|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 0:01:31 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty , that is a non-answer to the question ! As I said before sounds like how a worker answers a question that they don't have an answer for or don't want to answer ! Other people are not obligated to answer your questions on your terms; that includes strangers to whom you address personal questions over the internet. , of course they are not obligated to answer ! Again great way to avoid answering a simple question ! |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 0:12:34 GMT -5
All groups of people are social organizations - formal or informal. All social organizations have organizational structure, some fluid, some rigid. You are playing a slippery game by pretending that your group is a just some like minded people informally grouped together. 2x2ism is not just the home meetings of Friends and an Elder. There are also Workers. There are also Head Workers. And there are also Overseers. There is a chain of command among those different roles. Elders report to Workers. Workers report to Head Workers. Head Workers report to Overseers. That's an organizational structure. And that's a very FORMAL organizational structure. It's a formal organizational structure just like the RCC also have a formal organizational structure. Sure the 2x2 org structure isn't written down in a document, but that doesn't make it not exist. In fact not writing it down is one of the components in which it becomes despotic. Informal would be an accurate description. Formal, written structures are not necessary or even beneficial for all groups or 'social organizations'. You are arguing that they are necessary for what you call the "2x2s" because, in your view, they are an organization in the same sense as a formally instituted denomination. In reality the group is far less formal than you suggest and the reforms you propose would have a detrimental formalizing effect. Many 'social structures' are neither written down nor despotic. Say I a few of my friends gather together every Friday evening for informal discussions and a game of cards. Maybe I'm even the 'leader' of the organization in the sense that I'm the one responsible for calling people up and making sure they can come and handling cancellations when necessary, and the meetings are held in my home. Certainly thing despotic whatsoever in this relationship. Of course, you'll say the "2x2s" are nothing like this informal structure! There are thousands of these meetings all over the world so they must have some formal structure! Of course there are relationships between them including shared preachers, shared conventions, etc., but the individual meeting is a simple gathering of people in one place for fellowship together, and this is the core of what you call "2x2ism". You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either. You've written down your idea of a particular structure or hierarchy, one 'reporting' to another and so on. However, the facts of whoever reports to whom are not nearly as relevant as you imply, since there is hardly anything to report. What is it that you think an elder reports when he 'reports' to a worker? We had our meeting this week, same as every week. No chain of command is necessary. Even if the elder reports with the workers (and converse would probably be more accurate than report), the workers have no actual control over the meeting. Regardless of the 'organizational structure', if those who are said to control the organization actually have very little control over the way the various parts operate, it cannot be called a despotism. Despotism has a lot more to do with how much control those in power actually wield than about the structure of relationships or whether they're described in a formal written document. said : " You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either." So exactly how do the organize which convention which worker is to attend ? How do they book flights for workers to travel from one country to another ? calleduntoliberty said : "the workers have no actual control over the meeting." What a joke ....... if a person took part in a Sunday Morning meeting, and they had not "professed through a worker first" it wouldn't take long before a worker was told and the person was told they were unable to take part ! Who is it that decides which house is appropriate to have a meeting if its not a worker ? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 1:00:15 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty said : " You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either." So exactly how do the organize which convention which worker is to attend ? How do they book flights for workers to travel from one country to another ? Does it matter? Is there anything despotic about the way workers are chosen to go to convention? Not that I've seen. You and I and simpleton could sit down together and come up with a plan for what we think the best way to allocate workers to conventions would be, but don't you think we should consider that others might have credible opinions as well -- such as the ones actually arranging conventions? Booking a flight is a simple matter that doesn't require a formal organization. Now this is not actually the case unless those in the meeting agree that the person should not have a part. It's not the outside