -5
Post by Linford Bledsoe on May 21, 2012 15:42:12 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them. There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all. I can't grasp trying to serve God with a belief that I have to ask an overseer if it's true. Talk about an obscure belief. How about confirming the statements with God. The reason you asked the overseer was because you already knew the answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 15:52:57 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 15:52:57 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them. There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all. I can't grasp trying to serve God with a belief that I have to ask an overseer if it's true. Talk about an obscure belief. How about confirming the statements with God. The reason you asked the overseer was because you already knew the answer. I don't know what you are talking about Linford. I haven't asked any overseers any questions about beliefs, at least not in recent memory, so you pulled that idea from the air. Their beliefs are already quite clear....I've been around many decades and don't need to ask. As far as your suggestion that overseers should not be needed to tell the truth about God, you are probably at odds with most meeting people you associate with. I think most of them would like to keep the ministry operating.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 16:39:54 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 16:39:54 GMT -5
Unless the subject matter is an obscure belief or doctrine, confirming statements with a single overseer is a reasonable standard of proof. Overseers and workers all over the world confirm a unity of beliefs among them. There are few exceptions to unity on major doctrines, D&R being one of the few which divide them. The other divisions are small stuff.....otherwise, it's all pretty much the same on the big stuff. Ask one overseer and you are asking them all. I can't grasp trying to serve God with a belief that I have to ask an overseer if it's true. Talk about an obscure belief. How about confirming the statements with God. The reason you asked the overseer was because you already knew the answer. Please re-read what I wrote. I confirmed the belief with the overseer- I didn't ask- he was telling me what the belief was in opposition to a worldly man that had stated something against that doctrine.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 17:12:00 GMT -5
Post by Linford Bledsoe on May 21, 2012 17:12:00 GMT -5
I can't grasp trying to serve God with a belief that I have to ask an overseer if it's true. Talk about an obscure belief. How about confirming the statements with God. The reason you asked the overseer was because you already knew the answer. Please re-read what I wrote. I confirmed the belief with the overseer- I didn't ask- he was telling me what the belief was in opposition to a worldly man that had stated something against that doctrine. Sorry The first and second time I've ever been wrong and all in the same day
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 17:14:17 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 17:14:17 GMT -5
Please re-read what I wrote. I confirmed the belief with the overseer- I didn't ask- he was telling me what the belief was in opposition to a worldly man that had stated something against that doctrine. Sorry The first and second time I've ever been wrong and all in the same day No worries. No need to apologize.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 17:26:49 GMT -5
Post by Greg on May 21, 2012 17:26:49 GMT -5
Quoting Hberry in another thread: "I absolutely do not agree with Rational as to the non-existence of God, but I appreciate his efforts to keep a boundary between opinion/emotion and facts. It's too much work for me as I settle for just sticking out my tongue at the post and saying "gag me with a spoon" and moving on."
In the F&W one can believe Jesus is God, Jesus is divine, Jesus was a gifted man being born of the God, Jesus was a gifted man because he did those things that pleased God, Jesus was a gifted man because of his self-denial, Jesus is a metaphor for the Christ within, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one.
In the F&W one can think/believe the bible is the inerrent word of God, the inspired word of God, the inspired word by faith in God, a book of divine wisdom, an inspiriational book, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one.
In the F&W one can have differing thoughts than others on D&R, entertainments, beginning of days, exclusivism and inclusivism, only right way, only right ministers, what to do with sexual offenders, or whatever else fits for the one.
All this might or might not be heresy, but differing convictions and thoughts. And there are more than what is listed above.
And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on."
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 17:52:38 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 21, 2012 17:52:38 GMT -5
Quoting Hberry in another thread: "I absolutely do not agree with Rational as to the non-existence of God, but I appreciate his efforts to keep a boundary between opinion/emotion and facts. It's too much work for me as I settle for just sticking out my tongue at the post and saying "gag me with a spoon" and moving on." In the F&W one can believe Jesus is God, Jesus is divine, Jesus was a gifted man being born of the God, Jesus was a gifted man because he did those things that pleased God, Jesus was a gifted man because of his self-denial, Jesus is a metaphor for the Christ within, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can think/believe the bible is the inerrent word of God, the inspired word of God, the inspired word by faith in God, a book of divine wisdom, an inspiriational book, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can have differing thoughts than others on D&R, entertainments, beginning of days, exclusivism and inclusivism, only right way, only right ministers, what to do with sexual offenders, or whatever else fits for the one. All this might or might not be heresy, but differing convictions and thoughts. And there are more than what is listed above. And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on." But, you left out of the list the 2 most important tenants required: 1) that the church with no name is the only way 2) the workers are the only true preachers- and one must be saved through them In other words- you left out the living witness doctrine that is the cornerstone of the fellowship for some. And it is this doctrine that is causing so many problems.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 18:01:16 GMT -5
