|
Post by quizzer on Apr 16, 2013 17:35:54 GMT -5
I understood that the main reason that WI was kicked out of the work was because he was caught bedding the Australian sister workers.
Why bother mentioning all of the other stuff with all the rhetoric?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 16, 2013 18:18:39 GMT -5
I understood that the main reason that WI was kicked out of the work was because he was caught bedding the Australian sister workers. Why bother mentioning all of the other stuff with all the rhetoric? Did you mean New Zealand? Actually it cannot be determined for certain what precise event or action actually brought him down. I've collected quotes of what various early workers had to say about it in my book: The Founder is Rejected - The Scandal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 8:04:57 GMT -5
I understood that the main reason that WI was kicked out of the work was because he was caught bedding the Australian sister workers. Why bother mentioning all of the other stuff with all the rhetoric? Did you mean New Zealand? Actually it cannot be determined for certain what precise event or action actually brought him down. I've collected quotes of what various early workers had to say about it in my book: The Founder is Rejected - The ScandalOne would think that the Omega Doctrine would be sufficient to boot him out regardless of what may or may not have happened with the sister workers in NZ around 1912-13. I haven't spent much reading of the Omega but the little I have, it does seem quite fanatical. That said, what evidence is there that Irvine's pre-excomm teachings were getting weird? There are the post-1914 letters, particular from JackC later, but there is very little information of Irvine's thoughts or reports of his preaching while it was occurring. If I recall, the Bethel Australia account does mention Irvine sounding strange in his preaching (no detail of what he was actually saying) but are there any others? What I am asking is this: how much is known about his pre-1914 preaching of the Omega Doctrine? Is there enough evidence of it that would support the theory of his excommunication on that basis alone? Or did he start to develop his Omega theory in earnest only after he was booted for sexual indiscretions? Or were both problems part of the excommunication decision?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 17, 2013 9:07:36 GMT -5
Did you mean New Zealand? Actually it cannot be determined for certain what precise event or action actually brought him down. I've collected quotes of what various early workers had to say about it in my book: The Founder is Rejected - The ScandalOne would think that the Omega Doctrine would be sufficient to boot him out regardless of what may or may not have happened with the sister workers in NZ around 1912-13. I haven't spent much reading of the Omega but the little I have, it does seem quite fanatical. That said, what evidence is there that Irvine's pre-excomm teachings were getting weird? There are the post-1914 letters, particular from JackC later, but there is very little information of Irvine's thoughts or reports of his preaching while it was occurring. If I recall, the Bethel Australia account does mention Irvine sounding strange in his preaching (no detail of what he was actually saying) but are there any others? What I am asking is this: how much is known about his pre-1914 preaching of the Omega Doctrine? Is there enough evidence of it that would support the theory of his excommunication on that basis alone? Or did he start to develop his Omega theory in earnest only after he was booted for sexual indiscretions? Or were both problems part of the excommunication decision? Hi Clearday, I was wondering the same thing. Where are the letters about his doctrine WHILE he was still a worker? Most of the writing appears to be written to the friends by the senior workers AFTER he had been removed. The letters appear to be damage control and an effort to REALLY make sure that William Irvine was thought of as a kook. I have seen the same smear campaigns against others- Marge Mallowan for one, as well as other workers- including the one that had brought charges against Leslie White- an overseer inferred/said that she "was off her rocker". Was she off her rocker while in the work? Or only after bringing charges against a senior worker? The smear campaigns against the friends and workers that leave the fellowship or that are interested in truth and honesty and righteousness within the fellowship, is most disturbing. Thanks for bringing the topic up. I had been thinking about the same question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 9:20:15 GMT -5