workers who actually see to the practical running of the meeting on a regular basis. If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is. If it's a worker does that make it despotism? It could be done in other ways but if it's a 'worker' who takes the initiative and others agree with it, so be it. There's nothing despotic about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 1:48:51 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty said : " You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either." So exactly how do the organize which convention which worker is to attend ? How do they book flights for workers to travel from one country to another ? Does it matter? Is there anything despotic about the way workers are chosen to go to convention? Not that I've seen. You and I and simpleton could sit down together and come up with a plan for what we think the best way to allocate workers to conventions would be, but don't you think we should consider that others might have credible opinions as well -- such as the ones actually arranging conventions? Booking a flight is a simple matter that doesn't require a formal organization. Now this is not actually the case unless those in the meeting agree that the person should not have a part. It's not the outside workers who actually see to the practical running of the meeting on a regular basis. If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is. If it's a worker does that make it despotism? It could be done in other ways but if it's a 'worker' who takes the initiative and others agree with it, so be it. There's nothing despotic about that. , I suggest you have a visit down under ! Because I know for a fact that if a person who had not professed in a mission spoke in a meeting, the workers would be notified & the person would be spoken to. The Elder answers to the worker who answers to the Overseer, to try and portray this doesn't happen is wrong ! Also you say booking a flight for a worker doesn't require formal organization, so who exactly pays for the flight ? Who organizes exactly where they fly to ? You only have to look at what happen to Eddie Cooney when he said the workers should be lead by the spirit to preach where they felt appropriate.... to see how organised this so called simple way really is ! Also go and start a meeting somewhere without first discussing it with a worker, see how long it is before you get a visit from a worker ! |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 2:29:49 GMT -5
anytoll, I suggest you have a visit down under ! Because I know for a fact that if a person who had not professed in a mission spoke in a meeting, the workers would be notified & the person would be spoken to. Speaking in a meeting is essentially an act of profession in itself. If the elder with the rest of the meeting ask someone not to speak in their meeting then that must be respected. Someone does. No formal structure is necessary to book a flight. Any individual can book and pay for a flight by contacting the airline. The concept of workers being led by the Holy Spirit and going where they are called by God to go is correct. If they do not feel a definite specific calling then it is not wrong to get together and make the decisions they believe are best, with continued prayer. But if the Holy Spirit leads otherwise then the servant of God must be willing to lay aside his prior plans and go where God leads. If I were led by the Holy Spirit to do that then I would be in the right. But if it were not of God, only my own will, I would be in the wrong if a worker of anyone came to speak to me about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 2:40:49 GMT -5
anytoll, I suggest you have a visit down under ! Because I know for a fact that if a person who had not professed in a mission spoke in a meeting, the workers would be notified & the person would be spoken to. Speaking in a meeting is essentially an act of profession in itself. If the elder with the rest of the meeting ask someone not to speak in their meeting then that must be respected. Someone does. No formal structure is necessary to book a flight. Any individual can book and pay for a flight by contacting the airline. The concept of workers being led by the Holy Spirit and going where they are called by God to go is correct. If they do not feel a definite specific calling then it is not wrong to get together and make the decisions they believe are best, with continued prayer. But if the Holy Spirit leads otherwise then the servant of God must be willing to lay aside his prior plans and go where God leads. If I were led by the Holy Spirit to do that then I would be in the right. But if it were not of God, only my own will, I would be in the wrong if a worker of anyone came to speak to me about it. , again you are skirting around the issue, speaking in a meeting may very well be an act of profession, BUT that does not mean a person can speak in a meeting without first professing through a worker, or that in fact if they did a worker would very quickly visit to speak to them. Things must be a lot different where you live ! Also, are you saying workers go and preach where they feel called ? If so what is the purpose of a workers list ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 7:35:53 GMT -5
