|
Post by sacerdotal on Jul 7, 2013 12:46:08 GMT -5
Wm. Irvine gave up his connection with that sect for two reasons, according to my information—1st, because the leader was alleged to have been a ‘hypocrite,’ in that while teaching Pilgrims to live by faith he himself had over hundreds of pounds. From Cherie Kropps fascinating book on William Irvine. www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/01wmibook.php, quoting a newspaper report. My question is, why did he not consider himself a hypocrite- workers now would usually be in possession of several hundred or even several thousand dollars- and I am sure that the same was true with Mr. Irvine in his day. Seems that he himself was a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jul 7, 2013 14:37:46 GMT -5
I think it unlikely whatever view Irvine held of Mr J G Govan, the founder of the Faith Mission that this has ever emerged as a reason for him leaving the mission. Irvine had no difficulty accepting £1,300 from Edward Cooney in 1901 when Cooney sold his business interests and became a worker.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 7, 2013 17:09:17 GMT -5
Govan received a regular monthly stipend from an outside source or inheritance or whatever--so he was not dependent on gifts or donations. Govan didn't do what he required his Pilgrim Workers to do. Reportedly, Irvine objected to this.
Actually, it is not known for certain how Cooney distributed his 1,300 pounds...some accounts state he gave it to the poor, another says it was given "to the cause," and others don't say exactly where it went...just that it was given away.
John Long wrote: "It was a very remarkable coincident that Edward Cooney turned up next day, for he very soon after gave up a very good situation, and distributed thirteen hundred pounds to the poor, and went fully on the Lord's work, and became a great advocate of preachers going without a stated salary." (John Long's Journal, July, 1898)
Doug Parker wrote: "Convinced that was his calling, Cooney gave up his business interests in 1901, donated thirteen hundred pounds and devoted himself to preaching." 1,300 was a small fortune at that time. (The Secret Sect, p.7).
Patricia Roberts wrote: Edward, however, having found the pearl of great price, gladly gave up both his inheritance and fine business prospects. His own personal wealth, which was considerable, he gave to the poor. And so, in 1901, at the age of 34, in fellowship with Irvine and his associates, Edward too forsook all and went forth to preach depending on God to move the hearts of others to minister to his needs, conscious that he had been sent by the One who said : "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." (Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney, p19 by Patricia Roberts)
The Impartial Reporter stated: "However, the chief motive power was latent until Edward Cooney heard Wm. Irvine, and offered him money and even a salary yearly, which was refused by Irvine. At all events 1,300 pounds from Mr. Cooney alone was applied to the cause, and has been preached as having been 'given to the poor,' on the authority of, 'Sell all that ye have, etc.' Yet as a matter of fact, this sum was mostly paid to transport preachers to places abroad, and not to the poor, as is sometimes understood, the fruit of which even yet in some measure returns annually to Crocknacrieve Convention." (August 25, 1910, p 8)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 0:34:11 GMT -5
If I recall, Pilgrims were given a regular stipend from the FM HQ (albeit very small), so Irvine making the hypocrite charge doesn't quite make sense to me. Irvine himself never did live fully on "faith lines" until after he left the FM. Is that correct? I think the only way the hypocrite charge would make sense would be if Irvine viewed Govan as living a comfortable life while the Pilgrims were hardly getting subsistence from the FM so it was the discrepancy which led to a hypocrite allegation.
I'm glad you corrected that story on Cooney's 1300 pounds Cherie. It is clearly not factually established that it went to Irvine et al. The other story that never seems to quit is that Irvine was collecting cash from the FM while devoted to the new movement. That allegation has never been established as fact either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 2:54:17 GMT -5
I have no doubt that William Irvine personally received the £1300 from Cooney. Irvine is on record as having declared himself to be "the poor." This is where the double-speak and confusion comes in. Statements about Cooney having given his money away to the poor in my mind most likely mean "he gave his money to Irvine."
Having said that, I do believe the money would have largely been used in the missionary work, i.e. sending workers to new fields, possibly abroad, etc. All that requires money, something that isn't there if it has been given away to the Wold's poor and needy.
Irvine receiving the money from Cooney does not need to be viewed with suspicion, but simply a means to finance the developing missionary work. Others likely, but not to the same extent, followed that example. I understand this practice may have continued in some cases to this day?
On the other point, there was a considerable transitional period between Irvine's service to the Faith Mission and the formal inception of the new movement. There was a lot of groping in the dark over direction and conscience without any firm decisions having been made. I have no doubt that the FM funded Irvine during much of this period. Remember, the amount wasn't much more than a token gesture. They were expected to live on faith lines. Again, not necessarily something to be suspicious about. It was something that was part of the flow of the events.