One would think that the Omega Doctrine would be sufficient to boot him out regardless of what may or may not have happened with the sister workers in NZ around 1912-13. I haven't spent much reading of the Omega but the little I have, it does seem quite fanatical. That said, what evidence is there that Irvine's pre-excomm teachings were getting weird? There are the post-1914 letters, particular from JackC later, but there is very little information of Irvine's thoughts or reports of his preaching while it was occurring. If I recall, the Bethel Australia account does mention Irvine sounding strange in his preaching (no detail of what he was actually saying) but are there any others? What I am asking is this: how much is known about his pre-1914 preaching of the Omega Doctrine? Is there enough evidence of it that would support the theory of his excommunication on that basis alone? Or did he start to develop his Omega theory in earnest only after he was booted for sexual indiscretions? Or were both problems part of the excommunication decision? Hi Clearday, I was wondering the same thing. Where are the letters about his doctrine WHILE he was still a worker? Most of the writing appears to be written to the friends by the senior workers AFTER he had been removed. The letters appear to be damage control and an effort to REALLY make sure that William Irvine was thought of as a kook. I have seen the same smear campaigns against others- Marge Mallowan for one, as well as other workers- including the one that had brought charges against Leslie White- an overseer inferred/said that she "was off her rocker". Was she off her rocker while in the work? Or only after bringing charges against a senior worker? The smear campaigns against the friends and workers that leave the fellowship or that are interested in truth and honesty and righteousness within the fellowship, is most disturbing. Thanks for bringing the topic up. I had been thinking about the same question. This is what was written about Irvine in 1910-11: "But during this week while these babes rejoiced in the messages being given, some sensed there was something amiss with brother Irvine. Even Wilson McClung hung his head when William spoke. This impression was further confirmed the following year at the 1911 convention which William Irvine again attended." www.tellingthetruth.info/history_pioneering/australia-bethel.phpThere are no details at all here. The other problem with it is that it could be a bit of revisionist history. It is possible that Irvine made a lot of people uncomfortable for a long time, but if this account was written after his excommunication, it is possible that Irvine's preaching in 1910-11 was no different than 10 years prior and the writer was connecting the two events. Certainly no mention about the Omega prophesies here.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 17, 2013 19:35:22 GMT -5
I think you will find the reason there isnt much written about Irvine's Omega doctrine while he was still a part of the fellowship in the following info... As a little history about the reasons given for Irvine's ousting...when he rcvd his Omega "revelation" and his mental state. From my WmI book Chapter 11Today, most workers would prefer not to discuss William Irvine at all. If and when Irvine's name comes up, he is often identified as "Just a Worker." Sometimes they may add "who got off on the wrong track." (Notes on Geo. Walker's Early Days in America) . There are many old documents, letters, statements at funerals, testimonies, etc. by the early workers that give details about the history of the group. The speakers or writers freely refer to many of the workers by name who were a part of the early history of the group. However, it is EXTREMELY RARE for Wm. Irvine to be mentioned by name. For instance, Fannie Carroll leaves his name out, all but one West Coast America pioneering stories leave his name out, George Walker leave it out. They will refer to Wm. Irvine as "a man," or "another worker," or "a worker who had worked in a coal mine," etc, but not by his name. When someone brings up Wm. Irvine's name to a worker today, often they will give one of the following explanations for his excommunication from the work: 1. He was a womanizer; or had committed gross immorality (then others will agree they HAD to get rid of him; couldn't allow that!) 2. He became mentally unbalanced and unfit to remain in charge (then others will agree they made the right choice to remove him.) 3. He became too proud (then he deserved to be put out.) 4. He was preaching false doctrine (then others would agree he should be silenced.) No real evidence has turned up to confirm the report that Irvine became mentally unbalanced, or was ever committed to psychiatric care. Up until the last few months before his death, Irvine was able to live by himself. He was supported by odd jobs and voluntary funds which were supplied by his many faithful supporters. Some blame Irvine's removal on his prophecies: "He was asked to leave ...because he took up his own doctrine unfounded by scripture." This has reference to Irvine's insistence that the only avenue for salvation after 1914 was by relying on his claim to be The Prophet For The Last Days and accepting his Omega Gospel Message. However, it was late 1918, over four years AFTER he was told he must step down, that Irvine received his new "vision" of Revelation, so this explanation could not be the reason for his dismissal in 1914. The Scandal was most likely the reason. There are many statements to that effect from various workers. Alfred Magowan summed up the dilemma quite well that the workers experienced at the time of Irvine’s fall in his play titled: Outline of a Peculiar People From 1900-1931, pp. 16-17: Third Overseer: "He made us what we are. Except for him I might still be what and where I was when he discovered me. First Overseer: "It's going to upset our Family Tree! Second Overseer: "You mean uproot it! Perhaps we made too much of him as our Father in the Gospel. I begin to think I was right before I met him. Third Overseer: "Fathers sometimes go wrong without ceasing to be fathers. First Overseer: "Yes, but spiritual fathers are different. When they fall away, they carry away the whole ground of relationship with them. Second Overseer: "Do you think then that we should give up the Foundation of Teaching because he is not what he used to be? First Overseer: "We can still refer to the time we met him, and the necessity of Genealogy, without committing ourselves any further. Third Overseer: "But supposing somebody asks us who our spiritual Father was, and WHERE he is now? Second Overseer: "In that case, it would be wise to change the subject! Third Overseer: "...I cannot forget the early days when he was himself, and when his words were our meat and drink. How thou art fallen from heaven O Lucifer, Son of the Morning! Sometimes I wish he was back again. All of us together have not the force he had. And the old people mourn for the powers and the glory of the first days. First Overseer: "But we cannot afford to lose the place we have gained by his fall. Second Overseer: "I do not like to put it that way. Third Overseer: "His unfaithfulness gave opportunity and occasion to our faithfulness. First Overseer: "That sounds better." Read more details in Chapter 12
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 17, 2013 19:39:56 GMT -5
From WmI Book Chapter 12: THE REASON WM. IRVINE WAS DEMOTED: The material currently available to the Author indicates that Wm. Irvine did not get his understanding of and begin teaching his Omega Message until late 1918. Therefore, the author believes that disagreement over doctrine could NOT have been the reason the workers rejected his leadership in 1914. The author believes the reason for Irvine's rejection was the Scandal that was revealed. Jack Carroll wrote that “his manner of life” was unacceptable: “It is just 4-1/2 years ago since the older workers in (the) old country told William Irvine that they could no longer recognize him as leader, or again as being in the ministry, unless there was a complete change in his manner of life.” (April 16, 1919 Letter by Jack Carroll to “My dear Brother or Sister” from Santa Barbara, California) In the book, The Secret Sect, Authors Doug and Helen Parker give the main reason for the separation between the workers and Wm. Irvine as being genuine disagreement arising when “…he (Wm Irvine) formed the idea that he had been divinely appointed to bring the last message of Jesus Christ to the world before judgment, and he interpreted the period leading up to August, 1914, as the end of the age of grace.” However, without information showing Irvine was teaching his Omega Message prior to late 1918, the author is unable to concur that this was the reason Irvine was rejected. Some explanations for his demotion were that Irvine had "gone off the deep end" or had "gone mad." However, he was never institutionalized and lived independently to an old age. His later writings are not that of a madman. He was mystical, hurt by his rejection by those he trusted and who owed their positions to him, arrogant and clever. 1918 – RECEIVING THE OMEGA VISION. It was sometime in November of 1918, when Wm. Irvine began to understand the Book of Revelation in a different light. He wrote: “Revelation only began to open up in 1918 when the War finished." (November 26, 1945 Letter to Madeline Dunbar) "In 1918, I began to see some of what was in Revelation and which has slowly opened as the years passed and fulfillment confirms the reading of Revelation." (June 18, 1945 Letter to Skerritts) “I did not know we were in the days of Judgment till 4 months ago. The Lord opened up Revelation to me. It’s a Program for the End of the Age—covers 12 years, from the beginning of the war.“ (March 31, 1919 Letter to Edwards) This took place in the early weeks of November: “…which helps to bring me back to the weeks before Armistice, when He opened Revelation to me" (February 26, 1929 Letter to Edwards) Armistice Day was November 11, 1918. “It was all new and strange to me to find these things open up to my understanding, and ability to read what has long been hidden till the time of the end, and not till the end of the last war did I get any vision or understanding of Revelation and the whole truth for the Latter Days, tho I had looked for and listened to every man who had anything to say on the matter. ” (November 1, 1929 Letter to Wm. Potts) . In the years after 1918, the Book of Revelation continued to open up progressively to Irvine. He greeted each new insight joyously, and wrote the details to his faithful followers.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 17, 2013 20:03:57 GMT -5
I wondered if anyone else noticed this line in the letter from Jack Carrol. " Our old friend W. I. [William Irvine] is on a different tack now and shows less evidence than ever of having the anointing of God"
It sounds like they are doubting that WI ever had an anointing, and now many F&W's are hanging their hats on the fact that "WI was lifted up"
Seems like these early fellows had an agenda, and liked the power and not having to have jobs and having money to travel, and they were going to continue it no matter what.