All groups of people are social organizations - formal or informal. All social organizations have organizational structure, some fluid, some rigid. You are playing a slippery game by pretending that your group is a just some like minded people informally grouped together. 2x2ism is not just the home meetings of Friends and an Elder. There are also Workers. There are also Head Workers. And there are also Overseers. There is a chain of command among those different roles. Elders report to Workers. Workers report to Head Workers. Head Workers report to Overseers. That's an organizational structure. And that's a very FORMAL organizational structure. It's a formal organizational structure just like the RCC also have a formal organizational structure. Sure the 2x2 org structure isn't written down in a document, but that doesn't make it not exist. In fact not writing it down is one of the components in which it becomes despotic. Informal would be an accurate description. Formal, written structures are not necessary or even beneficial for all groups or 'social organizations'. You are arguing that they are necessary for what you call the "2x2s" because, in your view, they are an organization in the same sense as a formally instituted denomination. In reality the group is far less formal than you suggest and the reforms you propose would have a detrimental formalizing effect. Many 'social structures' are neither written down nor despotic. Say I a few of my friends gather together every Friday evening for informal discussions and a game of cards. Maybe I'm even the 'leader' of the organization in the sense that I'm the one responsible for calling people up and making sure they can come and handling cancellations when necessary, and the meetings are held in my home. Certainly thing despotic whatsoever in this relationship. Of course, you'll say the "2x2s" are nothing like this informal structure! There are thousands of these meetings all over the world so they must have some formal structure! Of course there are relationships between them including shared preachers, shared conventions, etc., but the individual meeting is a simple gathering of people in one place for fellowship together, and this is the core of what you call "2x2ism". You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either. You've written down your idea of a particular structure or hierarchy, one 'reporting' to another and so on. However, the facts of whoever reports to whom are not nearly as relevant as you imply, since there is hardly anything to report. What is it that you think an elder reports when he 'reports' to a worker? We had our meeting this week, same as every week. No chain of command is necessary. Even if the elder reports with the workers (and converse would probably be more accurate than report), the workers have no actual control over the meeting. Regardless of the 'organizational structure', if those who are said to control the organization actually have very little control over the way the various parts operate, it cannot be called a despotism. Despotism has a lot more to do with how much control those in power actually wield than about the structure of relationships or whether they're described in a formal written document. So now you've backed your argument all the way into a corner and are now trying to weasel around the word 'report'. You've interpreted that in this context the word means to converse. Either you have a very bad grasp on English or you are trying to be as daft as possible, but in this context (basically workplace management or org structure analysis) the word 'report' means someone whose position is directly below that of another person, and who is managed by that person. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/direct-reportAnd that is exactly what the relationship is between Elder to Worker and Worker to Overseer. If it were not this way, then Elders could be elected by the Friends in their region, or Workers could be elected by Elders or Friends. If it were not this way, there wouldn't be so many ex-workers on the TMB who were put out of the 'Work' by Overseers. Chatting with you is similar to talking to one of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm. I should remind you that there are few sheep here to help you with your nefarious activities. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 14:38:13 GMT -5
Speaking in a meeting is essentially an act of profession in itself. If the elder with the rest of the meeting ask someone not to speak in their meeting then that must be respected. Someone does. No formal structure is necessary to book a flight. Any individual can book and pay for a flight by contacting the airline. The concept of workers being led by the Holy Spirit and going where they are called by God to go is correct. If they do not feel a definite specific calling then it is not wrong to get together and make the decisions they believe are best, with continued prayer. But if the Holy Spirit leads otherwise then the servant of God must be willing to lay aside his prior plans and go where God leads. If I were led by the Holy Spirit to do that then I would be in the right. But if it were not of God, only my own will, I would be in the wrong if a worker of anyone came to speak to me about it. , again you are skirting around the issue, speaking in a meeting may very well be an act of profession, BUT that does not mean a person can speak in a meeting without first professing through a worker, or that in fact if they did