|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2014 4:23:58 GMT -5
The following verse was in the 1951 version. I wonder why they dropped it out?
3 Him who pardoned erring Peter, Never needst thou fear;
He that came to faithless Thomas, All thy doubt will clear.
He who let the loved disciple, On His bosom rest,
Bids thee still with love as tender, Lean upon His breast.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2014 4:32:45 GMT -5
When I first read Jack Carroll's sermon (posted here: professing.proboards.com/thread/21694/telling-truth ) I was quite impressed with his openness in discussing issues that people had asked questions about. Jack was promoting being open and honest, not just with the members of the fellowship, but also with those outside asking questions. It seems that somewhere down the line (his sermon was in 1934), workers (and friends) resorted to evasiveness when being asked questions about the fellowship. I know that growing up I was told that workers didn't get any money, but in his sermon Jack makes it clear that the friends supply the workers with money, as well as other items such as food and shelter. I enjoyed reading his sermon, and while it may bring up other questions which he may have been a bit vague on, it opened the door to people to ask him later what he meant. A breath of fresh air compared to having a worker tell you not to question them........ on anything....... I suppose when Jack died in 1957 the history was hardly an issue. It was the Eldon Tenniswood era of overseers in the early 1980s who should have fessed up about the history. They missed a window of opportunity, just like today's overseers are failing to act decisively and adequately with respect to sexual immorality and child sexual abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Jan 24, 2014 4:47:30 GMT -5
That is not NOT true.... many on TMB have mentioned TTT website have played a great role in them leaving the fellowship because of the information, history on TTT website. The workers have NOT told the friends lies about 2x2 teachings of Jesus apostolic New Testament goes back to Jesus and apostles. I believe TTT have mislead people, for yrs there was no mentioned of William Irvine, John Long, and the early workers were returning or following Jesus 2x2 apostolic ministry. They did NOT start some new workers teachings idea or a Cult at all. Thanks, goodness for John Long's Journal has helped us to understand how some of them came together from his side of the early history.William Irvine beginning 1898/his sister/Living witness doctrine. 2x2friendsworkers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=baby&action=display&thread=99 I agree that a lot of people make decisions on information they receive. However, it is the decisions they make after having information (irregardless of where they get it) that determines their course of action. YES.... some of the workers have lied about the history of the fellowship. I grew up in Washington state and listened to workers claiming that the fellowship went back to the shores of Galilee. Perhaps your experience is different, but that was mine. From what I have been reading, they don't do this much any more, as they have been caught in that lie, and know that they can't get away with it anymore, at least with those who have read about the history. I think that the history of the fellowship is very interesting. I don't understand why they don't embrace that history as other denomination do. It is pretty fascinating actually, and if people know how the fellowship started, I think that they would be just fine with that. In fact, it would give them something to discuss with other people concerning church history. The workers really need to quit treating people as if they can't handle the truth, and let them know just what is going on in the church. I'm pleased to hear some places don't still perpetuate the lie We no-longer hear the shores of Galilee, it has been refined a little At recent convention it was worded "EVERY other religion had someone who started it but WE have Jesus the author of our faith" |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 4:49:38 GMT -5
If the workers had been completely open about the origins of the fellowship from day 1, the 2x2 fellowship would never have grown to the extent it did. So it was largely hidden and covered up.