My question would be, if WI was not lifted up, who was?
Or is this just another religion as I and many others believe?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 17, 2013 20:59:27 GMT -5
Jack Carroll wrote the following to Clyde in a letter April 12, 1919I enclose a list of addresses for next few weeks. Am not sure yet where Eddie will have the meetings in California but the dates for the different districts are correct. Hope you will be back in time to take in some of the meetings. Our old friend W. I. [William Irvine] is on a different tack now and shows less evidence than ever of having the anointing of God. His extravagances along prophetic lines are very foolish and have no scriptural foundation. I hope none will be disturbed in spirit or mind thro’ this last development. 2 Timothy 2:15-19 have a deeper meaning for me than ever as it is very evident poor William is now following in the footsteps of Hymenaeus and Philetus. How sad it is to see a man once honoured by God as no other now carried away by his own stubborn and unbroken spirit and under the influence of the “other spirit,” not the Spirit of God. It is a continual heart break to me to see him where he is, but I do not know a man on earth that he would be willing to take help or counsel from. To cross him or disagree with him in the old days was fatal to a continuance of fellowship and to cross or disagree with him now means to be branded as Cain Balaam, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and all the unworthies of the old and new Testaments. To accept without question his revelations and follow blindly his leadership is the only way to have fellowship with him. He has been so discredited in so many different ways that to do this is now utterly impossible. We were simple enough to do this in the Old Days when there was some little evidence of the Lord’s anointing, but for a number of years, it was becoming more and more painfully evident that the Lord was not with him; and in the last two years this has been made very manifest both in his manner of life, letters and foolish wresting of the scriptures. Click link above for all of this letter if interested...there is a letter above it by Jack also that is interesting and discusses Irvine being put out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 5:00:54 GMT -5
In my opinion the success of the movement in which Irvine played at the very least a major part in founding and whom was "elected" as the leader, quite simply went to his head. With the success came his vision of himself being a more and more important figure selected and used by God. The seed of this behaviour in my view is seen even in his early days with the Faith Mission, where it clearly sprouted.
The quick success of the F&W's movement and his appointment as leader added dung to the green shoot, causing it to grow rapidly into the gnarled oak it became.
Jack Carroll stated the following about Irvine. How much of this applies to the "new" days without Irvine?
To cross him or disagree with him in the old days was fatal to a continuance of fellowship and to cross or disagree with him now means to be branded as Cain Balaam, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and all the unworthies of the old and new Testaments. To accept without question his revelations and follow blindly his leadership is the only way to have fellowship with him.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 18, 2013 10:20:09 GMT -5
Good point Ram. Now they have the same program, it is just different people that you can't cross.
You can't have that kind of adoration without it getting to you a little. The little I experienced in music and film showed me that. John Lennon was so frustrated because people wanted to think he had all the answers. His cocky attitude came from people pressing and misquoting him.
I look at some of the "preachers" on TV, and went to a live program and the preacher looked like he was on drugs he was so high from the attention.
Being humble is really a chore. I hope I have learned it well when people talk me up about my music. Yeah, it is nice to hear that they like what I do, but God gave me the gift, I just use it.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 19, 2013 10:36:38 GMT -5
It seems to me that the "Omega Gospel" didn't truly start until WI was excommunicated. Kinda like WI didn't truly start the 2x2s until he was kicked out of Faith Mission. There *may* have been some squirrelly doctrine but not enough to raise a hassle unless other elements were at work.
I'm thinking that some of the other senior workers were looking to do stuff and found WI to be in their way.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Apr 19, 2013 14:02:34 GMT -5
I think that some like John Long really were sincere in their calling, and some get sucked into other ideals. Of course with the explosion of growth, there was a lot of room for organizing it the way the majority of beginning workers wanted it to be.