a worker would very quickly visit to speak to them. Hopefully that visit from the worker would be a good time of fellowship. I'm not skirting around the issue; I'm getting to the core of the issue. An itinerant preacher is not a regular member of that particular local church. If a person is allowed to speak by the actual members of the local church then he is allowed to speak. Whether right or wrong, they are the church and must make the decision. What if a worker comes and privately tells the person not to speak in the meeting? Is it right for him to deny the others in the meeting an edifying testimony? He should examine himself carefully, but if it is right then he should continue to speak unless told not to by the actual members of the meeting. Human nature and the human condition are basically the same. Human relations very seldom work out just as they should. We must be patient and endure with one another, being faithful to God, not dependent on the opinions of men. What I said is that it is right for workers to be led by the Holy Spirit, going where he calls them. The purpose of a list is to facilitate working together and to give people an approximate idea of who will be where. It should not supercede the leading of the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 14:51:11 GMT -5
So now you've backed your argument all the way into a corner and are now trying to weasel around the word 'report'. You've interpreted that in this context the word means to converse. Either you have a very bad grasp on English or you are trying to be as daft as possible, but in this context (basically workplace management or org structure analysis) the word 'report' means someone whose position is directly below that of another person, and who is managed by that person. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/direct-reportAnd that is exactly what the relationship is between Elder to Worker and Worker to Overseer. If it were not this way, then Elders could be elected by the Friends in their region, or Workers could be elected by Elders or Friends. If it were not this way, there wouldn't be so many ex-workers on the TMB who were put out of the 'Work' by Overseers. Chatting with you is similar to talking to one of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm. I should remind you that there are few sheep here to help you with your nefarious activities. You can sit there and twist words all you like; it doesn't make your claims true. Workplace management and organizational structure are not relevant topics. Elders are not "managed" by workers. There is interaction between them but it does not work the way you describe. The relationship between an employee and a manager does not compare in any meaningful way with that between an elder and a worker. As I mentioned, elders could be chosen by election but it doesn't have to be that way. You seem to have completely missed the end of my post which contained the main point. Or you chose to ignore it. Regardless of the 'organizational structure', if those who are said to control the organization actually have very little control over the way the various parts operate, it cannot be called a despotism. Despotism has a lot more to do with how much control those in power actually wield than about the structure of relationships or whether they're described in a formal written document. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 15, 2016 15:52:05 GMT -5
calleduntoliberty said : " You'll emphasize the 'workers' but there is nothing about the way they travel and minister from place to place that requires any sort of formalization either." So exactly how do the organize which convention which worker is to attend ? How do they book flights for workers to travel from one country to another ? Does it matter? Is there anything despotic about the way workers are chosen to go to convention? Not that I've seen. You and I and simpleton could sit down together and come up with a plan for what we think the best way to allocate workers to conventions would be, but don't you think we should consider that others might have credible opinions as well -- such as the ones actually arranging conventions? Booking a flight is a simple matter that doesn't require a formal organization. Now this is not actually the case unless those in the meeting agree that the person should not have a part. It's not the outside workers who actually see to the practical running of the meeting on a regular basis. If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is. If it's a worker does that make it despotism? It could be done in other ways but if it's a 'worker' who takes the initiative and others agree with it, so be it. There's nothing despotic about that. "If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is" do you hold that a person should (or has to) stand in a meeting engaging in that rite of "professing" before taking part? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 16:04:42 GMT -5
"If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is" do you hold that a person should (or has to) stand in a meeting engaging in that rite of "professing" before taking part? No, I don't hold that standing in a particular meeting in response to an invitation to do so is necessary before beginning to speak in the meetings. I don't hold any objections to the practice of standing as a form of communicating a profession of faith and desire to serve God. Nor do I feel that I can tell another person when or whether to speak in the meetings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 16:46:13 GMT -5