Whilst the actual facts of the above two scenarios may never be properly established, I feel the benefit of the doubt must go to Irvine and Co. in that they did not act improperly, at least not deliberately so, unless we have clear indication to the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 7:49:58 GMT -5
I have no doubt that William Irvine personally received the £1300 from Cooney. Irvine is on record as having declared himself to be "the poor." This is where the double-speak and confusion comes in. Statements about Cooney having given his money away to the poor in my mind most likely mean "he gave his money to Irvine." Having said that, I do believe the money would have largely been used in the missionary work, i.e. sending workers to new fields, possibly abroad, etc. All that requires money, something that isn't there if it has been given away to the Wold's poor and needy. Irvine receiving the money from Cooney does not need to be viewed with suspicion, but simply a means to finance the developing missionary work. Others likely, but not to the same extent, followed that example. I understand this practice may have continued in some cases to this day? On the other point, there was a considerable transitional period between Irvine's service to the Faith Mission and the formal inception of the new movement. There was a lot of groping in the dark over direction and conscience without any firm decisions having been made. I have no doubt that the FM funded Irvine during much of this period. Remember, the amount wasn't much more than a token gesture. They were expected to live on faith lines. Again, not necessarily something to be suspicious about. It was something that was part of the flow of the events. Whilst the actual facts of the above two scenarios may never be properly established, I feel the benefit of the doubt must go to Irvine and Co. in that they did not act improperly, at least not deliberately so, unless we have clear indication to the contrary. The point is, there is no proof of it. Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet. Here is another way to look at it. Cooney disposed of his money in 1901. The very first foreign mission started in 1903 in which the steerage passage to America was 5 British pounds for a few men including Walker, Carrol and Irvine. That was a drop in the bucket to Cooney's 1300 pounds and doesn't explain where it went. Workers started going to other countries from 1905 to 1908 and by that time there were plenty of friends around to finance those passages. Was Irvine really running around with 1300 pound sterling in his dungarees from 1901 to 1903-8? That might explain the dog.....
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 8, 2013 7:57:11 GMT -5
I have no doubt that William Irvine personally received the £1300 from Cooney. Irvine is on record as having declared himself to be "the poor." This is where the double-speak and confusion comes in. Statements about Cooney having given his money away to the poor in my mind most likely mean "he gave his money to Irvine." Having said that, I do believe the money would have largely been used in the missionary work, i.e. sending workers to new fields, possibly abroad, etc. All that requires money, something that isn't there if it has been given away to the Wold's poor and needy. Irvine receiving the money from Cooney does not need to be viewed with suspicion, but simply a means to finance the developing missionary work. Others likely, but not to the same extent, followed that example. I understand this practice may have continued in some cases to this day? On the other point, there was a considerable transitional period between Irvine's service to the Faith Mission and the formal inception of the new movement. There was a lot of groping in the dark over direction and conscience without any firm decisions having been made. I have no doubt that the FM funded Irvine during much of this period. Remember, the amount wasn't much more than a token gesture. They were expected to live on faith lines. Again, not necessarily something to be suspicious about. It was something that was part of the flow of the events. Whilst the actual facts of the above two scenarios may never be properly established, I feel the benefit of the doubt must go to Irvine and Co. in that they did not act improperly, at least not deliberately so, unless we have clear indication to the contrary. The point is, there is no proof of it. Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet. Here is another way to look at it. Cooney disposed of his money in 1901. The very first foreign mission started in 1903 in which the steerage passage to America was 5 British pounds for a few men including Walker, Carrol and Irvine. That was a drop in the bucket to Cooney's 1300 pounds and doesn't explain where it went. Workers started going to other countries from 1905 to 1908 and by that time there were plenty of friends around to finance those passages. Was Irvine really running around with 1300 pound sterling in his dungarees from 1901 to 1903-8? That might explain the dog..... I was told by some that were there,some of the money for the transportation to other countries was supplied by people that sold furniture from their homes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 8:07:44 GMT -5
The point is, there is no proof of it. Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet. Here is another way to look at it. Cooney disposed of his money in 1901. The very first foreign mission started in 1903 in which the steerage passage to America was 5 British pounds for a few men including Walker, Carrol and Irvine. That was a drop in the bucket to Cooney's 1300 pounds and doesn't explain where it went. Workers started going to other countries from 1905 to 1908 and by that time there were plenty of friends around to finance those passages. Was Irvine really running around with 1300 pound sterling in his dungarees from 1901 to 1903-8? That might explain the dog..... I was told by some that were there,some of the money for the transportation to other countries was supplied by people that sold furniture from their homes. Thanks Linford. That is evidence against Irvine running around with a fortune in his pockets and using it later for funding all the foreign missions. There is just no evidence to support that Irvine-fortune theory. We do know there was a religious fervour in the air during those times and we know it existed among the early friends and workers so it makes more sense that they funded the overseas missions, not Irvine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 8:46:23 GMT -5
The point is, there is no proof of it.
Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet.
I disagree that Patricia Roberts is "actually" saying anything different. Giving to the poor from the very beginning until "this" day has been understood as "giving to the workers." As the Impartial Reporter duly reported, "preaching giving to the poor" in fact meant "giving to the cause." This has always been this case. This is the most accurate analysis that we have of giving to the poor. It is still relevant today. Has there ever been a time when giving to the real poor and needy was an element in the belief system? If it happened at the very beginning then why did it not continue.
The facts are that the early workers made themselves poor for the work's sake. Just as there is now, there was secrecy as to the financial dealings. Starting off an organisation in the way it happened would have required no small amount of money.
If we accept there was an "excess" of funds at the very beginning, far more than necessary to kick start the movement, we by and large have three choices.
1) The money was truly given to the real poor and needy. (We have absolutely no proof of this).
2) It was banked discreetly for future use in the movement.
3) It was misappropriated.
I know which one I go with. Historical analysis of the movement throws out number 1. Number 2 fits in hand in glove with even up to date practices. Cooney was in the movement until 1928? In his position he would have had suspicions about number 3 if it had occurred. I go with item 2.