Post by Greg on May 21, 2012 18:01:16 GMT -5
Quoting Hberry in another thread: "I absolutely do not agree with Rational as to the non-existence of God, but I appreciate his efforts to keep a boundary between opinion/emotion and facts. It's too much work for me as I settle for just sticking out my tongue at the post and saying "gag me with a spoon" and moving on." In the F&W one can believe Jesus is God, Jesus is divine, Jesus was a gifted man being born of the God, Jesus was a gifted man because he did those things that pleased God, Jesus was a gifted man because of his self-denial, Jesus is a metaphor for the Christ within, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can think/believe the bible is the inerrent word of God, the inspired word of God, the inspired word by faith in God, a book of divine wisdom, an inspiriational book, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can have differing thoughts than others on D&R, entertainments, beginning of days, exclusivism and inclusivism, only right way, only right ministers, what to do with sexual offenders, or whatever else fits for the one. All this might or might not be heresy, but differing convictions and thoughts. And there are more than what is listed above. And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on." But, you left out of the list the 2 most important tenants required: 1) that the church with no name is the only way 2) the workers are the only true preachers- and one must be saved through them In other words- you left out the living witness doctrine that is the cornerstone of the fellowship for some. And it is this doctrine that is causing so many problems. Only right way....only right ministers.....exclusivism and inclusivism. Not the same wording, but the same meaning. But your notation is noted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 19:24:05 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 19:24:05 GMT -5
And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on." ;D This is going to make me laugh one of these days in meetings if this image pops up when my "oh please" filters go on.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 19:45:05 GMT -5
Post by Greg on May 21, 2012 19:45:05 GMT -5
And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on." ;D This is going to make me laugh one of these days in meetings if this image pops up when my "oh please" filters go on. Good luck with that. I didn't mean just you, but that the sentiment you indicated can be attributed to many in the fellowship. Certain things are preached, especially in convention, and people can "amen" accept them or "pffft, that's just your opinion" reject them.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 21, 2012 20:41:54 GMT -5
Post by ts on May 21, 2012 20:41:54 GMT -5
;D This is going to make me laugh one of these days in meetings if this image pops up when my "oh please" filters go on. Good luck with that. I didn't mean just you, but that the sentiment you indicated can be attributed to many in the fellowship. Certain things are preached, especially in convention, and people can "amen" accept them or "pffft, that's just your opinion" reject them. That's what I like about meetings, you can pick and choose what you want to believe and still take part in meeting and you are accepted by the friends and workers. It is that complete lack of judgment and openness to other beliefs and doctrines that is so endearing. The freedom of Christ, is what it is.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 3:41:14 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on May 22, 2012 3:41:14 GMT -5
Quoting Hberry in another thread: "I absolutely do not agree with Rational as to the non-existence of God, but I appreciate his efforts to keep a boundary between opinion/emotion and facts. It's too much work for me as I settle for just sticking out my tongue at the post and saying "gag me with a spoon" and moving on." In the F&W one can believe Jesus is God, Jesus is divine, Jesus was a gifted man being born of the God, Jesus was a gifted man because he did those things that pleased God, Jesus was a gifted man because of his self-denial, Jesus is a metaphor for the Christ within, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can think/believe the bible is the inerrent word of God, the inspired word of God, the inspired word by faith in God, a book of divine wisdom, an inspiriational book, or one can believe whatever combination that fits for the one. In the F&W one can have differing thoughts than others on D&R, entertainments, beginning of days, exclusivism and inclusivism, only right way, only right ministers, what to do with sexual offenders, or whatever else fits for the one. All this might or might not be heresy, but differing convictions and thoughts. And there are more than what is listed above. And so to borrow from Hberry: "I absolutely do not agree with everything everyone or anyone says in the fellowship, but I appreciate the fellowship. It's too much work for me to sort everything out for all others to see and so I settle for just sticking out my tongue at that which I do not believe or think and saying "gag me with a spoon" and I move on." This is accurate and what Clearday wrote is accurate. It's difficult to reconcile the two. Maybe loyalty matters more than the particulars of doctrine?