So now you've backed your argument all the way into a corner and are now trying to weasel around the word 'report'. You've interpreted that in this context the word means to converse. Either you have a very bad grasp on English or you are trying to be as daft as possible, but in this context (basically workplace management or org structure analysis) the word 'report' means someone whose position is directly below that of another person, and who is managed by that person. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/direct-reportAnd that is exactly what the relationship is between Elder to Worker and Worker to Overseer. If it were not this way, then Elders could be elected by the Friends in their region, or Workers could be elected by Elders or Friends. If it were not this way, there wouldn't be so many ex-workers on the TMB who were put out of the 'Work' by Overseers. Chatting with you is similar to talking to one of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm. I should remind you that there are few sheep here to help you with your nefarious activities. You can sit there and twist words all you like; it doesn't make your claims true. Workplace management and organizational structure are not relevant topics. Elders are not "managed" by workers. There is interaction between them but it does not work the way you describe. The relationship between an employee and a manager does not compare in any meaningful way with that between an elder and a worker. As I mentioned, elders could be chosen by election but it doesn't have to be that way. You seem to have completely missed the end of my post which contained the main point. Or you chose to ignore it. Regardless of the 'organizational structure', if those who are said to control the organization actually have very little control over the way the various parts operate, it cannot be called a despotism. Despotism has a lot more to do with how much control those in power actually wield than about the structure of relationships or whether they're described in a formal written document. You concede that elders could be elected in theory (though none has ever been elected). Has a 'field' ever demoted or fired an 'elder' via an election process? No it has not. ALL demotions of elders have been done by Workers. Do Friends in a Field elected which home will have a Meeting in it? No. Workers have ALWAYS decided that. What about Workers themselves? Can a 'field' elect a Worker? It has never happened. Has a Field ever removed a Worker by election process? Never happened. You are spinning a line of nonsense. There is a very rigid org structure in 2x2ism: Overseers over Head Workers, Head Workers over Workers, Workers over Elders, and Elders over Friends. You can pretend all you want what you think the definition of Despotism is, but there actually is a Political Science definition of Despotism, which I put in the OP. 2x2ism is Despotism to a Tee. Some 2x2s are more equal than others. You really should read Animal Farm - it's completely about 2x2ism.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 16:48:13 GMT -5
"If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is" do you hold that a person should (or has to) stand in a meeting engaging in that rite of "professing" before taking part? No, I don't hold that standing in a particular meeting in response to an invitation to do so is necessary before beginning to speak in the meetings. I don't hold any objections to the practice of standing as a form of communicating a profession of faith and desire to serve God. Nor do I feel that I can tell another person when or whether to speak in the meetings.What a load of malarkey. The very fact that a person can be barred from entering an Elder's home for meeting, is more than sufficient to stop them from speaking in said meeting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 17:16:14 GMT -5
You can sit there and twist words all you like; it doesn't make your claims true. Workplace management and organizational structure are not relevant topics. Elders are not "managed" by workers. There is interaction between them but it does not work the way you describe. The relationship between an employee and a manager does not compare in any meaningful way with that between an elder and a worker. As I mentioned, elders could be chosen by election but it doesn't have to be that way. You seem to have completely missed the end of my post which contained the main point. Or you chose to ignore it. You concede that elders could be elected in theory (though none has ever been elected). Has a 'field' ever demoted or fired an 'elder' via an election process? No it has not. ALL demotions of elders have been done by Workers. Do Friends in a Field elected which home will have a Meeting in it? No. Workers have ALWAYS decided that. What about Workers themselves? Can a 'field' elect a Worker? It has never happened. Has a Field ever removed a Worker by election process? Never happened. You are spinning a line of nonsense. There is a very rigid org structure in 2x2ism: Overseers over Head Workers, Head Workers over Workers, Workers over Elders, and Elders over Friends. You can pretend all you want what you think the definition of Despotism is, but there actually is a Political Science definition of Despotism, which I put in the OP. 2x2ism is Despotism to a Tee. Some 2x2s are more equal than others. You really should read Animal Farm - it's completely about 2x2ism. the elders in the seattle field got together and removed a worker back in the 90's saw it happen with my own eyes... |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on May 15, 2016 17:32:48 GMT -5