You are right, we have no proof of things. However, current day observations can suggest a reasonable analysis of the past.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 8, 2013 8:59:01 GMT -5
I was told by some that were there,some of the money for the transportation to other countries was supplied by people that sold furniture from their homes. Thanks Linford. That is evidence against Irvine running around with a fortune in his pockets and using it later for funding all the foreign missions. There is just no evidence to support that Irvine-fortune theory. We do know there was a religious fervour in the air during those times and we know it existed among the early friends and workers so it makes more sense that they funded the overseas missions, not Irvine. All you have to do is read John Long's journal and you will understand how "itinerant" they were during that time. They were indeed poor. Many times not even having a place to sleep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 9:02:53 GMT -5
The point is, there is no proof of it.
Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet.
I disagree that Patricia Roberts is "actually" saying anything different. Giving to the poor from the very beginning until "this" day has been understood as "giving to the workers." As the Impartial Reporter duly reported, "preaching giving to the poor" in fact meant "giving to the cause." This has always been this case. This is the most accurate analysis that we have of giving to the poor. It is still relevant today. Has there ever been a time when giving to the real poor and needy was an element in the belief system? If it happened at the very beginning then why did it not continue. The facts are that the early workers made themselves poor for the work's sake. Just as there is now, there was secrecy as to the financial dealings. Starting off an organisation in the way it happened would have required no small amount of money. You are right, we have no proof of things. However, current day observations can suggest a reasonable analysis of the past. I think that it can be a mistake to superimpose today's language and thinking on the language thinking of over a century ago. It might work sometimes, and it might fail spectacularly at other times. I have never heard of the workers in my lifetime preaching to give to the poor at all, let alone preach to give to the poor as a secret code for giving to the workers. I have heard privately a couple of times that when a new worker was giving his money to the head worker, it was justified as "well, the workers are poor".....however, I haven't heard that one since the high 6 figure bank accounts became known in Alberta. I have known that many workers did indeed give their possessions to the poor and scattered them around. I don't think John Long would have been so obtuse as to speak in coded that the workers were "the poor". I think that if he had any inkling of Cooney handing over his fortune to Irvine, JL would have just stated that as matter of fact. I would give the likelihood of Cooney's money going to Irvine as no more than a 20% probability, and an 80% probability that he spread it around to the truly poor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 9:14:57 GMT -5
The point is, there is no proof of it.
Patricia Roberts knew Cooney very well and states something quite different. Even if there was some record of an early worker writing "And uncle Willy handed us our passage tickets to America in 1903....." would have been helpful, but it simply isn't there yet.
I disagree that Patricia Roberts is "actually" saying anything different. Giving to the poor from the very beginning until "this" day has been understood as "giving to the workers." As the Impartial Reporter duly reported, "preaching giving to the poor" in fact meant "giving to the cause." This has always been this case. This is the most accurate analysis that we have of giving to the poor. It is still relevant today. Has there ever been a time when giving to the real poor and needy was an element in the belief system? If it happened at the very beginning then why did it not continue. The facts are that the early workers made themselves poor for the work's sake. Just as there is now, there was secrecy as to the financial dealings. Starting off an organisation in the way it happened would have required no small amount of money. You are right, we have no proof of things. However, current day observations can suggest a reasonable analysis of the past. I think that it can be a mistake to superimpose today's language and thinking on the language thinking of over a century ago. It might work sometimes, and it might fail spectacularly at other times. I have never heard of the workers in my lifetime preaching to give to the poor at all, let alone preach to give to the poor as a secret code for giving to the workers. I have heard privately a couple of times that when a new worker was giving his money to the head worker, it was justified as "well, the workers are poor".....however, I haven't heard that one since the high 6 figure bank accounts became known in Alberta. I have known that many workers did indeed give their possessions to the poor and scattered them around. I don't think John Long would have been so obtuse as to speak in coded that the workers were "the poor". I think that if he had any inkling of Cooney handing over his fortune to Irvine, JL would have just stated that as matter of fact. I would give the likelihood of Cooney's money going to Irvine as no more than a 20% probability, and an 80% probability that he spread it around to the truly poor. Sorry, but I don't share this view. I had heard many time the workers and friends referring to the workers as the "poor" in this world, just like Jesus. The fact is there has never been a culture of giving to the real poor. That culture has been downloaded right unto this day. Secrecy speaks for itself. Also, Irvine's experiences in the Faith Mission would have primed him for the new movement. FM workers received only a small amount from the organisation and were to live on faith lines for the remainder of their upkeep. The idea of a central body with funds and a workforce largely dependent upon living by faith, would hardly have escaped Irvine. In fact it is still practiced today with the F&W's sect. For me "continuity" is the common sense answer! Back in the early days (and it has some pertinence today)secrecy over financial matters was an essential element for the group's survival, by the methods they believed in. Back then, there were many among the lay members of the sect who really were poor and needy. The workers were even encouraged to share in the privations of these people. Very little, if anything of true note, was done to alleviate the natural needs of these people. Spiritual provision only was what was on offer, other than helping out with chores etc. Had any funds been commonly known, then the demand for helping the "real" poor would have been so great that Cooney's £1300, though a small fortune at the time, would have soon been frittered away. There would have been great risk to the developing movement if it was known "it was rich" or there was money available, but it was not being used for what people would have regarded as proper scriptural