|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 3:04:18 GMT -5
2x2 history wrote: One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices".
It was clear to me that Grey was talking about workers officiating at funerals and weddings. It does not take much to understand what he means by participating. To me he was meaning participating in marrying them. A prayer at a wedding is not marrying them and I see many people here agreeing that the workers do not marry people. You have not given an example of workers participating in marrying a couple '2x2 history'.
I agree workers do attend weddings now days but they do not officiate or participate in marrying them. To officiate in most countries means they have to be registered by law to do so and the workers do not like to be registered with any government agency. One minute you are trying to be superior to the professors at Queens University the next it seems that you cannot interpret what Irvine is saying. Many 2x2s get married in registry offices so Irvine is not wrong in that. Just his information may be a bit out of date because they do get married in homes, and parks etc these days too. Times gone by a person could only get married in a church or court registry office but now days they can get married in other places.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 3:16:23 GMT -5
Irvine wrote: John Long was Irvine’s co-worker in the new movement. 2x2 history wrote: Incorrect. In 1897, while working as a Methodist Colporteur, Long arrived for Irvine to hold a meeting in a Methodist church. In 1898 Long resigned as a Colporteur and in 1899 commenced on ‘Faith Lines’ until he was excommunicated by Irvine in 1907. John Long’s diary refers to missions with Irvine: "March 1898 It was a great privilege for me to get the benefit of those meetings; and to be a fellow helper in pointing anxious souls to Christ.
June 1898 After that William Irvine and I went to Limerick City, where we had a mission in the Young Men’s Christian Association Room, given to us by a Brethren man named Fredrick Wright. It was a stiff mission with some success
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 20, 2013 3:31:19 GMT -5
Maybe we need to define 'officiate' and 'participate'.
If these two words are interchangeable then the sentence could be read: "Workers participate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices" or "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to officiate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices".
If you are referring to them not being legally ordained to administer marriage certificates, they are also not legally ordained to preform any formal burial arrangements. Any funeral that I have ever attended has been presided over by a licenced Funeral Director. The workers' participation at funerals is pretty much limited to speaking.
As such, the workers' participation at funerals is, legally, to the same extent as their participation at weddings, namely a speaker's role. Whether or not they are invited by the parties concerned, and even then as guests or participants, is another matter altogether. They have no universal or official objection to participating at weddings. My own wedding is proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 3:48:06 GMT -5
I am at a loss to how 2x2 history could disagree with the statement that workers do not participate weddings like they do funerals. Irvine was comparing the 2. The use of the word officiate in the same sentence as participate clearly told me that he was meaning participating in officiating weddings as they do funerals. In NZ and Australia workers officiate funerals and I would guess the USA and other countries too. The workers can legally officiate a wedding or any person can for that matter, just they have to have a registered marriage person present for the signing of the register. In many countries people have the wedding first with an unregistered person then go to to court with just a couple of witnesses and sign the registry in front of someone. The workers take the whole funeral service whereas they rarely participate in conducting weddings. I have never been to a 2x2 funeral where the funeral director has even spoken let alone officiates it. It has always been the workers. I am certainly not talking about legally ordained to administer a marriage certificate we are talking about officiating it. The workers lead/take the whole funeral they do not take part in weddings. The workers officiate funerals they do not officiate weddings, they attend as guests that is about all. The workers can do the same at weddings as they do at funerals but they do not and that was what Irvine was saying but 2x2 history was claiming Irvine was wrong in saying that. You do not have to be registered to officate a wedding any more than you have to to officate a funeral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 7:41:30 GMT -5
As far as item #1 on weddings, you guys might be going a little hard on Mr.Grey. When I read it, I assumed that he meant "officiate" rather than "participate" so he is guilty of poor word selection or ignorance of how 2x2 weddings typically operate, but I didn't read into it a deliberate intent to present a falsehood about the workers' involvement in weddings. He probably didn't know that workers sometimes give speeches and/or say the meal grace at weddings, so they definitely "participate".....they just don't typically do the legal stuff which would require an official individual registration and as we have discussed at length here, they greatly prefer to avoid. If it were just a post on an Internet forum then poor word selection could be easily forgiven, however we are referring to an academic thesis here. It needs to be held to a higher standard and it is reasonable to expect that each word has been deliberately selected. The reader shouldn't need to assume anything, either it is deliberate choice of words or it is a sub-standard thesis. Yes, that is exactly my point but in particular, distinguishing between incompetence and dishonesty. I don't see his statement as dishonest. Amateurish is the nicest word I can think of for it. True, although they choose not to be empowered by law and therefore do not participate as the legal officiant. That is what Grey appears to be trying to say, but fails to write the sentence coherently enough to convey that definitively. We had a worker friend give a significant speech at our wedding, so he was a participant, but I would not call him an officiant. If we ever investigate this and discover that you just made a false statement here, you're a dead man!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 20, 2013 7:47:49 GMT -5
This is my edited version:
It would seem that Mr. Grey holds a different view or definition of "co-worker" than the 2x2s do. For 2x2s, a person who is given the title of a “worker” holds a VERY unique, distinctive position/role in their church.
