|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 22, 2015 15:35:55 GMT -5
Reading the Bible yourself and receiving good Bible teaching from others are different. As stated and said a number of times on this and other boards when those in meetings start hearing outside preachers they realize how starved they were of good teaching in meeting. This was also true for me. I respect this. And, to some degree, I get it. But. I would torpedo any association and any relationship to be "me". If there is anything I am sure of in this life, this would be it. (Well, besides the power of gratitude. And humor.) I suspect there may be more "salvation" in this than in most things. If that means I am heading straight to H*E*L*L, strangely, I'm totally okay with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 22, 2015 17:06:58 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse. I stand corrected, as evidently some exes have stated your church is of Satan. Sadly, when people are hurt and in retaliation mode, name calling happens and it hurts in return. No winners. No excuse. It is hurtful to be viewed as an agent of Satan, as many can attest. Yes it does. Thanks for your reply. Alvin Let's look at some quotes from Doug Parker's 1954 A Spiritual Fraud Exposed Here's a question right off the bat, how can I, a member in a fellowship that is a spiritual fraud, NOT be condemned to hell? Anyway on to the quotes; Not of God? Then we are condemned to hell. Dissolved? Hmmm, that might be the motive for the subjective broad brush ranting running rampant in his writing. Again, "No religious craze" "unscriptural" "unnatural" "so revolting and so unholy"; how in the world can anyone involved with the worst religious craze ever, not be condemned to hell?? Interesting throughout the writing he seems especially peeved about wealth, including his own. He refers to Cooney's wealth which reminds me of this write up about it from a family member; View Attachment
Where would someone not ever connected with the fellowship get ideas like this? The truth?? What a joke, they got their information from biased activist exe sites! Like Saul consenting to the death of Stephen these activist exes bear responsibility for others saying things like this based on what the activist exes have published. Note the references listed. They are bitter about the money to the end. (Interesting it was money that blew up VOT too.)
Back to the Parker, the vitriol, hate, and bitterness is amazing. There is not even one good word in the whole paper. Parker makes absolute truth statements that in reality are a complete farce;
False. What a condescending, authoritarian, and patronizing statement. As if it's his to judge. Seems to be a bit of pride and jealousy involved here. Wow, that publication represents a sweet and wholesome spirit?? All I know it's not like the spirit shown by @redback, snow, slowtosee and others who prove it here in their posts. I can believe Doug was told to "leave those people alone" by his fellow preachers when they read what he wrote. So sad so many can take an obviously bitter and poisonous publication and put their faith in it. Unbelievable really. It shows when they do. And more than that, so many activist exes re-quote and re-quote what Parker re-quoted in their own publications - as if all the re-quoting and cross quoting makes the biased personal opinions quoted absolutely and universally true. It doesn't. The hateful stream of misrepresentations and outright lies has been like a deluge. The hate is clear. The reality of the fellowship proves so much of it is NOT universally true like it is always made out to be in activist exe publications. I really appreciate exes who are fair and balanced, who acknowledge the good in the fellowship, who see all this hate and choose to not partake. That is something you NEVER see an activist exe publication like this one from Doug Parker doing. Didn't realise Jesse was in Australia in the 50's, wonder if a few of the people at Gilford Convention that year seen him ? |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 22, 2015 18:24:03 GMT -5
Thanks Jesse and others
Some of the children of Israel, 'went back', followed after strange gods, obviously left their faith, some disciples 'went away' from Jesus, both saint and servants 'left the faith' in Pauls day, my grandparents, father and husband all left the faith that they were brought up in, did any write a book wth such venom as the Secret Sect, no, most didn't write anything at all, they went on their way, convinced within themselves that they had peace. Doug had a motive and only he knew what that was,, if it wasn't about money I find him just a tad preoccupied with it.