Then there are people that are just lazy, and find "Jesus" to be an easy way to make money with little work.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2013 18:21:41 GMT -5
Was going through some old stuff of my parents today and came across some notes that my grandmother had written before she died in 1918. Jack Carroll was in them. I always wondered who brought the religion to my grandparents. Now I know.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 19, 2013 18:34:34 GMT -5
Was going through some old stuff of my parents today and came across some notes that my grandmother had written before she died in 1918. Jack Carroll was in them. I always wondered who brought the religion to my grandparents. Now I know. My grandparents (either side) did not profess through Jack Carroll himself. However, I was raised with many remarks prefaced by “Jack Carroll always said…” This was usually when my mother was in personal disagreement with some practice or prevailing wisdom amongst the workers or the friends. She died in 1988, before Jack’s “feet of clay” became common knowledge. You know, none of that matters one bit now. The “Jack Carroll always said…” expression was a metaphor for her reaching for her own inner guidance, and for that, I will always be immensely grateful.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 19, 2013 18:47:42 GMT -5
People send me more notes of Jack's than any other single worker. Apparently there were excellent stenographers back then - or else Jack wrote out all his sermons - bcs these have been copied and distributed far and wide among the friends. Jack preached in both Canada and USA. He had a distinctive style of preaching--very orderly. Point 1-2-3, etc. Easy to follow. Did the start by telling what you're going to talk about - wind up with a summary fo what you just covered. I have read so many of his notes that I can scan anonymous notes and pretty well tell if they were by Jack. Not near as many notes have been circulated by Jack's counterpart in the Eastern USA, George Walker...not that have come to me anyway. Was going through some old stuff of my parents today and came across some notes that my grandmother had written before she died in 1918. Jack Carroll was in them. I always wondered who brought the religion to my grandparents. Now I know.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 19, 2013 19:23:57 GMT -5
Sharon A wrote:
Sharon, could you explain what you mean by your remark?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 19, 2013 20:08:51 GMT -5
Sharon A wrote: Sharon, could you explain what you mean by your remark? Ummm. Nothing in particular. Other than he was as human and as fallible as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2013 20:44:22 GMT -5
Was going through some old stuff of my parents today and came across some notes that my grandmother had written before she died in 1918. Jack Carroll was in them. I always wondered who brought the religion to my grandparents. Now I know. My grandparents (either side) did not profess through Jack Carroll himself. However, I was raised with many remarks prefaced by “Jack Carroll always said…” This was usually when my mother was in personal disagreement with some practice or prevailing wisdom amongst the workers or the friends. She died in 1988, before Jack’s “feet of clay” became common knowledge. You know, none of that matters one bit now. The “Jack Carroll always said…” expression was a metaphor for her reaching for her own inner guidance, and for that, I will always be immensely grateful. What I found really amazing was she had a section of 'questions' about scripture and the workings of the church! They were well thought out and it looks like she was not the kind that just accepted something as being true without questioning it. It was an interesting find because I obviously never knew her. She died when my dad was 4 years old. Knowing how fanatical my dad was makes me think he wasn't much like his mom!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 19, 2013 20:48:14 GMT -5
Similar to this perhaps? www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/carrolls.php#NTMinistryMy grandparents (either side) did not profess through Jack Carroll himself. However, I was raised with many remarks prefaced by “Jack Carroll always said…” This was usually when my mother was in personal disagreement with some practice or prevailing wisdom amongst the workers or the friends. She died in 1988, before Jack’s “feet of clay” became common knowledge. You know, none of that matters one bit now. The “Jack Carroll always said…” expression was a metaphor for her reaching for her own inner guidance, and for that, I will always be immensely grateful. What I found really amazing was she had a section of 'questions' about scripture and the workings of the church! They were well thought out and it looks like she was not the kind that just accepted something as being true without questioning it. It was an interesting find because I obviously never knew her. She died when my dad was 4 years old. Knowing how fanatical my dad was makes me think he wasn't much like his mom!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2013 21:03:50 GMT -5