As we know, the workers go in pairs – “Two by Two.” These pairs are considered to be "co-workers." Other workers who are affiliated with their same group (2x2s) are also considered as co-workers. "Friends" or 2x2 members who help facilitate meetings are NOT considered co-workers. “Co-workers” are also referred to as “companions” and “associates.”
When I first read John Long's Journal, I too considered him to be WmI's first companion or co-worker. However, closer study showed me that was not the case and that I was mistaken. At the time John Long originally met Wm Irvine, a "co-worker" to/for Wm Irvine would have been any/all pilgrims with Faith Mission organization.
In his Journal, John Long describes himself as a "fellow helper" which is a quite different from being a worker’s co-worker/companion. The way I view it, JL was a wonderful facilitator. He helped by inviting attendees, helped to get facilities for meetings, helped with preparation for meetings, helped in prayer, discussions, and goodness knows what else. However, in John Long's Journal, he rarely (if ever?) mentions himself actually preaching with Wm Irvine in a mission before 1903. A few times he wrote "we held a mission," without stating his part in the mission. (See quotes from JL’s Journal for March and June, 1898 below)
Most of Wm Irvine's early missions in Ireland were just Wm preaching by himself. I compiled a chronological list of locations and co-workers of WmI's Missions from 1895 - 1900 from their monthly magazine (“Bright Words”) which gives the Location of Workers and their missions for the previous month. Irvine’s FM co-workers listed during that time period were: Deathe (1 mission), Hughes (2 missions), Tapp (2 missions), Taberner (3 missions), Estall (1 mission), M'Lean (1 mission). In all the rest of his missions for that period, Wm Irvine is not shown with a FM companion. In other words, he was the sole preacher at many of his missions.
QUOTE of JL - March 1898: It was a great privilege for me to get the benefit of those meetings; and to be a fellowhelper in pointing anxious souls to Christ. It is true, owing to that cause and being weak in body at that time, I neglected sales; nevertheless, souls were more important than sales; and God was preparing for a more excellent work in the near future
QUOTE of JL - June 1898: About that time Irvine went to Maryborough, and I went to Portumna where together with Gilbert we had a mission in Sister Lowrey's home. C. B. Stoney, Portland, a converted Gentleman, took a great interest in the REVIVAL, wrote in its defence, and contributed to its support. Just as Jordan overflowed her banks all the days of harvest; people's purses, as well as their hearts, got touched, and there was no lack of money, food, friends, prophet's chambers, etc. After that William Irvine and I went to Limerick City, where we had a mission in the Young Men’s Christian Association Room, given to us by a Brethren man named Fredrick Wright. It was a stiff mission with some success.
At this time, JL was still a Methodist colporteur...as indicated by his comment that he "neglected sales." Wm Irvine was with the Faith Mission – John Long was not, so he was not WmI's co-worker. John Long started to work independently on "Faith Lines" in January, 1899. He was not a “co-worker” of WmI at that time. The person named “Gilbert” mentioned in JL’s Journal in June 1898 was the Methodist Evangelist in the Cloughjordan area where Pattison lived--so he was not a "co-worker" either.
John does not state in his Journal when he actually relinquished his independent status and submitted to Irvine's authority. Some may consider the 1901 Rathmolyon convention as the date, and the 1905 Workers list uses the date of 1901 for John Long’s start date.