People 'murmured' in Moses and Jesus day and still they 'murmur', this is a good thing, it shows the Spirit of God is alive and well after all Satan does not persecute those that are already following him does he??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 18:33:14 GMT -5
When you read any book, including the Bible you have to discern what is fact and what is opinion. All books can contain both fact and opinion. Fact is not open to debate, opinion is. Everybody has the right to state opinion, likewise everybody has the right to disagree. The problem arises when debate turns to argument and insults fly. It is fact to say that 2x2 is another Christian Church. It is opinion to say it is the only right Christian Church.
So it makes it more important to be remembered by what we have done, fact, not by what we have said, opinion.
Sometimes it is hard to accept fact, which becomes history. History is mostly fact, and cannot be changed. We may not like it, but we cannot change it. It occurs in our own family history, and we would prefer that people not know about it. I remember when I tried to show my professing Brother a copy of the "Secret Sect", he tried to take it off me, and burn it. Said it was a heap of lies. Now his Wife accepts that some of that early history is true. So with time history is accepted as fact, and becomes less of an embarrassment.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 22, 2015 19:14:12 GMT -5
When you read any book, including the Bible you have to discern what is fact and what is opinion. All books can contain both fact and opinion. Fact is not open to debate, opinion is. Everybody has the right to state opinion, likewise everybody has the right to disagree. The problem arises when debate turns to argument and insults fly. It is fact to say that 2x2 is another Christian Church. It is opinion to say it is the only right Christian Church. So it makes it more important to be remembered by what we have done, fact, not by what we have said, opinion. Sometimes it is hard to accept fact, which becomes history. History is mostly fact, and cannot be changed. We may not like it, but we cannot change it. It occurs in our own family history, and we would prefer that people not know about it. I remember when I tried to show my professing Brother a copy of the "Secret Sect", he tried to take it off me, and burn it. Said it was a heap of lies. Now his Wife accepts that some of that early history is true. So with time history is accepted as fact, and becomes less of an embarrassment. Awhile back the pastor of my church mentioned that his father, also a pastor, had found "the Secret Sect" to be a help to him in speaking with the Mormons. His father has been a pastor in Utah for close to 60 years. He then told me he borrowed the book from his Dad after meeting me and realizing I was likely from the group the book talked about. Interestingly, his Dad said he wanted the book back: it was too valuable for him as a pastor to let go of it yet.  That's as close to the book as I've come so far! And yes, fact versus opinion and the need to discern between the two. Good post. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 22, 2015 21:04:58 GMT -5
and the sooner it is dissolved the better.
Now I see. No he didn't want to split the fellowship, he wanted to destroy it! (I have heard there are others who have made similar statements.)
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 22, 2015 21:24:50 GMT -5
It looks like there is a Canadian export opportunity to the USA on Amazon. Big price spread. Bet it won't last long. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 22, 2015 22:14:19 GMT -5
and the sooner it is dissolved the better.Now I see. No he didn't want to split the fellowship, he wanted to destroy it! (I have heard there are others who have made similar statements.) Just suppose, for a moment, that this statement is true. Does it make anything written in "The Secret Sect" any less true? I do not understand attacking the messenger, instead of the message. It is quite a number of years since I read this book, but , at the time, to me, it seemed well researched, well written, and pretty dispassionate. It seems to me if someone does not like the message, and cannot find fault with it, then the last resort is to attack the messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 22, 2015 22:32:11 GMT -5
Sharon what emy quoted, and what I quoted is not from The Secret Sect, it is from Doug's 1954 "A Spiritual Fraud Exposed". Since the fellowship didn't dissolve after what he wrote in 1954 he had another go at it with Secret Sect. Some of what Doug wrote is true, no doubt about that. But that doesn't make what isn't true true. Why does Doug choose to pollute what is true with highly subjective and perfidious opinions like those I've quoted? Why do activist exes consistently do that?