purposes. The existence of funds had to be kept secret. In fact, so secret was this that even into the 90's I knew of people (including myself) who were oblivious to the existence of bank accounts and large sums of money. The whole thing was a mystery. God saw the needs and "mysteriously" made provision for them. There are many now lying in their graves who lay on their death beds believing this to be fact. There was no money, or very little of it. God made provision when a need arose. I think it is likely that "William's experiment" was what is known in science as a "controlled experiment." He had the funds, or the control, if anything went wrong with it. Few others would have known about this safety net which was strictly managed. During my early years I heard stories of families from a previous generation who were very poor and would spend what little they had on the workers rather than their own families, thinking they were doing it for God. Imagine how these people would have felt if they later suspected there was ample funds, not just for the workers' needs, but also to alleviate their own plight. No, I reckon the secrecy over financial matters today, results from Irvine's secrecy way back then. The mushroom treatment works (at least for a while). Keep 'em in the dark and feed them a lot of s---e!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2013 9:55:23 GMT -5
I've read that also. Some, like the Bettys sold their farm and went out preaching. Likewise, Willie Gill sold his farm to his brother, and received his bro paid him in installments. There were probably others who went into the work sold out also.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2013 10:51:46 GMT -5
CD: I'd like to have that cleared up also. However, I do not intend to tackle that project - someone else can do it. It would very difficult to prove and the only way I see that it could be done is if someone sat down with the FM monthly publication of Bright Words for those years WmI was with FM (and that number of years is debateable also) and read them from cover to cover looking for financial details. Most issues of BW are about 40 pages. I guess someone could offer to pay FM to copy the Bright Words for all those years. Old papers affect my allergies something fierce, so I would be sitting down to read and a headache would be a given! I have to read some old papers sent to me in the garage...some I copy as fast as I can and put them in an air tight container--and then I read the copies. I'm currently working on clearing up some details re WmI's time in the FM. FM has a librarian who works part time, and she is providing me copies of some pages I ordered showing WmI's location--as she gets time to do so, so they're dribbling in. According to Rkee, there is or was a set of Bright Words at the FM bookshop in Belfast. RAM: there are many new details in Chapter 4 of my book regarding WmI's time spent with the FM that I think you would find interesting. For one, Irvine claims he was put out of the FM in both 1898 and 1899...so its possible he didnt not receive his monthly stipend from that time forward - especially as he wasnt sending in his reports... www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/04-0wmibook.php.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 11:17:32 GMT -5
I think that it can be a mistake to superimpose today's language and thinking on the language thinking of over a century ago. It might work sometimes, and it might fail spectacularly at other times. I have never heard of the workers in my lifetime preaching to give to the poor at all, let alone preach to give to the poor as a secret code for giving to the workers. I have heard privately a couple of times that when a new worker was giving his money to the head worker, it was justified as "well, the workers are poor".....however, I haven't heard that one since the high 6 figure bank accounts became known in Alberta. I have known that many workers did indeed give their possessions to the poor and scattered them around. I don't think John Long would have been so obtuse as to speak in coded that the workers were "the poor". I think that if he had any inkling of Cooney handing over his fortune to Irvine, JL would have just stated that as matter of fact. I would give the likelihood of Cooney's money going to Irvine as no more than a 20% probability, and an 80% probability that he spread it around to the truly poor. Sorry, but I don't share this view. I had heard many time the workers and friends referring to the workers as the "poor" in this world, just like Jesus. The fact is there has never been a culture of giving to the real poor. That culture has been downloaded right unto this day. Secrecy speaks for itself. Also, Irvine's experiences in the Faith Mission would have primed him for the new movement. FM workers received only a small amount from the organisation and were to live on faith lines for the remainder of their upkeep. The idea of a central body with funds and a workforce largely dependent upon living by faith, would hardly have escaped Irvine. In fact it is still practiced today with the F&W's sect. For me "continuity" is the common sense answer! Back in the early days (and it has some pertinence today)secrecy over financial matters was an essential element for the group's survival, by the methods they believed in. Back then, there were many among the lay members of the sect who really were poor and needy. The workers were even encouraged to share in the privations of these people. Very little, if anything of true note, was done to alleviate the natural needs of these people. Spiritual provision only was what was on offer, other than helping out with chores etc. Had any funds been commonly known, then the demand for helping the "real" poor would have been so great that Cooney's £1300, though a small fortune at the time, would have soon been frittered away. There would have been great risk to the developing movement if it was known "it was rich" or there was money available, but it was not being used for what people would have regarded as proper scriptural purposes. The existence of funds had to be kept secret. In fact, so secret was this that even into the 90's I knew of people (including myself) who were oblivious to the existence of bank accounts and large sums of money. The whole thing was a mystery. God saw the needs and "mysteriously" made provision for them. There are many now lying in their graves who lay on their death beds believing this to be fact. There was no money, or very little of it. God made provision when a need arose. I think it is likely that "William's experiment" was what is known in science as a "controlled experiment." He had the funds, or the control, if anything went wrong with it. Few others would have known about this safety net which was strictly managed. During my early years I heard stories of families from a previous generation who were very poor and would spend what little they had on the workers rather than their own families, thinking they were doing it for God. Imagine how these people would have felt if they later suspected there was ample funds, not just for the workers' needs, but also to alleviate their own plight. No, I reckon the secrecy over financial matters today, results from Irvine's