My take is that John Long was not Wm Irvine's co-worker and did not give up being an independent "faith lines worker" (he had resigned from being a Methodist colporteur earlier) until the 1903 inaugural Rathmolyon convention held on Willie Gill’s farm, where about seventy plus workers attended a three-week long convention and the movement coalesced, united, organized and reportedly made vows of celibacy. I view this as the most probable time that John Long along with many others became co-workers of/with Wm Irvine in the true sense of the term “co-worker” as used by 2x2s back then and today as well.
As I stated above, the definition for the term “co-worker” differs for 2x2s and Grey. Grey wrote me "I can see your point very clearly and agree with it. However, back then I am not so sure that the definition was a clearly defined as it is now or indeed after 1901 for that matter. From a purely Christian perspective it would not be wrong to refer to John Long as a co-worker to William Irvine since he was a helper, regardless of what that role entailed. I love your term facilitator since in modern day vernacular that sums the role up very well."
Cherie
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2013 8:30:45 GMT -5
2x2 history wrote: One illuminating example is on page 63 of the book, where Grey writes "Workers officiate at funerals but they refuse to participate in weddings and therefore marriages take place in Civil Registry Offices". It was clear to me that Grey was talking about workers officiating at funerals and weddings. It does not take much to understand what he means by participating. To me he was meaning participating in marrying them. A prayer at a wedding is not marrying them and I see many people here agreeing that the workers do not marry people. You have not given an example of workers participating in marrying a couple '2x2 history'. I agree workers do attend weddings now days but they do not officiate or participate in marrying them. To officiate in most countries means they have to be registered by law to do so and the workers do not like to be registered with any government agency. One minute you are trying to be superior to the professors at Queens University the next it seems that you cannot interpret what Irvine is saying. Many 2x2s get married in registry offices so Irvine is not wrong in that. Just his information may be a bit out of date because they do get married in homes, and parks etc these days too. Times gone by a person could only get married in a church or court registry office but now days they can get married in other places. In your explanation, you repeatedly state "participate in marrying them". Grey only states they "refuse to participate". "Refuse to participate" would imply to the general reader that a) the workers don't participate in the marriage ceremony in any way, and b) if asked, they will "refuse to participate" in the marriage ceremony in any way. The general reader might assume that workers would attend a wedding, although that is also unclear. You have to assume that the general reader has no prior knowledge of worker habits.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2013 8:35:59 GMT -5
It would seem that Mr. Grey may hold a different view or definition of "co-worker" than the F&Ws do. For the F&Ws, a worker holds a VERY unique, distinctive position/role. As we know, the workers go in pairs - Two by Two...the pair are considered "co-workers." Other workers who are affiliated with their same group (2x2s) are also considered as co-workers. "Friends" or 2x2 members who help facilitate meetings are NOT considered co-workers. JL describes himself as a "fellow helper" which is a quite different from being a workers companion/co-worker. The way I view it, JL was a wonderful facilitator. He helped by inviting attendees, helped get facilities, helped with preparation for meetings, helped in prayer, discussions, and goodness knows what all else. However, in JL's journal, he rarely if ever mentions himself actually preaching with WmI in a mission. A few times he wrote "we held a mission," but didnt state JL's part in the mission. When I first read JL's Journal, I too considered him to be WmI's first companion. However, closer study showed me that was not the case and that I was mistaken. At the time WmI met JL, a "co-worker" for WmI would have been any pilgrim with Faith Mission who helped him in missions. Most of WmI's early missions in Ireland were just WmI preaching by himself. I compiled a list of Locations and companions of WmI's Missions from 1895 - 1900 from Bright Words Location of Workers. His FM co-workers listed during that time period were: Deathe (1 missions), Hughes (2 missions), Tapp (2 missions), Taberner (3 missions), Estall (1 mission), M'Lean (1 mission). In all the rest of his missions in that period, WmI is not shown as having a FM companion. QUOTE of JL - March 1898: It was a great privilege for me to get the benefit of those meetings; and to be a fellowhelper in pointing anxious souls to Christ. It is true, owing to that cause and being weak in body at that time, I neglected sales; nevertheless, souls were more important than sales; and God was preparing for a more excellent work in the near future