P.S. Quoting the messenger's own words is NOT attacking the messenger!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 22, 2015 22:34:35 GMT -5
hberry, invite your pastor to read this thread. I'd be interested in what he thinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 22, 2015 23:05:40 GMT -5
Sharon what emy quoted, and what I quoted is not from The Secret Sect, it is from Doug's 1954 "A Spiritual Fraud Exposed". Since the fellowship didn't dissolve after what he wrote in 1954 he had another go at it with Secret Sect. Some of what Doug wrote is true, no doubt about that. But that doesn't make what isn't true true. Why does Doug choose to pollute what is true with highly subjective and perfidious opinions like those I've quoted? Why do activist exes consistently do that? P.S. Quoting the messenger's own words is NOT attacking the messenger! I guess I need to find the 1954 document and read it. Perhaps he was feeling pretty emotional/betrayed/whatever when he wrote it. "The Secret Sect" itself seemed pretty objective to me when I read it. (Maybe I should read it again, and see how it strikes me now - nearly 20 years later.). I would (like to) think I have a lot more maturity/perspective now than I had then. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 22, 2015 23:16:00 GMT -5
SharonArnold fixit just posted Alfred Magowan's letter about Doug's 1954 document on the poison thread. Very, very interesting. I hadn't read it until now. The 1954 document link is posted on that thread too.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 23, 2015 9:58:59 GMT -5
hberry, invite your pastor to read this thread. I'd be interested in what he thinks. Just out of curiosity, why would his comments be of interest to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 10:26:27 GMT -5
Because he would have an outside opinion. Having read the Secret Sect he could see in the 1954 document what lead up to Secret Sect, he could read Magowan's comments, then mine. It would be interesting to get an outside hopefully neutral opinion on it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 10:30:52 GMT -5
Because he would have an outside opinion. Having read the Secret Sect he could see in the 1954 document what lead up to Secret Sect, he could read Magowan's comments, then mine. It would be interesting to get an outside hopefully neutral opinion on it all. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 11:03:18 GMT -5
Because he would have an outside opinion. Having read the Secret Sect he could see in the 1954 document what lead up to Secret Sect, he could read Magowan's comments, then mine. It would be interesting to get an outside hopefully neutral opinion on it all. Come on Dennis, that's kind of lame. People are acting like I'm a wacko, attacking and tarnishing the reputation of Parker when Magowan was way harsher. An outside opinion would be nice. |
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 23, 2015 11:23:34 GMT -5
Because he would have an outside opinion. Having read the Secret Sect he could see in the 1954 document what lead up to Secret Sect, he could read Magowan's comments, then mine. It would be interesting to get an outside hopefully neutral opinion on it all. I assumed that's what you were thinking. However, he isn't interested in the book or the fellowship except as it related to understanding what my husband and I, the newest members of his flock, believed. Since he now knows first hand what we believed on various topics, he has no further interest in the book. His Dad was the one who felt it was valuable in his dealings with the Mormons. He might engage you on some points of doctrine, but not on the book, nor it's development, nor the presumed motivations behind its publication. If you are ever in SoCa, we'll have him over and you can talk to him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 12:40:52 GMT -5
Sir, I know you are an important person. Not lame at all. I know your record where you work, it is to be admired. Wonderful that you have so much paid time to devote here. Unfortunately for me, I do not have such luxury.
Nonetheless, I am not interested in Doug Parker's character nor anyones comments upon it. I know from first hand experience, which, btw, few others posting here have, the truth in that which he had the courage to post over his true identity. It is that only which I am addressing, wishing you and others, even in the past, could restrict yourself accordingly.
Best of wishes in your occupational position, which, if you did not want others to discover you should never have posted that picture to this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 23, 2015 13:06:51 GMT -5
Yes, very very important people read YOUR comments here, Jesse! Come on Dennis, that's kind of lame. People are acting like I'm a wacko, attacking and tarnishing the reputation of Parker when Magowan was way harsher. An outside opinion would be nice. Could we have the link to what Magowan wrote, I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 13:29:54 GMT -5
Sir, I know you are an important person. Not lame at all. I know your record where you work, it is to be admired. Wonderful that you have so much paid time to devote here. Unfortunately for me, I do not have such luxury.