I think it depends on the particular Elder of the church and the rest of the congregation. I live 'downunder' and for 3 years I attended a Sunday morning fellowship meeting that a man came to who had never professed, I doubt he'd ever gone to a Gospel meeting, the workers visited that home regularly and that gentleman often took part, nothing was ever said by either friends or workers....so whilst I apologise for you experiences Roselyn T, from which you cast your opinion, I can only draw on my own. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 17:50:12 GMT -5
You're making a category error when you use the term 'despotism' in the context of this group. It is a political term. By the definition, the term cannot apply to voluntary associations of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 17:58:56 GMT -5
The very fact that a person can be barred from entering an Elder's home for meeting, is more than sufficient to stop them from speaking in said meeting. You don't realize it, but what you said actually agrees with my position. Who is able to deny a person entry into a privately owned home? The owner of the home, or some outside party? As a voluntary association, the church does not have to allow anyone to speak. As the house is the private property of the elder, the elder can deny entry to any person he chooses. Any local church or institution that owns property through a corporation can also ban any person from entry onto its property. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 18:17:06 GMT -5
You're making a category error when you use the term 'despotism' in the context of this group. It is a political term. By the definition, the term cannot apply to voluntary associations of people. Despotism is a word which applies to organizational structures. There are despotic corporations, despotic governments, and despotic religious groups. All groups of people have an org structure. 2x2ism = despotism. Graham Thompson's Letter www.2x2ministry.org/letters/Graham_Thompson_letter.phpIf anything you said was true, there would never have been any mass excommunications of Friends by Workers in 2x2ism. Unfortunately for you the facts are otherwise. See Alberta for more www.thelyingtruth.info/?f=exc&id=alberta |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 20:08:58 GMT -5
I think it depends on the particular Elder of the church and the rest of the congregation. I live 'downunder' and for 3 years I attended a Sunday morning fellowship meeting that a man came to who had never professed, I doubt he'd ever gone to a Gospel meeting, the workers visited that home regularly and that gentleman often took part, nothing was ever said by either friends or workers....so whilst I apologise for you experiences Roselyn T, from which you cast your opinion, I can only draw on my own. , how many other meetings do you know of that this would happen ? I would say its the exception not the rule ! |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 15, 2016 20:52:59 GMT -5
"If the elder along with the rest of the meeting tell the person that he is welcome to have a part in the meeting, then he is" do you hold that a person should (or has to) stand in a meeting engaging in that rite of "professing" before taking part? No, I don't hold that standing in a particular meeting in response to an invitation to do so is necessary before beginning to speak in the meetings. I don't hold any objections to the practice of standing as a form of communicating a profession of faith and desire to serve God. Nor do I feel that I can tell another person when or whether to speak in the meetings. , do you believe your view on this is the view of all workers & overseers ? |
|
|
|
Post by kittens on May 15, 2016 21:56:00 GMT -5
I think it depends on the particular Elder of the church and the rest of the congregation. I live 'downunder' and for 3 years I attended a Sunday morning fellowship meeting that a man came to who had never professed, I doubt he'd ever gone to a Gospel meeting, the workers visited that home regularly and that gentleman often took part, nothing was ever said by either friends or workers....so whilst I apologise for you experiences Roselyn T , from which you cast your opinion, I can only draw on my own. , how many other meetings do you know of that this would happen ? I would say its the exception not the rule !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 22:52:26 GMT -5
howitis , how many other meetings do you know of that this would happen ? I would say its the exception not the rule ! I have also been in meetings where 'outsiders' or those considered 'not worthy' have been asked to leave or had it made so uncomfortable for them that they have no choice but to leave. If they speak or pray no-one says amen, if they choose a hymn it gets ignored. If they are one of the last to speak or pray the elder will cut them off. If workers are in the district at the time it seems to depend on the individual worker how they react too.