***At this time, JL was still a Methodist colporter...as indicated by his comment that he "neglected sales." WmI was with the Faith Mission - JL was not, so he was not WmI's co-worker. JL started to work independently on "Faith Lines" in Jan. 1899. He still wasnt a co-worker of WmI at that time. Gilbert mentioned in JLJ June 1898 was the Methodist Evangelist in the Cloughjordan area where Pattison lived--so he wasn't a "co-worker" either. My view is that John Long was not Wm Irvine's co-worker until all the workers united as a group in Rathmolyon, at which time JL gave up being an independent "faith lines worker" (he had resigned from being a Methodist colporter earlier). It was after that uniting convention, that JL and others became co-workers of/with WmI in the true sense of the term as used by F&Ws then and today. Cherie That's quite interesting and makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 12:15:36 GMT -5
I fail to see how Grey's statement regarding John Long and Irvine being co-workers above is being dishonest as 2x2 history has at times accused him as being. It clearly states that JL said we had a mission and a room given to us, not that Irvine had a mission and it was given to him. JL did not say he attended a mission but we had a mission so again who does the word we refer to and what ever it meant I disagree that Irvine Grey was being dishonest in his statement. I am not sure if it is correct saying that Irvine Grey did not understand the meaning of co-worker in the 2x2s as even Cherie admits to thinking that they were at one time and Nathan often states that there were women workers mentioned in the Bible when women are referred to as being helpers or hand maidens or similar. So JLs wording is ambiguous.
Quote: June 1898 After that William Irvine and I went to Limerick City, where we had a mission in the Young Men’s Christian Association Room, given to us by a Brethren man named Fredrick Wright. It was a stiff mission with some success
So you are saying Cherie in 1898 WmI was with the Faith Mission in 1898 when you have inferred many times that Irvine started the 2x2s in 1897?? Now without me having to go over TTT site would you clarify this. Was Irvine still a Faith Mission worker in June 1898 or starting on Independent lines in 1898?
.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 20, 2013 12:18:02 GMT -5
Two comments about workers/friends performing marriages - I grew up hearing a story about the inimitable brother worker, Alex McCullough, explaining to an inquiring Judge during a US Selective Service hearing how as ministers they did not perform marriages. In Alex's words, "we try to get people out of trouble, sir, not into trouble." -------- The comment someone made earlier about the workers "leaving it to the friends to perform marriages" (rough paraphrase) caught my attention. In the U.S. the requirements for performing marriages is determined at the state level. I know of one of the friends in Washington State who is "vested with the power" to perform marriages. According to Washington State law: This man is not a lawyer, justice or judge. That leaves "regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination." I'm wondering if his power to perform marriages is based on his status as an Elder of a meeting. I believe this would require some kind of registration of the group (?). An alternative would be to become "ordained" through one of the online churches that are in the business of handing out ordinations to pretty much anyone who is willing to pay the fee. Universal Life Church - Free Online OrdinationIn this case, he would have to become a member of the Universal Life Church (for example) and would be ordained as a minister of that church. There may be other options that I just don't know about. Anyone know how this works?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 12:32:27 GMT -5
The comment someone made earlier about the workers "leaving it to the friends to perform marriages" (rough paraphrase) caught my attention. In the U.S. the requirements for performing marriages is determined at the state level. You were likely referring to my comment that (here in CA) the workers 'leave it to the friends to be deputized' to perform the service. At least in CA, you can have anyone deputized to perform your marriage--I don't know what all that entails as to paperwork--but as far as I know, the individuals getting married chose who they want. In the two marriages I know of, both were elders--one from out of state and another one from a local meeting--but I don't know if the workers suggested that, or if it was required by the State (I doubt it), or if it just happened to be who they wanted. And that's all I know and I'm too lazy to check the state law~
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 12:58:48 GMT -5
Officiating and getting a licence to marry people are two different things. Any one can get a licence to marry people providing they meet the requirements and satisfy the licencing body. The workers also do not get a licence to bury people but they officiate the funeral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 13:35:40 GMT -5
Two comments about workers/friends performing marriages - I grew up hearing a story about the inimitable brother worker, Alex McCullough, explaining to an inquiring Judge during a US Selective Service hearing how as ministers they did not perform marriages. In Alex's words, "we try to get people out of trouble, sir, not into trouble." -------- The comment someone made earlier about the workers "leaving it to the friends to perform marriages" (rough paraphrase) caught my attention. In the U.S. the requirements for performing marriages is determined at the state level. I know of one of the friends in Washington State who is "vested with the power" to perform marriages. According to Washington State law: This man is not a lawyer, justice or judge. That leaves "regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination." I'm wondering if his power to perform marriages is based on his status as an Elder of a meeting. I believe this would require some kind of registration of the group (?). An alternative would be to become "ordained" through one of the online churches that are in the business of handing out ordinations to pretty much anyone who is willing to pay the fee. Universal Life Church - Free Online OrdinationIn this case, he would have to become a member of the Universal Life Church (for example) and would be ordained as a minister of that church. There may be other options that I just don't know about. Anyone know how this works? In Alberta Canada, you could once easily become a one-time marriage officiant. Some of the friends have done this but never workers to my knowledge. It is much more restricted today so I doubt that any will be doing it now. Marriage Officiants
A marriage officiate is a person with the legal authority to perform marriages within the province of Alberta.