People send me more notes of Jack's than any other single worker. Apparently there were excellent stenographers back then - or else Jack wrote out all his sermons - bcs these have been copied and distributed far and wide among the friends. Jack preached in both Canada and USA. He had a distinctive style of preaching--very orderly. Point 1-2-3, etc. Easy to follow. Did the start by telling what you're going to talk about - wind up with a summary fo what you just covered. I have read so many of his notes that I can scan anonymous notes and pretty well tell if they were by Jack. Not near as many notes have been circulated by Jack's counterpart in the Eastern USA, George Walker...not that have come to me anyway. Was going through some old stuff of my parents today and came across some notes that my grandmother had written before she died in 1918. Jack Carroll was in them. I always wondered who brought the religion to my grandparents. Now I know. What I found wasn't preaching notes. It was a list of 100 subjects for private bible study written by J. Carroll
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2013 21:09:45 GMT -5
Similar to this perhaps? www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_early/carrolls.php#NTMinistryWhat I found really amazing was she had a section of 'questions' about scripture and the workings of the church! They were well thought out and it looks like she was not the kind that just accepted something as being true without questioning it. It was an interesting find because I obviously never knew her. She died when my dad was 4 years old. Knowing how fanatical my dad was makes me think he wasn't much like his mom! No, not so much about their ministry, more about what they thought of the things in the bible. It was rather interesting I thought.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 20, 2013 2:23:35 GMT -5
People send me more notes of Jack's than any other single worker. Apparently there were excellent stenographers back then - or else Jack wrote out all his sermons - bcs these have been copied and distributed far and wide among the friends. Jack preached in both Canada and USA. He had a distinctive style of preaching--very orderly. Point 1-2-3, etc. Easy to follow. Did the start by telling what you're going to talk about - wind up with a summary fo what you just covered. I have read so many of his notes that I can scan anonymous notes and pretty well tell if they were by Jack. Not near as many notes have been circulated by Jack's counterpart in the Eastern USA, George Walker...not that have come to me anyway. What I found wasn't preaching notes. It was a list of 100 subjects for private bible study written by J. Carroll You can scan it and email it to Truth Archive! archive.truth@gmail.com
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 20, 2013 10:28:54 GMT -5
What I found wasn't preaching notes. It was a list of 100 subjects for private bible study written by J. Carroll You can scan it and email it to Truth Archive! archive.truth@gmail.com I will try. It's on a thin onion skin paper and can't scan it well. Tried to adjust setting to diminish the other side of the paper so hope it comes through okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2013 15:15:22 GMT -5
Cherie, what is your opinion on the meaning of the following passage of the Bethel account? I realize any opinion is fairly speculative, but would be interested in what you think it might mean. He was clearly preaching something that was embarrassing around 1910-11.....but what? "But during this week while these babes rejoiced in the messages being given, some sensed there was something amiss with brother Irvine. Even Wilson McClung hung his head when William spoke. This impression was further confirmed the following year at the 1911 convention which William Irvine again attended."www.tellingthetruth.info/history_pioneering/australia-bethel.phpFrom WmI Book Chapter 12: THE REASON WM. IRVINE WAS DEMOTED: The material currently available to the Author indicates that Wm. Irvine did not get his understanding of and begin teaching his Omega Message until late 1918. Therefore, the author believes that disagreement over doctrine could NOT have been the reason the workers rejected his leadership in 1914. The author believes the reason for Irvine's rejection was the Scandal that was revealed. Jack Carroll wrote that “his manner of life” was unacceptable: “It is just 4-1/2 years ago since the older workers in (the) old country told William Irvine that they could no longer recognize him as leader, or again as being in the ministry, unless there was a complete change in his manner of life.” (April 16, 1919 Letter by Jack Carroll to “My dear Brother or Sister” from Santa Barbara, California) In the book, The Secret Sect, Authors Doug and Helen Parker give the main reason for the separation between the workers and Wm. Irvine as being genuine disagreement arising when “…he (Wm Irvine) formed the idea that he had been divinely appointed to bring the last message of Jesus Christ to the world before judgment, and he interpreted the period leading up to August, 1914, as the end of the age of grace.” However, without information showing Irvine was teaching his Omega Message prior to late 1918, the author is unable to concur that this was the reason Irvine was rejected. Some explanations for his demotion were that Irvine had "gone off the deep end" or had "gone mad." However, he was never institutionalized and lived independently to an old age. His later writings are not that of a madman. He was mystical, hurt by his rejection by those he trusted and who owed their positions to him, arrogant and clever. 