I am not sure that I am in agreement with that statement Roscoe. Some other churches that started around the same time period have grown much larger, and have carried the gospel message much further and reached more people. These are churches that embrace their history, openly state their doctrine and church focus, and reach out in many ways to people around the world. The church I attended prior to moving began about 10 years or so before the truth fellowship, and now this is how they have grown Your story as to what led you away from the fellowship is a familiar one Roscoe. I have heard those same reasons given by many others. Scott, the church that you attended was I assume totally non-exclusive.....what I was trying to say (and I may be wrong!) is that if the workers in the 1940's to say 1970's when major growth occurred were completely open about the beginnings their message "we are the only true ministers" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. My take on hearing a lot about the early years is that people joined because they could see the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did"". I imagine it would have been an attractive message at the time. If at the same time the workers had of said "look the fellowship was started by a guy called William Irvine etc" it would have, I feel, undermined the message and not have been as attractive?? I understand what you are saying here. They should have been smart enough to build on the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did and forget about the we are the only true ministers aspect. If they would have done that, the fellowship would probably consist of home churches with membership numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and workers would probably be carrying the gospel much wider than they have been able to. It is pretty obvious to an outsider who knows about the church, (us heathen exes....and many of the professing folks as well) that when the church loses approximately 40% of its membership over about 20 years......and that there is a pattern of declining membership...... that there are some serious issues that either have to be resolved SOON, or the church is just going to continue to wither away. At what point will the changes take place, and who is going to instigate those changes? My belief is that change is either going to be eventually demanded by the members of the church, (which some are doing now) or the workers are going to be simply preaching to the die hard folks in their gospel meetings. Already, there are a lot of people that simply tolerate the workers in their lives. They don't host them, they don't give them money, and they have very sporadic gospel meeting attendance. For quite a few, they see the workers (as a group) as actually being an inconvenience to the church, rather than central to the church. It is their home meetings that they care about, not the gospel meeting system. More and more members are actually reaching out to other Christians, either attending other churches when they can, or listening to pastors speak on the radio (or TV). Some attend other bible studies, and read Christian literature to further their spiritual journey. In the meantime, the 'senior brothers' as a group continue to try to perpetuate the myth that 'we're the only true preachers', and 'we are imperfect people in the perfect way'. I don't have a problem with those workers who believe that they have a calling that they feel lives a life as close as possible to how it was done in the New Testament. As always, my thoughts are that it isn't my church, and if the members are happy with how it is being run by the overseers, then that is fine with me. Of course the estimated 40,000 or so people that have left the church (in North America) in the last 20 years weren't too terribly happy with how the church was being run now were they??? A case in point from the Vietnam thread, posted by minhthanh: |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 5:06:47 GMT -5
When I first read Jack Carroll's sermon (posted here: professing.proboards.com/thread/21694/telling-truth ) I was quite impressed with his openness in discussing issues that people had asked questions about. Jack was promoting being open and honest, not just with the members of the fellowship, but also with those outside asking questions. It seems that somewhere down the line (his sermon was in 1934), workers (and friends) resorted to evasiveness when being asked questions about the fellowship. I know that growing up I was told that workers didn't get any money, but in his sermon Jack makes it clear that the friends supply the workers with money, as well as other items such as food and shelter. I enjoyed reading his sermon, and while it may bring up other questions which he may have been a bit vague on, it opened the door to people to ask him later what he meant. A breath of fresh air compared to having a worker tell you not to question them........ on anything....... I suppose when Jack died in 1957 the history was hardly an issue. It was the Eldon Tenniswood era of overseers in the early 1980s who should have fessed up about the history. They missed a window of opportunity, just like today's overseers are failing to act decisively and adequately with respect to sexual immorality and child sexual abuse. Yeah..... by downplaying the history, they have actually been the ones that have made it a huge, glaring issue that the church has had to face, and that issue just ain't a gonna go away. There are quite a few overseers and senior workers who have simply lost all trust and respect from those members they can least afford to lose. It is getting more common for several members of a family to simply quit attending meetings, rather than just the kids who leave after moving out of home. Again, for those of you who are professing, take a look around your area and think back 20 years and compare it to now. I think it was clearday that said he was the second youngest in his local meeting, and if I am not mistaken he is in his 50's. At least I think he is about as long in the tooth as I am. I hear and read about how meetings have done one of two things. Either meetings that once had 25 or so members now have numbers about half of that, or the other extreme where meetings have had to be combined which results in a larger meeting, but with less people actually attending in a geographical area. It is sad to watch what is happening actually. I know quite a few dedicated and great workers out there, but no matter how good the workers are in an area, they can only be as good as the 'senior brothers' allow them to be, and so many of them just give up over time....... And then, add in all the brother and sister workers that you know of who have left the work. What age were they, and how many of them even still attend meetings? That says a lot about the health of the church. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 5:12:56 GMT -5
I agree that a lot of people make decisions on information they receive. However, it is the decisions they make after having information (irregardless of where they get it) that determines their course of action. YES.... some of the workers have lied about the history of the fellowship. I grew up in Washington state and listened to workers claiming that the fellowship went back to the shores of Galilee. Perhaps your experience is different, but that was mine. From what I have been reading, they don't do this much any more, as they have been caught in that lie, and know that they can't get away with it anymore, at least with those who have read about the history. I think that the history of the fellowship is very interesting. I don't understand why they don't embrace that history as other denomination do. It is pretty fascinating actually, and if people know how the fellowship started, I think that they would be just fine with that. In fact, it would give them something to discuss with other people concerning church history. The workers really need to quit treating people as if they can't handle the truth, and let them know just what is going on in the church. I'm pleased to hear some places don't still perpetuate the lie We no-longer hear the shores of Galilee, it has been refined a little At recent convention it was worded "EVERY other religion had someone who started it but WE have Jesus the author of our faith" And that statement makes absolutely no sense to a normal, everyday Christian. I think that all us Christians consider Jesus to be the author of our faith. I think that is what the word 'Christian means', some one who is a Christ follower........ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 5:26:26 GMT -5
If the workers had been completely open about the origins of the fellowship from day 1, the 2x2 fellowship would never have grown to the extent it did. So it was largely hidden and covered up.