When planning their marriage, a couple may choose a religious or civil ceremony. There are no legal differences between these two types of ceremonies:
Religious ceremonies are performed by a religious representative (registered clergy) as long as they are registered with Vital Statistics under the Marriage Act
Civil ceremonies (non-religious) are performed by marriage commissioners who are appointed by the Government of Alberta under the Marriage Act Check our listing of marriage commissioners for an officiate in your area. Any marriage licence issuer can also provide you with a list.
Becoming a Marriage Officiate
For the purposes of performing marriages in Alberta, Vital Statistics is responsible for:
Permanent marriage commissioner appointments
Temporary marriage commissioner appointments
Religious organization and clergy registrations
www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/792.cfm
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2013 13:44:13 GMT -5
I fail to see how Grey's statement regarding John Long and Irvine being co-workers above is being dishonest as 2x2 history has at times accused him as being. It clearly states that JL said we had a mission and a room given to us, not that Irvine had a mission and it was given to him. JL did not say he attended a mission but we had a mission so again who does the word we refer to and what ever it meant I disagree that Irvine Grey was being dishonest in his statement. I am not sure if it is correct saying that Irvine Grey did not understand the meaning of co-worker in the 2x2s as even Cherie admits to thinking that they were at one time and Nathan often states that there were women workers mentioned in the Bible when women are referred to as being helpers or hand maidens or similar. So JLs wording is ambiguous. Quote: June 1898 After that William Irvine and I went to Limerick City, where we had a mission in the Young Men’s Christian Association Room, given to us by a Brethren man named Fredrick Wright. It was a stiff mission with some success So you are saying Cherie in 1898 WmI was with the Faith Mission in 1898 when you have inferred many times that Irvine started the 2x2s in 1897?? Now without me having to go over TTT site would you clarify this. Was Irvine still a Faith Mission worker in June 1898 or starting on Independent lines in 1898? . That one strikes me as an honest mistake. Did someone say it was "dishonest"? I looked briefly for the post and couldn't find it.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 20, 2013 14:22:42 GMT -5
Officiating and getting a licence to marry people are two different things. Any one can get a licence to marry people providing they meet the requirements and satisfy the licencing body. The workers also do not get a licence to bury people but they officiate the funeral. The person I know of in Washington State is the one in the wedding who says "By the powers vested in me by the State of Washington...." According to WA code, in order to do this he is required to be a Judge ( not), Justice ( not), or....a regularly licensed or ordained minister ( is he this??...) or any priest ( ...or this??) of any church ( which one?...) or religious denomination ( ...or which of these?). Given that this man is not a Judge or Justice, I'm curious about what is required by the State of Washington to establish 1. that he is a regularly licensed or ordained minister.... 2. that the church or religious denomination that he claims affiliation with exists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 14:49:41 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 14:51:24 GMT -5
I fail to see how Grey's statement regarding John Long and Irvine being co-workers above is being dishonest as 2x2 history has at times accused him as being. It clearly states that JL said we had a mission and a room given to us, not that Irvine had a mission and it was given to him. JL did not say he attended a mission but we had a mission so again who does the word we refer to and what ever it meant I disagree that Irvine Grey was being dishonest in his statement. I am not sure if it is correct saying that Irvine Grey did not understand the meaning of co-worker in the 2x2s as even Cherie admits to thinking that they were at one time and Nathan often states that there were women workers mentioned in the Bible when women are referred to as being helpers or hand