in the pacific north west I have never seen or heard of such behavior in meetings...when I was shunned it was all up front and obvious as to what was required of me beforehand no discipline went on during meetings... |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 23:23:06 GMT -5
No, I don't hold that standing in a particular meeting in response to an invitation to do so is necessary before beginning to speak in the meetings. I don't hold any objections to the practice of standing as a form of communicating a profession of faith and desire to serve God. Nor do I feel that I can tell another person when or whether to speak in the meetings. , do you believe your view on this is the view of all workers & overseers ? Of course not. They're all individuals and they have their own views. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 23:27:20 GMT -5
You're making a category error when you use the term 'despotism' in the context of this group. It is a political term. By the definition, the term cannot apply to voluntary associations of people. Despotism is a word which applies to organizational structures. There are despotic corporations, despotic governments, and despotic religious groups. All groups of people have an org structure. 2x2ism = despotism. You have your own unique personal definition of that word. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 15, 2016 23:29:17 GMT -5
It's also incorrect to say workers have no control over a meeting. They have total control - Alberta will give you relevant insight. And the organisational structure was clearly documented for all to see. Willis Propp was forced to apologise for telling the truth. Thank you. Alberta illustrates my point. According to the available information, those in Alberta continued meeting together. The 'workers' had no control over the meeting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 23:44:57 GMT -5
It's also incorrect to say workers have no control over a meeting. They have total control - Alberta will give you relevant insight. And the organisational structure was clearly documented for all to see. Willis Propp was forced to apologise for telling the truth. Thank you. Alberta illustrates my point. According to the available information, those in Alberta continued meeting together. The 'workers' had no control over the meeting. We gave you a link to the 1999 Alberta story. Many people were excommunicated. The Workers purposely forbade folks from going to meetings in certain homes, instructions which many people obeyed. That's just how much power these untrained half-wit 2x2 ministers have. To call them Workers is to insult people who actually work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 7:50:16 GMT -5
The friends have more power than they can imagine.... Just say so and so worker has been accused of CSA... the friends can tell the older worker that so and so worker is NOT welcome to come into my home for the safety of my children, until we know somebody is doing something about it. The workers can NOT force themselves into your homes. The workers will NOT stay in homes where they are NOT welcome. Until Workers are elected by the Field, there will be problems. Workers need to understand that they are 'employees' of the Friends in the field, and that if they act inappropriately then they will be fired. At the moment with unelected Workers, the only reason some Friends' concerns are being address is because 2x2ism cannot afford to lose any more Friends - and that is because of all the people who already left. Yes, you heard that right - any reforms or changes for the better 2x2ism has made is directly the result of all the folks who have left. So if you are 2x2, you should be thanking all the people who left over the years, because they made all the positive changes possible. You 2x2s who have remained inside are only the 'free riders', the sheep who have gotten the benefit of reforms without you having to risk anything. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 16, 2016 16:07:25 GMT -5
Thinking in terms of power may not be the best. We should not think in political terms as if that were how God's people are to relate to one another. We should be known for our love for one another, not our power over one another.
God gives us all the power to do what he asks us to do. We should not seek the power to do our own wills. If someone asks us to do something that violates our conscience, we have the power because the life of God gives power to do right.
Ross - do you have extra information we don't have about conventions ("were not invited to conventions")? Generally most people are not individually invited to conventions, so one does not expect an individual invitation. One simply attends if one chooses to. I am not aware of whether any of those in Alberta continuing attending conventions or not. They certainly could have if they had chosen to, just the same as attending weekly meetings, since conventions are generally held on private property. Going onto the property is the same as going into a house for a meeting. And if all the preachers refuse to show up for convention because the property owner allowed certain people there? Just as with regular meetings, a convention could still be held. Logistically it's obviously a lot more complicated if a lot of people involved in organizing the event suddenly refuse to be involved, but it could still be done. If the owner tells them not to, then that's effectively the same as a meeting elder telling them not to enter his home. They could organize another convention elsewhere, just as they could start a weekly meeting elsewhere.
simpleton - certainly not! All Christians are workers for God. We should certainly not be thinking of ourselves as one another's employees. We belong to God and should seek his will, not to please men. This is also true for any specific ministry role whether election or lot or nomination or volunteering or any other method is used.
I don't agree with your analysis about those who have left helping to improve conditions for those who stay. Something like that could be said for those in Alberta who followed their consciences and showed charity rather than rejecting their brethren. They didn't just wander out, leaving others to wonder at what they were doing. They made a conscious decision, not to leave, but to continue meeting in fellowship with their fellow believers. I couldn't make any general statement about people who "leave" being a help to those who stayed.
|
|