I am not sure that I am in agreement with that statement Roscoe. Some other churches that started around the same time period have grown much larger, and have carried the gospel message much further and reached more people. These are churches that embrace their history, openly state their doctrine and church focus, and reach out in many ways to people around the world. The church I attended prior to moving began about 10 years or so before the truth fellowship, and now this is how they have grown Your story as to what led you away from the fellowship is a familiar one Roscoe. I have heard those same reasons given by many others. Scott, the church that you attended was I assume totally non-exclusive.....what I was trying to say (and I may be wrong!) is that if the workers in the 1940's to say 1970's when major growth occurred were completely open about the beginnings their message "we are the only true ministers" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. My take on hearing a lot about the early years is that people joined because they could see the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did"". I imagine it would have been an attractive message at the time. If at the same time the workers had of said "look the fellowship was started by a guy called William Irvine etc" it would have, I feel, undermined the message and not have been as attractive?? The post WWII growth was illusory. It was a time of huge population growth of baby boomers. So there was a large growth of baby boomers from the '50's and 60's, then another baby boom when they had their kids in the 70's and 80's. Numbers grew from the B&R source rather than much from the outside. The "from the shores of Galilee" lie and other methodology teachings were perfect for the B&R's and hooked a lot of the kids growing up in it but became part of their undoing. From what I can see, the spectacular outsider growth had already ended by the late 1920's.....it coincided with Cooney's excommunication. If workers want to examine history for what they can do to revive outsider growth, they have to look back at pre-1928 for the lessons. What they did in the 1950's-1980's was a disaster looking to happen.....and it did when their actions and teachings were examined and found wanting. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2014 6:14:45 GMT -5
It is sad to watch what is happening actually. I know quite a few dedicated and great workers out there, but no matter how good the workers are in an area, they can only be as good as the 'senior brothers' allow them to be, and so many of them just give up over time....... And then, add in all the brother and sister workers that you know of who have left the work. What age were they, and how many of them even still attend meetings? That says a lot about the health of the church. This is so true Scott. I think the problem is the system, more than the people in charge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 10:19:12 GMT -5
The post WWII growth was illusory. It was a time of huge population growth of baby boomers. So there was a large growth of baby boomers from the '50's and 60's, then another baby boom when they had their kids in the 70's and 80's. Numbers grew from the B&R source rather than much from the outside. The "from the shores of Galilee" lie and other methodology teachings were perfect for the B&R's and hooked a lot of the kids growing up in it but became part of their undoing. From what I can see, the spectacular outsider growth had already ended by the late 1920's.....it coincided with Cooney's excommunication. If workers want to examine history for what they can do to revive outsider growth, they have to look back at pre-1928 for the lessons. What they did in the 1950's-1980's was a disaster looking to happen.....and it did when their actions and teachings were examined and found wanting. Interesting line of thought that I have never thought of that way before --- It does sound quite reasonable to me!! |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 24, 2014 11:02:22 GMT -5
I'm pleased to hear some places don't still perpetuate the lie We no-longer hear the shores of Galilee, it has been refined a little At recent convention it was worded "EVERY other religion had someone who started it but WE have Jesus the author of our faith" And that statement makes absolutely no sense to a normal, everyday Christian. I think that all us Christians consider Jesus to be the author of our faith. I think that is what the word 'Christian means', some one who is a Christ follower........ I feel that the "WE have Jesus the author of our faith" actually is just a different way of saying this goes back to the shores of Galilee...esp when you find out that Jesus has taken a backseat in manyh of the w&f's estimation since the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home being the essence of the religion! Where did they put Christ when they got twisted up about people not "getting it" which was that the 2x2 ministry and the meetings in the home is what this religion is all about. So what! Other churches have been manufactured by someone taking portions of the scripture and making it the very basis of their "new" faith. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 24, 2014 15:34:04 GMT -5