Nonetheless, I am not interested in Doug Parker's character nor anyones comments upon it. I know from first hand experience, which, btw, few others posting here have, the truth in that which he had the courage to post over his true identity. It is that only which I am addressing, wishing you and others, even in the past, could restrict yourself accordingly.
Best of wishes in your occupational position, which, if you did not want others to discover you should never have posted that picture to this forum. I'm not working today, I'm on vacation. I thought some here would find the picture interesting. Why would you think I didn't want people to discover my "occupational position" when I told them straight out what it was?? What does my job and that picture have to with anything on this thread anyway? Weird. This is not like you. Is something wrong? "Don't misunderstand what you don't understand." |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 13:31:34 GMT -5
Talk about attacking the messenger... Wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 13:36:37 GMT -5
Come on Dennis, that's kind of lame. People are acting like I'm a wacko, attacking and tarnishing the reputation of Parker when Magowan was way harsher. An outside opinion would be nice. Could we have the link to what Magowan wrote, I must have missed it. Fixit posted it here; professing.proboards.com/post/655513/thread |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 23, 2015 13:58:36 GMT -5
I agree that the 1954 document was not very moderate. But, to my recollection, "The Secret Sect" (1982) was. (I had a quick look for my copy this am, but it must still be packed from our move.) It would be a rare individual who did not learn a lot in 28 years. |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 23, 2015 14:16:22 GMT -5
For sure, my emotions and feelings of disappointment etc., came out a LOT stronger shortly after being exed, but with time, and process of life, one has hopefully learnt a bit, and accepted things as they are. I imagine Doug and countless others experienced the same. Like snow mentioned about her mother accepting her, as time went on. Some of our professing family went thru the hurtful process of watvhingg us get exed, and their feelings were very strong at that time and super derogatory and painful things were said and done. Now, with passage of time and life, more maturity from all involved we can very much enjoy and love and appreciate each other. If one had wrote down in pamphlet form, and meditated and thought on all that negativity and regurgitated it 28 years later. I suppose all parties involved would self assassinate, as jesse mentioned. It's history and true history but to judge people's character on those high tension times would be foolishness. Give people time, and if time doesn't heal. Which it doesn't always, give them grace and understanding. Easier said than done. Alvin
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 16:18:31 GMT -5
It looks like there is a Canadian export opportunity to the USA on Amazon. Big price spread. Bet it won't last long.
Hi, I checked that on Amazon also. Since I do have two books and one is brand, spanking NEW, -I a bit tempted to sell it!  |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 23, 2015 18:23:28 GMT -5
and the sooner it is dissolved the better.Now I see. No he didn't want to split the fellowship, he wanted to destroy it! (I have heard there are others who have made similar statements.) I do believe he was talking about 'beliefs' being dissolved - that may be different to what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 23, 2015 18:30:57 GMT -5
[/quote]Come on Dennis, that's kind of lame. People are acting like I'm a wacko, attacking and tarnishing the reputation of Parker when Magowan was way harsher. An outside opinion would be nice.
[/quote]
From memory (I stand to be corrected) Magowan was expressing sharp disapproval of Parker's method (his wording and vitriol) rather than the content. Do I recall that he too had bad experiences?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 18:41:55 GMT -5
This is what Magowan had to say of our ungracious, stone
throwing Parker.
"And I could say a great deal more than Douglas about the
iniquities of which he complains. But when I had anything
to say, I said it TO the men themselves. This blazing
abroad of a catalogue of good and evil indiscriminately,
would hardly be done by men my age. We might be expected
to know our own hearts too well; and to remember the
proverb: "they that live in glass houses should not throw
stones."
|
|
That's as close to the book as I've come so far!