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 6:32:09 GMT -5
Post by kencoolidge on May 22, 2012 6:32:09 GMT -5
Good luck with that. I didn't mean just you, but that the sentiment you indicated can be attributed to many in the fellowship. Certain things are preached, especially in convention, and people can "amen" accept them or "pffft, that's just your opinion" reject them. That's what I like about meetings, you can pick and choose what you want to believe and still take part in meeting and you are accepted by the friends and workers. It is that complete lack of judgment and openness to other beliefs and doctrines that is so endearing. The freedom of Christ, is what it is. ts Some are opening the blinds to let a little light in! ken
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 6:35:05 GMT -5
Post by Brick on May 22, 2012 6:35:05 GMT -5
If I understood them correctly, CD is saying the common belief is __________, but Greg is saying that there are a lot of us that don't share the common beliefs. I don't find the two statements to be opposed, and agree with both.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 6:53:14 GMT -5
Post by rational on May 22, 2012 6:53:14 GMT -5
If I understood them correctly, CD is saying the common belief is __________, but Greg is saying that there are a lot of us that don't share the common beliefs. I don't find the two statements to be opposed, and agree with both. When enough people do not share the common belief it will no longer be the common belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 6:57:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 6:57:46 GMT -5
If I understood them correctly, CD is saying the common belief is __________, but Greg is saying that there are a lot of us that don't share the common beliefs. I don't find the two statements to be opposed, and agree with both. My comments were specifically with regard to the overseers' beliefs which are inclined to have a high degree of uniformity among them on the major issues except D&R. As far as the friends go, the degree of uniformity is not as high, but is still fairly high. If an F&W member doesn't share some of the common beliefs, there isn't the freedom to tout them as Greg seems to suggest, but there is freedom to hold them.....obviously no one can take away your personal beliefs. It's like any group, if you are different from the crowd, the crowd will react negatively if you are too outspoken. The oddball in any crowd must behave circumspectly if they prefer to avoid persecution or abuse of some sort.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 8:53:59 GMT -5
Post by Greg on May 22, 2012 8:53:59 GMT -5
If I understood them correctly, CD is saying the common belief is __________, but Greg is saying that there are a lot of us that don't share the common beliefs. I don't find the two statements to be opposed, and agree with both. My comments were specifically with regard to the overseers' beliefs which are inclined to have a high degree of uniformity among them on the major issues except D&R. As far as the friends go, the degree of uniformity is not as high, but is still fairly high. If an F&W member doesn't share some of the common beliefs, there isn't the freedom to tout them as Greg seems to suggest, but there is freedom to hold them.....obviously no one can take away your personal beliefs. It's like any group, if you are different from the crowd, the crowd will react negatively if you are too outspoken. The oddball in any crowd must behave circumspectly if they prefer to avoid persecution or abuse of some sort. One can believe or think what they want. That does not mean one can express what they think or believe without fear of being rejected/shunned/ostracized/silenced.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 12:03:40 GMT -5
Post by sharonw on May 22, 2012 12:03:40 GMT -5
Good luck with that. I didn't mean just you, but that the sentiment you indicated can be attributed to many in the fellowship. Certain things are preached, especially in convention, and people can "amen" accept them or "pffft, that's just your opinion" reject them. That's what I like about meetings, you can pick and choose what you want to believe and still take part in meeting and you are accepted by the friends and workers. It is that complete lack of judgment and openness to other beliefs and doctrines that is so endearing. The freedom of Christ, is what it is. There's been recent times when someone spoke in mtg. of something that meant so very much to them, that had opened their eyes a little bit better. And it was no time that they were talked to about that which they spoke about and/or were evicted out of that mtg. or fellowship. Greg says that some in the fellowship believe in the Trinity God....I can almost guarantee him, that more then not have been at the least worker-scolded for speaking about it and there's been even those who were excommunicated for speaking about the Trinity. IF there are those in any mtg. that like to run to the workers with everyone's testimonies and whether it was helpful or not to the mtg., then they will certainly tell the workers about those who speak and teach wrong doctrine and that will get the workers right onto those who do so....you can believe that. It is very few mtgs. that there are not such people in them...this is the way they cultivate their importance to the fellowship! But at the same time it has caused people to either leave or be excommunicated.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 15:01:09 GMT -5
Post by JO on May 22, 2012 15:01:09 GMT -5
IF there are those in any mtg. that like to run to the workers with everyone's testimonies and whether it was helpful or not to the mtg., then they will certainly tell the workers about those who speak and teach wrong doctrine and that will get the workers right onto those who do so....you can believe that. It is very few mtgs. that there are not such people in them...this is the way they cultivate their importance to the fellowship! But at the same time it has caused people to either leave or be excommunicated. An elder with a history of child sexual abuse could get brownie points with the workers by reporting wrong doctrine. From the OP: CSA isn't as big of a concern to the workers as the threat of so-called heresy.
|
|
|
Heresy?
May 22, 2012 15:21:28 GMT -5
Post by sacerdotal on May 22, 2012 15:21:28 GMT -5
IF there are those in any mtg. that like to run to the workers with everyone's testimonies and whether it was helpful or not to the mtg., then they will certainly tell the workers about those who speak and teach wrong doctrine and that will get the workers right onto those who do so....you can believe that. It is very few mtgs. that there are not such people in them...this is the way they cultivate their importance to the fellowship! But at the same time it has caused people to either leave or be excommunicated. An elder with a history of child sexual abuse could get brownie points with the workers by reporting wrong doctrine. From the OP: CSA isn't as big of a concern to the workers as the threat of so-called heresy.This is a no brainer. So called heresy is a bigger threat to the 2x2s than CSA- or so their leaders think. Exhibit A: The workers made a big deal out of the letters that were sent out back around 1990- they called the letters poison and asked the folks that received them not to open them. (Someone should post the letter so that we can examine the poison). Most everyone knew that an "enemy" was distributing poison to harm our fellowship. I haven't heard one peep from a worker about CSA. Unless one is on the TMB, it is quite likely that one doesn't know about CSA issues within the fellowship. I wouldn't have known about IH if it hadn't been for the TMB. The workers do not talk about CSA. They do not talk about the Alberta incident either- where so many churches were excommunicated because the elders decided to be elders and stand for truth and righteousness. If one does talk about it, I can guarantee you that most workers would look at that person with suspicion as if they are just a trouble maker, rather than someone concerned about our fellowship.
|
|