The following verse was in the 1951 version. I wonder why they dropped it out? 3 Him who pardoned erring Peter, Never needst thou fear; He that came to faithless Thomas, All thy doubt will clear. He who let the loved disciple, On His bosom rest, Bids thee still with love as tender, Lean upon His breast. Just guessing, but maybe "erring Peter" and "faithless Thomas" were not images they would choose to present? I know Garrett Hughes allowed the words of his hymn to be changed from "Think of Peter in the garden..." to "Think of others in the garden...." (Peter wasn't the only one sleeping.) |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2014 15:58:44 GMT -5
The following verse was in the 1951 version. I wonder why they dropped it out? 3 Him who pardoned erring Peter, Never needst thou fear; He that came to faithless Thomas, All thy doubt will clear. He who let the loved disciple, On His bosom rest, Bids thee still with love as tender, Lean upon His breast. Just guessing, but maybe "erring Peter" and "faithless Thomas" were not images they would choose to present? I know Garrett Hughes allowed the words of his hymn to be changed from "Think of Peter in the garden..." to "Think of others in the garden...." (Peter wasn't the only one sleeping.) I hadn't thought of that, but you may well be right Emy. I suppose we should erase the names of Peter and Thomas out of our Bibles, in case we get the idea that workers could be erring or faithless. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 24, 2014 16:33:32 GMT -5
Just guessing, but maybe "erring Peter" and "faithless Thomas" were not images they would choose to present? I know Garrett Hughes allowed the words of his hymn to be changed from "Think of Peter in the garden..." to "Think of others in the garden...." (Peter wasn't the only one sleeping.) I hadn't thought of that, but you may well be right Emy. I suppose we should erase the names of Peter and Thomas out of our Bibles, in case we get the idea that workers could be erring or faithless. That's not at all what I said. I think it would be wrong to single out a couple or few when many of us have similar failures. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2014 16:42:22 GMT -5
If the workers had been completely open about the origins of the fellowship from day 1, the 2x2 fellowship would never have grown to the extent it did. So it was largely hidden and covered up.
I am not sure that I am in agreement with that statement Roscoe. Some other churches that started around the same time period have grown much larger, and have carried the gospel message much further and reached more people. These are churches that embrace their history, openly state their doctrine and church focus, and reach out in many ways to people around the world. The church I attended prior to moving began about 10 years or so before the truth fellowship, and now this is how they have grown Your story as to what led you away from the fellowship is a familiar one Roscoe. I have heard those same reasons given by many others. Scott, the church that you attended was I assume totally non-exclusive.....what I was trying to say (and I may be wrong!) is that if the workers in the 1940's to say 1970's when major growth occurred were completely open about the beginnings their message "we are the only true ministers" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. My take on hearing a lot about the early years is that people joined because they could see the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did"". I imagine it would have been an attractive message at the time. If at the same time the workers had of said "look the fellowship was started by a guy called William Irvine etc" it would have, I feel, undermined the message and not have been as attractive??
So then they would have to answer, that William Irvine was no longer in the **TRUTH**. Then a question of "why?" Then an explanation, that he was excommunicated. Another question,"why?" -and on it goes!
It might be a bit of an embarrassment to say that they had excommunicated the man who had started it all!  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 16:48:20 GMT -5
Scott, the church that you attended was I assume totally non-exclusive.....what I was trying to say (and I may be wrong!) is that if the workers in the 1940's to say 1970's when major growth occurred were completely open about the beginnings their message "we are the only true ministers" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. My take on hearing a lot about the early years is that people joined because they could see the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did"". I imagine it would have been an attractive message at the time. If at the same time the workers had of said "look the fellowship was started by a guy called William Irvine etc" it would have, I feel, undermined the message and not have been as attractive??