secrecy way back then. The mushroom treatment works (at least for a while). Keep 'em in the dark and feed them a lot of s---e! Another place your argument breaks down is that Irvine is credited with leaving the FM over Govan's hypocrisy of having money while the Pilgrims had to live on faith. This is in Cherie's book. Yet you are suggesting that within a couple of years, Irvine was doing exactly what Govan was doing? Highly unlikely. The other thing that makes it highly unlikely is that the most prominent doctrine of the the early days of Irvine,Long and Cooney was that they went on Faith Lines. They preached it vehemently. It is almost impossible that Irvine would have hoarded the 1300 pounds so early in the movement. Remember, 1901 was still almost entirely a ministry movement and there was no known thought of going overseas. Irvine wouldn't have even had any requirements for the money, and only a few went overseas in 1903. It wasn't until after 1903 that the foreign missions really got going. Not even prophet Irvine would have seen what was going to happen down the road several years after 1901. Just put yourself in the shoes of the earliest workers. It really was Faith Lines for a long time. In fact, as late as the 1960's, overseers having excess funds were very uncomfortable with it and they tried hard to get rid of it.....carrying it around in a suitcase. I know that for a fact of the overseer of Saskatchewan, Willie Smiley.....good old Irishman if I recall.....and would have had strong connections to the early days as he was pretty old in the 1960's. It was actually the 1970's when excess money became more problematic and the first generation of friends were leaving large amounts to "the gospel". The overseer of Alberta, Harold Stewart could see that coming and made mention that one of the big problems of the future (future of the 1970's) was excess money. Another example is when Cooney was booted out. The story my parents were told by one of the overseers present was that the presiding workers pulled out their wallets and each gave him half of what they had. You would think though that if Cooney gave his 1300 pounds into the system, he would have made mention of it later when he was booted out. If he gave it to the poor and spread it around, it is no wonder he didn't make mention of it later. Again, you continue to superimpose the culture that you saw in the late 20th century onto what was done almost a century before without allowing for a cultural change. It's not a strong position from which to establish your position. You need to go back "to the beginning" !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 11:35:38 GMT -5
Sorry, but I don't share this view. I had heard many time the workers and friends referring to the workers as the "poor" in this world, just like Jesus. The fact is there has never been a culture of giving to the real poor. That culture has been downloaded right unto this day. Secrecy speaks for itself. Also, Irvine's experiences in the Faith Mission would have primed him for the new movement. FM workers received only a small amount from the organisation and were to live on faith lines for the remainder of their upkeep. The idea of a central body with funds and a workforce largely dependent upon living by faith, would hardly have escaped Irvine. In fact it is still practiced today with the F&W's sect. For me "continuity" is the common sense answer! Back in the early days (and it has some pertinence today)secrecy over financial matters was an essential element for the group's survival, by the methods they believed in. Back then, there were many among the lay members of the sect who really were poor and needy. The workers were even encouraged to share in the privations of these people. Very little, if anything of true note, was done to alleviate the natural needs of these people. Spiritual provision only was what was on offer, other than helping out with chores etc. Had any funds been commonly known, then the demand for helping the "real" poor would have been so great that Cooney's £1300, though a small fortune at the time, would have soon been frittered away. There would have been great risk to the developing movement if it was known "it was rich" or there was money available, but it was not being used for what people would have regarded as proper scriptural purposes. The existence of funds had to be kept secret. In fact, so secret was this that even into the 90's I knew of people (including myself) who were oblivious to the existence of bank accounts and large sums of money. The whole thing was a mystery. God saw the needs and "mysteriously" made provision for them. There are many now lying in their graves who lay on their death beds believing this to be fact. There was no money, or very little of it. God made provision when a need arose. I think it is likely that "William's experiment" was what is known in science as a "controlled experiment." He had the funds, or the control, if anything went wrong with it. Few others would have known about this safety net which was strictly managed. During my early years I heard stories of families from a previous generation who were very poor and would spend what little they had on the workers rather than their own families, thinking they were doing it for God. Imagine how these people would have felt if they later suspected there was ample funds, not just for the workers' needs, but also to alleviate their own plight. No, I reckon the secrecy over financial matters today, results from Irvine's secrecy way back then. The mushroom treatment works (at least for a while). Keep 'em in the dark and feed them a lot of s---e! Another place your argument breaks down is that Irvine is credited with leaving the FM over Govan's hypocrisy of having money while the Pilgrims had to live on faith. This is in Cherie's book. Yet you are suggesting that within a couple of years, Irvine was doing exactly what Govan was doing? Highly unlikely. Have you ever read "Animal Farm?" History is filled with people doing exactly what they condemned others for doing. See how quickly it happens with politicians.
The other thing that makes it highly unlikely is that the most prominent doctrine of the the early days of Irvine,Long and Cooney was that they went on Faith Lines. They preached it vehemently. It is almost impossible that Irvine would have hoarded the 1300 pounds so early in the movement. Remember, 1901 was still almost entirely a ministry movement and there was no known thought of going overseas. Irvine wouldn't have even had any requirements for the money, and only a few went overseas in 1903. It wasn't until after 1903 that the foreign missions really got going. Not even prophet Irvine would have seen what was going to happen down the road several years after 1901. It is clear that many possibilities were going through Irvine's mind. Who knows what he was thinking, accepting, dismissing, re-accepting. These were formative years, largely devoid of proper plans and decisions. What's the best thing to do with money in these circumstances? Keep it until you have a clear vision of what you are doing. Once hoarded, it could hardly be admitted to, at least to the masses. Hence secrecy. Irvine wasn't God. He was a human being, hence an open mind must be maintained.