1918 – RECEIVING THE OMEGA VISION. It was sometime in November of 1918, when Wm. Irvine began to understand the Book of Revelation in a different light. He wrote: “Revelation only began to open up in 1918 when the War finished." (November 26, 1945 Letter to Madeline Dunbar) "In 1918, I began to see some of what was in Revelation and which has slowly opened as the years passed and fulfillment confirms the reading of Revelation." (June 18, 1945 Letter to Skerritts) “I did not know we were in the days of Judgment till 4 months ago. The Lord opened up Revelation to me. It’s a Program for the End of the Age—covers 12 years, from the beginning of the war.“ (March 31, 1919 Letter to Edwards) This took place in the early weeks of November: “…which helps to bring me back to the weeks before Armistice, when He opened Revelation to me" (February 26, 1929 Letter to Edwards) Armistice Day was November 11, 1918. “It was all new and strange to me to find these things open up to my understanding, and ability to read what has long been hidden till the time of the end, and not till the end of the last war did I get any vision or understanding of Revelation and the whole truth for the Latter Days, tho I had looked for and listened to every man who had anything to say on the matter. ” (November 1, 1929 Letter to Wm. Potts) . In the years after 1918, the Book of Revelation continued to open up progressively to Irvine. He greeted each new insight joyously, and wrote the details to his faithful followers.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 21, 2013 0:22:40 GMT -5
CD asked First, let’s look at the background of this Account. In the “Sources” at the end, it has this statement: “Data for this write-up was taken from a number of sources, and the following items reflect the personal connections of some of the main contributors with members of the Bethel mission.”
So the Bethel Account was not written when it happened in 1910, and was probably collected MUCH later. There is speculation offered in some gaps, such as: “Martha Matz said the purpose of the visit by the two visiting brothers after convention was to confirm the Bethel group, however it is most likely the mission was tested before they left and this was when the remainder of the "twenty-four" made their stand (for the second time!)”
This is much like me piecing together the 2x2 history that happened 100 years ago, using all the known sources and filtering thru the rumors and speculations…trying to arrive at what did and what might have happened in some areas.
Regarding the quote above…We have no idea of the nature of what “was amiss.” In fact, we don’t even know if anything really “was amiss” —or if it was just “amiss” in the eye of one particular beholder or spectator. And the person compiling the Bethel account stuck it in.
The reason Wilson McClung hung his head when Irvine spoke could have been any number of reasons…It brings up a vision of McClung sitting on a platform by Irvine, hanging his head, while Irvine was preaching in meeting. But I don’t know that for sure. And in particular, we don’t know who noticed this. There is no verification by another party to indicate this was significant. We cant read much into it - dont know if it was for the entire sermon, or after a particular comment, etc. Might have been a glare in his eyes; maybe he had a bad headache...who knows? Only Wilson McClung and God.
On the other hand, there are rumors that Irvine fathered children in Australia…and maybe something had come up about that? If there was an issue in 1910 and 1911 – we are not given any clue what it pertained to. And nothing in the account indicates McClung was hanging his head due to some strange preaching by Irvine.
There is just not enough to go on...to make assumptions. I view it was an unsupported (possibly) revisionist comment…with no supporting basis, most likely by someone looking back after Irvine stepped down—and putting this slant on something they thot was odd at the time.
Like we do sometimes in retrospect and comment something like: "I knew there was something wrong there, I just couldnt put my finger on what it was. It all make sense NOW."
Bottom Line - I dont put any stock in the comment. THanks for asking. CD: What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Apr 21, 2013 2:26:15 GMT -5
You can scan it and email it to Truth Archive! archive.truth@gmail.com I will try. It's on a thin onion skin paper and can't scan it well. Tried to adjust setting to diminish the other side of the paper so hope it comes through okay. Ow! That thin onion skin paper is fragile! You could try your local library - they sometimes have special archive scanning, and the service is free.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 21, 2013 10:34:50 GMT -5
I will try. It's on a thin onion skin paper and can't scan it well. Tried to adjust setting to diminish the other side of the paper so hope it comes through okay. Ow! That thin onion skin paper is fragile! You could try your local library - they sometimes have special archive scanning, and the service is free. Got it done!! Shows a little through, but should be readable. I tweeked it a little after scanning.
|
|