So then they would have to answer, that William Irvine was no longer in the **TRUTH**. Then a question of "why?" Then an explanation, that he was excommunicated. Another question,"why?" -and on it goes!
It might be a bit of an embarrassment to say that they had excommunicated the man who had started it all! So what if it was an embarrassment. People in all walks of life are removed from the groups they are members of. The embarrassment would have been short-lived with an honest explanation of what occurred. Not a big deal. People are not perfect, and most others understand that. By hiding the origins of the fellowship, lying to the members...... they have in effect lost all trust and respect that their position in the church should have. Those who have been honest and discussed these matters are the ones that are trusted, but they are tainted by the others who are deceitful. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 24, 2014 17:23:01 GMT -5
I hadn't thought of that, but you may well be right Emy. I suppose we should erase the names of Peter and Thomas out of our Bibles, in case we get the idea that workers could be erring or faithless. That's not at all what I said. I think it would be wrong to single out a couple or few when many of us have similar failures. That's sad, because the verse teaches that the same Jesus who helped Thomas and Peter wants to help us today who have similar failures. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 17:48:25 GMT -5
That's not at all what I said. I think it would be wrong to single out a couple or few when many of us have similar failures. That's sad, because the verse teaches that the same Jesus who helped Thomas and Peter wants to help us today who have similar failures. The bible is full of men who failed in some aspect of their lives. That is what give me hope for myself. Weren't Thomas and Peter both considered some of the first 'workers' by many? Perhaps they were singled out because to portray a 'worker' as having failures/blemishes in their character is inconsistent with the party line...... |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 24, 2014 19:03:16 GMT -5
That's sad, because the verse teaches that the same Jesus who helped Thomas and Peter wants to help us today who have similar failures. The bible is full of men who failed in some aspect of their lives. That is what give me hope for myself. Weren't Thomas and Peter both considered some of the first 'workers' by many? Perhaps they were singled out because to portray a 'worker' as having failures/blemishes in their character is inconsistent with the party line...... What a cynical perspective! I have never heard workers gloss over the failures of any person in the Bible because they had "position." |
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 24, 2014 19:53:49 GMT -5
Scott, the church that you attended was I assume totally non-exclusive.....what I was trying to say (and I may be wrong!) is that if the workers in the 1940's to say 1970's when major growth occurred were completely open about the beginnings their message "we are the only true ministers" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. My take on hearing a lot about the early years is that people joined because they could see the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did"". I imagine it would have been an attractive message at the time. If at the same time the workers had of said "look the fellowship was started by a guy called William Irvine etc" it would have, I feel, undermined the message and not have been as attractive?? I understand what you are saying here. They should have been smart enough to build on the workers living simple lives and "going out like Jesus did and forget about the we are the only true ministers aspect. If they would have done that, the fellowship would probably consist of home churches with membership numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and workers would probably be carrying the gospel much wider than they have been able to. It is pretty obvious to an outsider who knows about the church, (us heathen exes....and many of the professing folks as well) that when the church loses approximately 40% of its membership over about 20 years......and that there is a pattern of declining membership...... that there are some serious issues that either have to be resolved SOON, or the church is just going to continue to wither away. At what point will the changes take place, and who is going to instigate those changes? My belief is that change is either going to be eventually demanded by the members of the church, (which some are doing now) or the workers are going to be simply preaching to the die hard folks in their gospel meetings. Already, there are a lot of people that simply tolerate the workers in their lives. They don't host them, they don't give them money, and they have very sporadic gospel meeting attendance. For quite a few, they see the workers (as a group) as actually being an inconvenience to the church, rather than central to the church. It is their home meetings that they care about, not the gospel meeting system. More and more members are actually reaching out to other Christians, either attending other churches when they can, or listening to pastors speak on the radio (or TV). Some attend other bible studies, and read Christian literature to further their spiritual journey. In the meantime, the 'senior brothers' as a group continue to try to perpetuate the myth that 'we're the only true preachers', and 'we are imperfect people in the perfect way'. I don't have a problem with those workers who believe that they have a calling that they feel lives a life as close as possible to how it was done in the New Testament. As always, my thoughts are that it isn't my church, and if the members are happy with how it is being run by the overseers, then that is fine with me. Of course the estimated 40,000 or so people that have left the church (in North America) in the last 20 years weren't too terribly happy with how the church was being run now were they??? A case in point from the Vietnam thread, posted by minhthanh: About 25 years ago, I was in another declining meeting. Mostly folks in their late 70s. However, the meeting had a small boom in population. In a couple of years, it became a meeting filled with children and young couples. The interesting change was that the original meeting was Caucasian. The new meeting was a combination of different ethnicities. Most of them had immigrated to America to get jobs and move ahead in their lives. They were looking for opportunities and were interested in the professing folks in America. (Some thought that professing in America would be easier than professing in their family's country.) However, 15 years later, that meeting is gone. What happened? The old social dynamic of "form over function" took over - the older professing folks and workers had to straighten out these new folks. So, the new folks left and the older ones passed away. I remember my folks thinking that the re-birth was proof that the meetings would go on, even if the people changed. However, the "straighten 'em out" tactics are a meeting-killer. The new folks were willing to give professing a chance in a new country, but they weren't willing to give the tactics another chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 24, 2014 20:43:17 GMT -5
And there you have it....... whole families leaving, which can be viewed as not just taking away two generations of a family, but any future generations that may have come along.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Jan 25, 2014 0:42:10 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread yet, so this may have been covered already.