Just put yourself in the shoes of the earliest workers. It really was Faith Lines for a long time. In fact, as late as the 1960's, overseers having excess funds were very uncomfortable with it and they tried hard to get rid of it.....carrying it around in a suitcase. I know that for a fact of the overseer of Saskatchewan, Willie Smiley.....good old Irishman if I recall.....and would have had strong connections to the early days as he was pretty old in the 1960's. It was actually the 1970's when excess money became more problematic and the first generation of friends were leaving large amounts to "the gospel". The overseer of Alberta, Harold Stewart could see that coming and made mention that one of the big problems of the future (future of the 1970's) was excess money. I agree, but remember when the flood of workers went out in the early years to at least all the English speaking nations, this would have required a fair bit of money. Also, Irvine himself got dizzy sailing around the globe a few times.Another example is when Cooney was booted out. The story my parents were told by one of the overseers present was that the presiding workers pulled out their wallets and each gave him half of what they had. You would think though that if Cooney gave his 1300 pounds into the system, he would have made mention of it later when he was booted out. If he gave it to the poor and spread it around, it is no wonder he didn't make mention of it later. The money WAS given to the poor and spread around I am sure, only your interpretation of the poor and mine differ. I do not belive that the money was improperly used. I believe it was used in furthering the cause of the developing new movement. If there was any wrong in it it was likely in the framework of doing one right thing whilst leaving the other undone, i.e. giving to the real poor. If money was indeed tight during the first 50 years of the movement and especially at the beginning, surely this makes it all the more likely that it was hoarded to be used "circumspectly" according to priorities?Again, you continue to superimpose the culture that you saw in the late 20th century onto what was done almost a century before without allowing for a cultural change. It's not a strong position from which to establish your position. You need to go back "to the beginning" ! No CD, I have made it clear that this was from the times of my upbringing (mid 50's onwards) AND more especially from what I learned from relatives and friends whose memories dated back to the late 1920's. This is why I see the Impartial Reporter as being a veritable historical source. I can readily associate with the early accounts due to my own experiences and what I heard from those who were before me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 11:41:41 GMT -5
RAM: there are many new details in Chapter 4 of my book regarding WmI's time spent with the FM that I think you would find interesting. For one, Irvine claims he was put out of the FM in both 1898 and 1899...so its possible he didnt not receive his monthly stipend from that time forward - especially as he wasnt sending in his reports... www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/04-0wmibook.phpThanks Cherie. I'm going out shortly, but will read up on it later!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 11:43:04 GMT -5
Using Animal Farm and the Impartial Reporter to bolster your argument is fine for you, but it does nothing for me. I try to look carefully at what the actual players said and did,and try to put it in the context of that time, not 50-70 years later. At this point, there is nothing pointing to a bulging bank account for Irvine, except the Impartial (Partial?) Reporter. Remember, the Impartial Reporter was wholly against the early worker movement, much like many exes today. There are a lot of exes who can say nothing good about the F&Ws (except for convention stew) and the Impartial Reporter was no different. They became the official opposition of the F&W movement. An impartial newspaper wouldn't write like they did, it would be more balanced like most newspaper stories on the F&W were written in subsequent years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 11:52:16 GMT -5
Using Animal Farm and the Impartial Reporter to bolster your argument is fine for you, but it does nothing for me. I try to look carefully at what the actual players said and did,and try to put it in the context of that time, not 50-70 years later. At this point, there is nothing pointing to a bulging for Irvine, except the Impartial (Partial?) Reporter. Remember, the Impartial Reporter was wholly against the early worker movement, much like many exes today. There are a lot of exes who can say nothing good about the F&Ws (except for convention stew) and the Impartial Reporter was no different. They became the official opposition of the F&W movement. An impartial newspaper wouldn't write like they did, it would be more balanced like most newspaper stories on the F&W were written in subsequent years. Well unless you want to categorize me as a particularly vibrant anti 2x2 I must take issue with your denunciation of the Impartial Reporter. It is a while now since I read through my copy of the copies of IR articles, but I found that I could identify personally with a high percentage of the articles written, either through personal experience or from what I heard from those who preceded me in the sect (and that is in Scotland not Ireland). Of the remainder, of which I could not identify with, I found that the essence of these reports was consistent with other issues that I could identify with. If you want to throw in a few examples of Impartial (partial) Reporting, I will give honest responses. I am not saying that everything they reported was accurate, only that nothing stands out in my mind which would fit this category. Animal Farm clearly shows how "power" corrupts. Well worth a read.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 13:21:45 GMT -5
