Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 16:58:59 GMT -5
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. I didn't know that God pays Workers. Interesting. Does God also pay for conventions? Does God pay for all the retired Workers living in old folks homes? Remember the Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2016 21:27:48 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. The balance of power has definitely shifted but as Kittens says power is still abused in parts of Australia. One couple were asked to move away from their country town two years ago by a sister worker to avoid a problem that was not of their making. They duly moved rather than telling the worker to mind her own business. Some people out here are still under this silly fear of something bad happening if a worker tells you to do something and you disagree. Any balance of power that has changed is directly the result of the fact that so many people have left 2x2ism in the past. Pressure makes changes. And nothing is greater pressure than seeing the congregation halve. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 16, 2016 22:39:54 GMT -5
The balance of power has definitely shifted but as Kittens says power is still abused in parts of Australia. One couple were asked to move away from their country town two years ago by a sister worker to avoid a problem that was not of their making. They duly moved rather than telling the worker to mind her own business. Some people out here are still under this silly fear of something bad happening if a worker tells you to do something and you disagree. Any balance of power that has changed is directly the result of the fact that so many people have left 2x2ism in the past. Pressure makes changes. And nothing is greater pressure than seeing the congregation halve. On the other hand, if it were really the ones with the better understanding who tended to leave, the balance would tend toward the other direction. The ones who stayed would tend to be the ones more committed to the 'worker system' -- if that's really what this were all about. There are obviously multiple factors at work. The perceived risk of people leaving can be influence on any group, for better or for worse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 4:20:42 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. Anytoll - it's a little different in Australia. The friends are invited to a Convention by a notice sent out by the Head Worker to meeting elders. The friends have to tell the elder of their meeting the names of people attending the particular convention and whether you require accommodation. You have to RSVP by a certain date. In New South Wales, you are asked not to attend a second convention. When you get to Convention you get told via a list (or the worker at the gate) which tent you are in (Row B, Number 5). You then look at the jobs list to see what job the workers have allocated you. If you have been moved from waiting on tables last year to pot washing this year, the workers are likely sending you a message....  Well, here is another example where the practices in the fellowship are not universal as we have been led to believe. In another thread I was informed that in Australia the emblems are taken at conventions, in other areas it is considered impractical. It appears like Australia is somewhat unique in many ways- an exception rather than the rule. Australia therefore cannot be taken to represent a universal model of the F&W fellowship, that would include the "power system" also. We don't often speak the same language, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 17, 2016 16:44:24 GMT -5
Anytoll - it's a little different in Australia. The friends are invited to a Convention by a notice sent out by the Head Worker to meeting elders. The friends have to tell the elder of their meeting the names of people attending the particular convention and whether you require accommodation. You have to RSVP by a certain date. In New South Wales, you are asked not to attend a second convention. When you get to Convention you get told via a list (or the worker at the gate) which tent you are in (Row B, Number 5). You then look at the jobs list to see what job the workers have allocated you. If you have been moved from waiting on tables last year to pot washing this year, the workers are likely sending you a message.... Huh. Wow. Well, thank you for the information, Ross. That is good to know. Someone who didn't know better might have thought folks in Australia had the same things we had going on in the rest of the world. Quite different, it seems. I suppose maybe it would make it easy for those who would like jobs to find them. It is nice to be able to contribute. Does everyone have jobs? Usually it seems like there are a lot more people than jobs at most conventions. Of course, we were talking about Alberta. Those in Alberta could have continued to attend convention just the same as before -- unless the property owner says otherwise -- just show up. Despite the strange practices in Australia, it would technically be the same there, as well. It still comes down to property rights. If they show up and anyone objects, the property owner is the final authority on earth as to whether or not any person may be there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 17:17:59 GMT -5
Anytoll - it's a little different in Australia. The friends are invited to a Convention by a notice sent out by the Head Worker to meeting elders. The friends have to tell the elder of their meeting the names of people attending the particular convention and whether you require accommodation. You have to RSVP by a certain date. In New South Wales, you are asked not to attend a second convention. When you get to Convention you get told via a list (or the worker at the gate) which tent you are in (Row B, Number 5). You then look at the jobs list to see what job the workers have allocated you. If you have been moved from waiting on tables last year to pot washing this year, the workers are likely sending you a message.... Huh. Wow. Well, thank you for the information, Ross. That is good to know. Someone who didn't know better might have thought folks in Australia had the same things we had going on in the rest of the world. Quite different, it seems. I suppose maybe it would make it easy for those who would like jobs to find them. It is nice to be able to contribute. Does everyone have jobs? Usually it seems like there are a lot more people than jobs at most conventions. Of course, we were talking about Alberta. Those in Alberta could have continued to attend convention just the same as before -- unless the property owner says otherwise -- just show up. Despite the strange practices in Australia, it would technically be the same there, as well. It still comes down to property rights. If they show up and anyone objects, the property owner is the final authority on earth as to whether or not any person may be there.Nice slippery work. You must be with the Pigs. What happens if the property owner of the convention ground says the excommunicated Alberta folks can attend convention, but the Overseer disagrees? Obviously the property owner acquiesce to the Overseer since the property owner doesn't want any trouble from the Workers - convention being revoked, financial support of convention facilities withheld, etc. He who controls the money, controls the show. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 18, 2016 11:26:23 GMT -5