maidens or similar. So JLs wording is ambiguous. Quote: June 1898 After that William Irvine and I went to Limerick City, where we had a mission in the Young Men’s Christian Association Room, given to us by a Brethren man named Fredrick Wright. It was a stiff mission with some success So you are saying Cherie in 1898 WmI was with the Faith Mission in 1898 when you have inferred many times that Irvine started the 2x2s in 1897?? Now without me having to go over TTT site would you clarify this. Was Irvine still a Faith Mission worker in June 1898 or starting on Independent lines in 1898? . That one strikes me as an honest mistake. Did someone say it was "dishonest"? I looked briefly for the post and couldn't find it. "3 On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST." At issue here is Grey's intended meaning of "participate". 2x2history interprets it in a more general sense of participation (which would be a perfectly correct interpretation with no context), whereas Grey may mean "legally officiate", as he follows through on his "officiate" wording about funerals. I read it as being amateurish writing skills but dishonesty is certainly a reasonable possibility.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2013 17:36:05 GMT -5
That one strikes me as an honest mistake. Did someone say it was "dishonest"? I looked briefly for the post and couldn't find it. "3 On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST." At issue here is Grey's intended meaning of "participate". 2x2history interprets it in a more general sense of participation (which would be a perfectly correct interpretation with no context), whereas Grey may mean "legally officiate", as he follows through on his "officiate" wording about funerals. I read it as being amateurish writing skills but dishonesty is certainly a reasonable possibility. Wrong issue. That one was dishonest. This one is about John Long and his worker status and strikes me as an honest mistake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 17:50:34 GMT -5
"3 On 5th May 2010 Mr Grey posted a question on TMB asking about worker attendance at weddings. See professing.proboards.com/thread/10488/weddings The responses clearly showed that workers have attended weddings in USA, Australia, Ireland and UK. However Mr Grey subsequently wrote in his book that workers "refuse to participate in weddings..." This shows that Mr Grey's statement is DISHONEST." At issue here is Grey's intended meaning of "participate". 2x2history interprets it in a more general sense of participation (which would be a perfectly correct interpretation with no context), whereas Grey may mean "legally officiate", as he follows through on his "officiate" wording about funerals. I read it as being amateurish writing skills but dishonesty is certainly a reasonable possibility. Wrong issue. That one was dishonest. This one is about John Long and his worker status. Whoops, sorry. Speaking of JL, the book is notably absent of information from the John Long Journal. In fact, it practically ignores what is the most definitive source of information about the beginnings. Pattison is good, but not nearly as organized by date, not as comprehensive, and not as personal in experience. John Long was right there, and writes what his eyes saw and ears heard. Trotter is primarily a copy of Pattison which Mr. Grey elevates to Pattison as one of the two most important documents. Trotter actually adds very little value to the historical information of the beginnings. John Long is by far the best source of early history, yet for some reason it was practically ignored. Of course there is information in the JLJ which flies in the face of some of Grey's assertions so perhaps he deliberately chose to avoid it since the book appears to start out with a prejudiced conclusion and then follows up with selective information that appears to support the foregone conclusions. Perhaps the JLJ didn't aid in his attempt to justify the prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Aug 20, 2013 18:18:01 GMT -5
Read the post again What Hat, I did not say that 2x2 history said that Irvine was being dishonest by saying that JL and WI were co-workers. I specifically avoided that. I said that he has at times accused him of being dishonest. In fact I do not see anywhere where Irvine has been dishonest. If anything I would see them as honest mistakes.