THE WORKERS WHO KNEW ABOUT "THE BEGINNINGS" LIED FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS regarding the meetings and "their system" going back to the shores of Galilee, and them being in direct succession from the first 12 apostles. Why do I think they lied?
I grew up hear this from the platform and on into my 40's. THEN, when people started getting the information about William Irvine starting the system of the workers, the story changed to "the stump theory" which I have heard from the lips of a relative. This is the theory that the ministry and their system died out, but the "stump" was left and William Irvine was the "twig" that started the tree up again.
THEN, just last week I heard from a 2x2 that "she'd heard that William Irvine heard the gospel and their system through a woman in Italy. And, someone else said he heard it from a woman in Switzerland.
So, why have all these different stories? Because they are trying to cover up what they'd been teaching for 100 years! I guess it comes down to this.....pick your lie and run with it....or make up a new one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2014 2:32:39 GMT -5
Just direct them to TTT.
|
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 25, 2014 10:30:19 GMT -5
No website can be blamed for people leaving the fellowship. The blame (if leaving because of the history of the church) is on those who lied to the members, and therefore those members lost all trust and respect in those false preachers who perpetuated that lie. William Irvine beginning 1898/his sister/Living witness doctrine. 2x2friendsworkers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=baby&action=display&thread=99 Okay, let's run with this. Let's agree that TTT has an editorial bias, and that this bias interferes with your own bias. You must admit that you have strong opinions about the history of the movement as well. In fact, it's almost impossible to omit bias entirely in any endeavour. This much you have to agree on - nothing on TTT is untrue or incorrect, or if it is found to be so, the author has changed it. She has consistently demonstrated a high level of journalistic integrity in publishing the site. If her editorial bias is different from yours or that of the friends and workers, then who is to blame for not putting the other version forward? For some reason the workers decided not to document or discuss specifics of their history overtly, and they have never really indicated why they adopted this strategy. It's hardly surprising that when confronted with logical questions, like "how did your movement begin", in the absence of any real information, a level of wishful thinking presented itself in the answers workers and friends would provide. So that policy or strategy failed. Time to re-evaluate and do something different, I would think. What has happened is no different than people thinking that, of course, the Earth is at the centre of the universe, when they didn't have any real information to tell them otherwise. Or, that the world was created literally in six days, before we understood the actual processes involved. What is surprising is to witness myth-making in the 20th century right under our noses. Well, maybe not. Someone told me the other day that dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans, and further, there was documented proof in the form of fossils. I suppose that isn't really much different from thinking that a non-Protestant, non-Catholic movement existed intact and underground from the time of Jesus until now. |
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 25, 2014 14:10:10 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread yet, so this may have been covered already. THE WORKERS WHO KNEW ABOUT "THE BEGINNINGS" LIED FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS regarding the meetings and "their system" going back to the shores of Galilee, and them being in direct succession from the first 12 apostles. Why do I think they lied? I grew up hear this from the platform and on into my 40's. THEN, when people started getting the information about William Irvine starting the system of the workers, the story changed to "the stump theory" which I have heard from the lips of a relative. This is the theory that the ministry and their system died out, but the "stump" was left and William Irvine was the "twig" that started the tree up again. THEN, just last week I heard from a 2x2 that "she'd heard that William Irvine heard the gospel and their system through a woman in Italy. And, someone else said he heard it from a woman in Switzerland. So, why have all these different stories? Because they are trying to cover up what they'd been teaching for 100 years! I guess it comes down to this.....pick your lie and run with it....or make up a new one! ~ I think you're on to something by your closing remark? I also believe the same as you that it's back to "pick your lie and run with it...or make up a new one!" Fitly spoken, especially when you consider all the cover-up stories over the years and the continued efforts to hid the truth from the remainder within the fellowship.  |
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 25, 2014 14:10:21 GMT -5
This is a humorous thread.