Using Animal Farm and the Impartial Reporter to bolster your argument is fine for you, but it does nothing for me. I try to look carefully at what the actual players said and did,and try to put it in the context of that time, not 50-70 years later. At this point, there is nothing pointing to a bulging for Irvine, except the Impartial (Partial?) Reporter. Remember, the Impartial Reporter was wholly against the early worker movement, much like many exes today. There are a lot of exes who can say nothing good about the F&Ws (except for convention stew) and the Impartial Reporter was no different. They became the official opposition of the F&W movement. An impartial newspaper wouldn't write like they did, it would be more balanced like most newspaper stories on the F&W were written in subsequent years. Well unless you want to categorize me as a particularly vibrant anti 2x2 I must take issue with your denunciation of the Impartial Reporter. It is a while now since I read through my copy of the copies of IR articles, but I found that I could identify personally with a high percentage of the articles written, either through personal experience or from what I heard from those who preceded me in the sect (and that is in Scotland not Ireland). Of the remainder, of which I could not identify with, I found that the essence of these reports was consistent with other issues that I could identify with. If you want to throw in a few examples of Impartial (partial) Reporting, I will give honest responses. I am not saying that everything they reported was accurate, only that nothing stands out in my mind which would fit this category. Animal Farm clearly shows how "power" corrupts. Well worth a read. I've read Animal Farm. Check. 1984 too. Check. You need to stand back to get a sense of the partiality of the IP. Compare it with a modern article which always shows balance, both good and bad. The IP rarely displays the balance, it is all bad.....or it damns with faint praise, such as today's anti-2x2's who praise the F&Ws for convention stew. Same thing. I haven't read the IP for awhile either, but I flipped to the first article that came up on my screen and the very first line I read was this: "The Tramps are without doubt the greatest Pharisees ever heard locally." That was the first sentence I read. Impartial? Hardly, it's called hyperbole. "These people believe, like all religious fanatics, that God has called them specially to preach." Impartial? Sheesh, I thought all preachers were called to preach, so are all preachers fanatics? And it goes on and on. There is not only no balance, but the language is strident and hyperbolic. That doesn't mean there is no truth in it, or that I can't see things that are right about it, I am just saying that the IP is far from Impartial.....it became clearly prejudiced against the Tramps very early on and stayed that way. The Tramps could do nothing right in the IP eyes. They couldn't even get Mr. "Irwin's" name right. It is "damn the Tramps" all the way. Maybe you and I have a different way of measuring impartiality.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 8, 2013 13:46:51 GMT -5
Hard to know if John Long would have "played" with the words "the poor". I think most likely he would have not. I think when John Long wrote that Edward Cooney distributed to "the poor" that he meant just that and not to Irvine or the workers. I think if John Long meant "the workers" (as the poor), then he would have indicated Edward Cooney gave to "the work" or quite specifically "the workers".
June 1898 John Long indicates Edward Cooney was soon to give up a very good situation and distribute 1300 pounds to the poor. December 1900 John Long indicates Edward Cooney had newly started out. June 1901 John Ling indicates Edward Cooney had put up about 40 workers at his own expense. "At his own expense." Money had retained or money he was given as a worker?
Seems with the Faith Mission there was some "institutional" support from a direct source - the Faith Mission. The first workers might have seen this as a safety net and not totally dependent on faith. Of course there was the safety net of some or many of the first followers. The difference though is that Faith Mission was administration and management, not a person and not a preacher/worker.
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jul 8, 2013 14:01:51 GMT -5
Hard to know if John Long would have "played" with the words "the poor". I think most likely he would have not. I think when John Long wrote that Edward Cooney distributed to "the poor" that he meant just that and not to Irvine or the workers. I think if John Long meant "the workers" (as the poor), then he would have indicated Edward Cooney gave to "the work" or quite specifically "the workers". June 1898 John Long indicates Edward Cooney was soon to give up a very good situation and distribute 1300 pounds to the poor. December 1900 John Long indicates Edward Cooney had newly started out. June 1901 John Ling indicates Edward Cooney had put up about 40 workers at his own expense. "At his own expense." Money had retained or money he was given as a worker? Seems with the Faith Mission there was some "institutional" support from a direct source - the Faith Mission. The first workers might have seen this as a safety net and not totally dependent on faith. Of course there was the safety net of some or many of the first followers. The difference though is that Faith Mission was administration and management, not a person and not a preacher/worker. If there was support, I'm sure it wasn't true for those who came to this country. I knew several that knew of hunger and sleeping on the banks of the Susquehanna River here in Pa. This was true of many who did missionary type work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 14:04:47 GMT -5
Hard to know if John Long would have "played" with the words "the poor". I think most likely he would have not. I think when John Long wrote that Edward Cooney distributed to "the poor" that he meant just that and not to Irvine or the workers. I think if John Long meant "the workers" (as the poor), then he would have indicated Edward Cooney gave to "the work" or quite specifically "the workers". June 1898 John Long indicates Edward Cooney was soon to give up a very good situation and distribute 1300 pounds to the poor. December 1900 John Long indicates Edward Cooney had newly started out. June 1901 John Ling indicates Edward Cooney had put up about 40 workers at his own expense. "At his own expense." Money had retained or money he was given as a worker? Seems with the Faith Mission there was some "institutional" support from a direct source - the Faith Mission. The first workers might have seen this as a safety net and not totally dependent on faith. Of course there was the safety net of some or many of the first followers. The difference though is that Faith Mission was administration and management, not a person and not a preacher/worker. The 1905 workers' list shows Cooney starting out in 1901. June 1901 may have been just before he gave way his money. Or, as you suggest, it may have had nothing to do with his old money, it may have been support money given to him after that. Or, he may have retained some. Or, he may have given some to the poor, some to Irvine and kept some for initial convention expenses. We just don't have the answers.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2013 14:10:19 GMT -5
Agreed that it's hard to know...there are so many ways of looking at this matter.
John Long may not have been around when Cooney distributed his money whereever it went, and Cooney may have believed in not letting "the right hand know what the left hand does" and COoney may not have told anyone what he did with the money...