I wrote: I fail to see how Grey's statement regarding John Long and Irvine being co-workers above is being dishonest as 2x2 history has at times accused him as being.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 20, 2013 18:20:37 GMT -5
Wrong issue. That one was dishonest. This one is about John Long and his worker status. Whoops, sorry. Speaking of JL, the book is notably absent of information from the John Long Journal. In fact, it practically ignores what is the most definitive source of information about the beginnings. Pattison is good, but not nearly as organized by date, not as comprehensive, and not as personal in experience. John Long was right there, and writes what his eyes saw and ears heard. Trotter is primarily a copy of Pattison which Mr. Grey elevates to Pattison as one of the two most important documents. Trotter actually adds very little value to the historical information of the beginnings. John Long is by far the best source of early history, yet for some reason it was practically ignored. Of course there is information in the JLJ which flies in the fact of some of Grey's assertions so perhaps he deliberately chose to avoid it since the book appears to start out with a prejudiced conclusion and then follows up with selective information that appears to support the foregone conclusions. Perhaps the JLJ didn't aid in his attempt to justify the prejudice. Someone pointed that out to me just the other day, and he came to pretty much the same conclusion as you did. I believe that John Long's quote about Irvine's pro-Trinitarian doctrinal position at that time is quoted by Grey, and then refuted. That's all the mention JLJ gets.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 20, 2013 20:51:02 GMT -5
Some of us believe Jesus profiled a personality that transcends all other cultural concerns. That trinitarianism was advanced through contradictory intentions in not inconsistent with a sovereign God. I believe Jesus transcended all cultural concerns, at least until the Chalcedonian Creed put him in a box. John Hick, for one, has argued that Trinitarianism makes Christianity into an exclusive religion. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick )/ If ideology means anything, all religions must defer to something exclusive. The gospels record differently.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Aug 21, 2013 6:19:50 GMT -5
Read the post again What Hat, I did not say that 2x2 history said that Irvine was being dishonest by saying that JL and WI were co-workers. I specifically avoided that. I said that he has at times accused him of being dishonest. In fact I do not see anywhere where Irvine has been dishonest. If anything I would see them as honest mistakes. I wrote: I fail to see how Grey's statement regarding John Long and Irvine being co-workers above is being dishonest as 2x2 history has at times accused him as being. You say "2x2history has at times accused him of being dishonest" As far as I recall, I have only used the word dishonest in relation to the claim that workers do not participate in weddings (so the plural 'times' is incorrect), since Mr Grey had been advised that workers do participate in weddings. I used the word dishonest in an academic sense. Your ongoing defense of Mr Grey's statement that workers do not participate in weddings, consistent with your generally glowing review of his book (" The book is an excellent, honest summary"), is essentially based on the notion that 'participate' means 'officiate'. Perhaps that is the case in Baptist circles but I don't think that the two different words have the same meaning in normal usage. btw My assessment is that Mr Grey probably intended, as a Christian, to be honest when he started this project and the misleading statements are probably due to his analytical framework and sloppy analysis, rather than personal dishonesty. I note that Mr Grey has also used the word 'dishonest'; e.g. page 49.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 21, 2013 9:49:17 GMT -5
I believe Jesus transcended all cultural concerns, at least until the Chalcedonian Creed put him in a box. John Hick, for one, has argued that Trinitarianism makes Christianity into an exclusive religion. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick )/ If ideology means anything, all religions must defer to something exclusive. The gospels record differently. This threatens to become another Trinity debate, so I think I'll just leave this at the point we are at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 10:07:03 GMT -5
PNG: For what it's worth: I can also solemnly declare that no worker has either officiated over or participated in my funeral. CD: If we ever investigate this and discover that you just made a false statement here, you're a dead man!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 21, 2013 21:05:50 GMT -5
If ideology means anything, all religions must defer to something exclusive. The gospels record differently. This threatens to become another Trinity debate, so I think I'll just leave this at the point we are at. This is a thread about Irvine Grey's book, but there are no bad debates about the man whose personality transcends all other cultural concerns.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 22, 2013 7:15:03 GMT -5
Happy Feet wrote: So you are saying Cherie in 1898 WmI was with the Faith Mission in 1898 when you have inferred many times that Irvine started the 2x2s in 1897?? Now without me having to go over TTT site would you clarify this. Was Irvine still a Faith Mission worker in June 1898 or starting on Independent lines in 1898?
Certainly, the FM records list WmI as one of their Pilgrims in 1898.
The revised Chapter 4 of my book covers the issues regarding the start date--IN DETAIL. There are some very interesting things in this chapter about WmI's activities in connection to the start date, that I cannot take time to go into and which discussion would also hijack this thread.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 22, 2013 15:19:02 GMT -5
Here is my review of the book for comment. The upload is a 'for review' copy, but it's close to final. I'll correct any overt errors in the review before final release.
|
|