Cherie tells the truth about the fellowship and is branded a liar (or enemy)
The workers lie about the truth, and by extension Cherie, and they are deemed Godly.
Tell me again who the bible says that the father of lies is?
Or where liars will end up?
And especially, where those that love and CONTINUE a lie?
And what does the bible say about those that would call good bad and bad good?
Cherie's site is good but is called bad.
The worker's lies (or coverups) are bad but are called good.
But, the bible also says, "Wisdom is justified of her children."
|
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 25, 2014 14:24:34 GMT -5
This is a humorous thread. Cherie tells the truth about the fellowship and is branded a liar (or enemy) The workers lie about the truth and be extension Cherie, and they are deemed Godly. Tell me again who the bible says that the father of lies is? Or where liars will end up? And especially, where those that love and CONTINUE a lie? And what does the bible say about those that would call good bad and bad good?
Cherie's site is good but is called bad.
The worker's lies (or coverups) are bad but are called good.
But, the bible also says, "Wisdom is justified of her children."
~ Cherie did the unexpected ~ she exposed the truth by her research efforts over the years, which has ruffles a few feathers of some F&W's who try so desperately to cover it up from view. I'm thankful for people like Cherie and others who are courageous enough to publish the facts and let others decide for themselves. People need to be informed and not kept in the dark about the history and scandals, which benefits nobody in the end. There are some good people still within the fellowship and on TMB who have good principles and sincerely care about others within the fellowship. However, there's also are folks within the group who have been so conditioned by the leadership to look the other way when stuff surfaces, it's almost a knee-jerk reaction. Changes need to be made and without facing the truth about one's past, it can never be realized. Just my thoughts! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 14:53:39 GMT -5
[ quote author="sacerdotal" source="/post/569371/thread" timestamp="1390677021"]This is a humorous thread.
Cherie tells the truth about the fellowship and is branded a liar (or enemy)
The workers lie about the truth, and by extension Cherie, and they are deemed Godly.
Tell me again who the bible says that the father of lies is?
Or where liars will end up?
And especially, where those that love and CONTINUE a lie?
And what does the bible say about those that would call good bad and bad good?
Cherie's site is good but is called bad.
The worker's lies (or coverups) are bad but are called good.
But, the bible also says, "Wisdom is justified of her children."
Friend, it was this very fact, when I had someone finally point it out to me, that helped me to see just how wrongly my trust and confidence had been placed. Like Cherie, I was branded a liar (when I told the truth) by Tharold Sylvester who I had learned to be a liar and deceiver himself who went directly from my home to my parents home and told them I had not been told I could not take part in meeting when he had, not 4 hours earlier told me I could not.. Naturally they believed the overseer who could yank their meeting and dad's eldership from that fellowship on the spot if my parents questioned him.
Fixed in my memory is the moment when a very close friend asked me, "Dennis, has everything that has been told you by workers, about "the truth" and work been the truth?"
Then when I responded honestly, "No," he asked me the follow up as you have pointed out, where does the bible tell you lies come from?"
The moment I answered "From the human heart that is deceitful and above all desperately wicked, and from Satan the father of lies," I understood, and could no longer support that system. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 25, 2014 18:06:44 GMT -5
I moved the posts concerning the role of WIlliam Irvine's sister to a new thread: professing.proboards.com/thread/21701/I thought it would be more appropriate that Nathan be given his own thread on a subject he is passionate about, rather than have him hijack another thread to rehash the various movements throughout history prior to the start of the truth fellowship, and how that is somehow relevant to who started the fellowship. |
|