Another thing about Govan living a different lifestyle than his Pilgrim workers - Govan had a home to sleep in every night and a wife to keep him warm, and "a small stipend" (money) coming in that he could count on. His lifestyle was not the same as was required ofthe other workers -and would not have met the faith lines standard in WmI's view. FM allowed their Supts to be married and stay in one place for a few years at a time (rent a place to stay), but the other workers were not allowed to marry or to have homes. WmI was an unmarried Supt in South of Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2013 14:15:09 GMT -5
It would appear that Cooney's money was all gone when he went to Bill Carrolls wedding...the following is from my book:
1901, JUNE 6: Edward Cooney’s last appointment before he entered the work full time was to attend the wedding of Bill Carroll and Margaret Hastings held in Borrosokane, Co. Tipperary. They were married on June 6, 1901. They entered the work in 1903 as married couple. See Wedding Photo in TTT Photo Gallery. Cooney worked his first mission in Edenderry, Ireland in 1901 with Irvine Weir. (Life & Ministry of Edward Cooney by Patricia Roberts, p 192)
Patricia Roberts gives details about how he didnt know how he was going to pay his fare, etc. and how it all worked out. I'm not where I can quote from her book right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 14:16:30 GMT -5
Agreed that it's hard to know...there are so many ways of looking at this matter.
John Long may not have been around when Cooney distributed his money whereever it went, and Cooney may have believed in not letting "the right hand know what the left hand does" and COoney may not have told anyone what he did with the money...
Another thing about Govan living a different lifestyle than his Pilgrim workers - Govan had a home to sleep in every night and a wife to keep him warm, and "a small stipend" (money) coming in that he could count on. His lifestyle was not the same as was required ofthe other workers -and would not have met the faith lines standard in WmI's view. FM allowed their Supts to be married and stay in one place for a few years at a time (rent a place to stay), but the other workers were not allowed to marry or to have homes. WmI was an unmarried Supt in South of Ireland.
Did Irvine state in a letter that his problem with FM was Govan's different lifestyle than the Pilgrims?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2013 15:10:08 GMT -5
CD asked: Did Irvine state in a letter that his problem with FM was Govan's different lifestyle than the Pilgrims?
No - its mentioned in Pattisons account and in Impartial Reporter and Secret Sect I dont know off hand what Long and Roberts have to say about it
And I recall WmI talking pretty ugly about getting his eyes opened to the mgmt of FM in one of his letters, but I think its a letter I havent had time to post...so I wouldnt be able to locate it very easily. I could really use an assistant! There is a typist who sends me copies of WmI's letters occasionally, about a packet a month, that they have typed from their collection. His mother was a Message Person.
BTW, I talked to Briza last month. She has alzheimers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 17:29:07 GMT -5
Well unless you want to categorize me as a particularly vibrant anti 2x2 I must take issue with your denunciation of the Impartial Reporter. It is a while now since I read through my copy of the copies of IR articles, but I found that I could identify personally with a high percentage of the articles written, either through personal experience or from what I heard from those who preceded me in the sect (and that is in Scotland not Ireland). Of the remainder, of which I could not identify with, I found that the essence of these reports was consistent with other issues that I could identify with. If you want to throw in a few examples of Impartial (partial) Reporting, I will give honest responses. I am not saying that everything they reported was accurate, only that nothing stands out in my mind which would fit this category. Animal Farm clearly shows how "power" corrupts. Well worth a read. I've read Animal Farm. Check. 1984 too. Check. You need to stand back to get a sense of the partiality of the IP. Compare it with a modern article which always shows balance, both good and bad. The IP rarely displays the balance, it is all bad.....or it damns with faint praise, such as today's anti-2x2's who praise the F&Ws for convention stew. Same thing. I haven't read the IP for awhile either, but I flipped to the first article that came up on my screen and the very first line I read was this: "The Tramps are without doubt the greatest Pharisees ever heard locally." That was the first sentence I read. Impartial? Hardly, it's called hyperbole. "These people believe, like all religious fanatics, that God has called them specially to preach." Impartial? Sheesh, I thought all preachers were called to preach, so are all preachers fanatics? And it goes on and on. There is not only no balance, but the language is strident and hyperbolic. That doesn't mean there is no truth in it, or that I can't see things that are right about it, I am just saying that the IP is far from Impartial.....it became clearly prejudiced against the Tramps very early on and stayed that way. The Tramps could do nothing right in the IP eyes. They couldn't even get Mr. "Irwin's" name right. It is "damn the Tramps" all the way. Maybe you and I have a different way of measuring impartiality. I have to admit that when I read the Impartial Reporter articles I wasn't thinking about bias, balance, impartiality, hyperbole or anything like that. I was only thinking about "truth." No one will take away from me the truth of the matter. Irrespective of how one looks at the quality or standard of reporting, I can say with an honest heart that from my own personal experience and from what I had heard and learned from a previous generation (late 20's) that the great majority of the reporting was in fact "truthful," AND furthermore, those things which I could not relate to were very consistent in character to other things which I could relate to, from which the reasonable inference could be drawn as to their authenticity. I will not go as far as say the articles are 100% accurate, but I would like you to give me some challenges from the articles which might show that there was some degree of "untruth" in them. If not getting Irvine's name right is an example of damning the Tramps, then I guess I am seriously needing to reassess my view not only of the IR, but of everything that I know and learned from the past.
|
|