What happens if the property owner of the convention ground says the excommunicated Alberta folks can attend convention, but the Overseer disagrees? This probably depends on how independent the owner is and how secure s/he is in the decision made.From what I have seen there are convention ground owners that can support their property without the financial support of the workers. The workers, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to find a new venue.Not if they are trying to control those with even more money... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 18:51:00 GMT -5
What happens if the property owner of the convention ground says the excommunicated Alberta folks can attend convention, but the Overseer disagrees? This probably depends on how independent the owner is and how secure s/he is in the decision made.From what I have seen there are convention ground owners that can support their property without the financial support of the workers. The workers, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to find a new venue.Not if they are trying to control those with even more money... So you've seen at least one convention ground owner who you don't think was taking subsidies from the workers. That's one data point, and not even one confirmed data point - just one speculative data point It's time to learn how induction works, Irrational. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 16:59:04 GMT -5
This probably depends on how independent the owner is and how secure s/he is in the decision made.From what I have seen there are convention ground owners that can support their property without the financial support of the workers. The workers, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to find a new venue.Not if they are trying to control those with even more money... So you've seen at least one convention ground owner who you don't think was taking subsidies from the workers. Here is an incorrect assumption you made. The discussion was not whether or not the owners were getting subsidies from the workers but whether they could be controlled by the workers because of their financial contribution. I only stated that I knew owners who could manage to run the convention grounds without financial aid from the workers so they were not as dependent on the workers as you were implying. Your blanket statement about owners being controlled because of the financial contribution of the workers is not universal.Nope. I didn't say I knew of only a single case, in fact I can think of at least three sites where the normal business of the convention ground owners could fund the conventions without the financial help of the workers. I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion but I doubt it was from any firm data points. I wonder if I am being inducted into something! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 17:04:48 GMT -5
So you've seen at least one convention ground owner who you don't think was taking subsidies from the workers. Here is an incorrect assumption you made. The discussion was not whether or not the owners were getting subsidies from the workers but whether they could be controlled by the workers because of their financial contribution. I only stated that I knew owners who could manage to run the convention grounds without financial aid from the workers so they were not as dependent on the workers as you were implying. Your blanket statement about owners being controlled because of the financial contribution of the workers is not universal.Nope. I didn't say I knew of only a single case, in fact I can think of at least three sites where the normal business of the convention ground owners could fund the conventions without the financial help of the workers. I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion but I doubt it was from any firm data points. I wonder if I am being inducted into something! While you may have three examples where the owner 'could' fund the convention grounds themselves, you do not know if that is actually what is going on. It is just as likely that those grounds are being subsidized. And even in the owner could run it from his own cash flow, he much prefers the subsidy. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 17:12:50 GMT -5
While you may have three examples where the owner 'could' fund the convention grounds themselves, you do not know if that is actually what is going on. No, I do not. But then, you do not know either.Being subsidized and being able to be controlled because the subsidy is required are two different points.And you know this because....? There may well be owners with financial stability that allows them to contribute their establishment to be used for convention and not take any subsidy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 17:29:16 GMT -5
While you may have three examples where the owner 'could' fund the convention grounds themselves, you do not know if that is actually what is going on. No, I do not. But then, you do not know either.Being subsidized and being able to be controlled because the subsidy is required are two different points.And you know this because....? There may well be owners with financial stability that allows them to contribute their establishment to be used for convention and not take any subsidy. A subsidy means that the owner is able to direct cash flow that otherwise would go to the convention grounds, instead to one of his personal ventures. If the subsidy were removed, then his personal venture would be cash flow constrained. So while the subsidy might not be necessary for him to keep the convention ground operational, the subsidy is very important to him. That's enough to make him very easy to influence by Workers. It's only owners who take no subsidies, have lots of extra cash flow, and have no need to ever sell the convention grounds, who are the only owners who are impervious to Worker influence in regards to money. They might be influenced due to other means - status, honor, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 20, 2016 18:31:24 GMT -5
A subsidy means that the owner is able to direct cash flow that otherwise would go to the convention grounds, instead to one of his personal ventures. If the subsidy were removed, then his personal venture would be cash flow constrained. So while the subsidy might not be necessary for him to keep the convention ground operational, the subsidy is very important to him. Not everyone is as driven by money as you seem to be implying. If an owner has an enterprise that is thriving then diverting $500,000 to a cause they believe in is not a big issue.Again, if the owners are as materialistic as you seem to believe.Those are all possibilities but you have strayed from your original assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 15, 2017 20:28:38 GMT -5
Excommunication,according to Bishop/Worker think. Not fit for the Bishop/Worker to allow into Heaven/Eternal life,so you are put into Damnation/Hell?Lost Eternity."IF THIS IS WRONG?. THEN WHAT IS IT?". Nathan B,Bert and Brad please what is your version,don;t give a waffle or evasive answer,please. It is either right or wrong,one or the other,isn't it? What is your thoughts Simpleton?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 20:36:51 GMT -5
Excommunication,according to Bishop/Worker think. Not fit for the Bishop/Worker to allow into Heaven/Eternal life,so you are put into Damnation/Hell?Lost Eternity."IF THIS IS WRONG?. THEN WHAT IS IT?". Nathan B,Bert and Brad please what is your version,don;t give a waffle or evasive answer,please. It is either right or wrong,one or the other,isn't it? What is your thoughts Simpleton? Almost as great of gift from God as being baptized, is to be excommunicated by 2x2 ministers from their illegal cult. Now that's a 'born again' Christian. |
|
