Hi folks

LOL, you're right Covlass those are some quite important rules that I missed out and I'm sure there must be some more that have escaped my mind just now - but I'll have a think and maybe post a rule book part 2 later. :-)

Ifellaway, you crack me up!! Although it's very funny it does also make a complete mockery of the discernment rubbish doesn't it? It's all just so much verbal diahorrea and stinks to High Heaven - even God must be holding his nose!

I asked a current SMC member, recently, why they had never gotten married and I nearly fell over when I got the standard SMC reply "Oh well, I TOLD God many years ago that if he wanted me to get married he would have to slap me in the face with the right person and so far He hasn't (slapped me in the face, that is)": I must admit I was tempted to slap the person in the face myself to wake them up! My, my, my - so 30 odd years on they are still TELLING God how to deal with them. I heard that line so many times in testimonies and chatting with folks, while I attended the church, and if I'd been paid £1 every time I heard it I'd be a very rich woman by now!! :-)

Does it not occur to any of them that God is not going to do everything for them - He actually wants us to do things for ourselves most of the time and just lean on him for support through life. Sure he might work a miracle here and there but it's not a GIVEN that because someone is a Christian they can automatically expect God to do everything for them and just sit back and wait for it all to happen TO them. Anyway, I resisted the urge to fall about laughing and just smiled sweetly and said "Oh, dear that's a pity!"

As always biiiiiiiiig love and huge huggggggggs to all.
God Bless xxx

PS. I loooove black pudding - I'm obviously demon possessed though! :-)

CBarb

The problem is; and I picked this up from my very short time at Struthers, is that most people are not taught to hear God for themselves, or use common sense. It's like in Old Testament times where the high priest sought the face of God on behalf of the people and then came back and told the people what God had said. The average bod at Struthers is taught that they are too unholy to hear God for themselves. Also they are so sinful, so either God wouldn't want to speak to them directly in case he got so angry at their sin that he would strike them down, or God could speak to them, but they couldn't hear him over the din of their sinful desires. Therefore the leaders have to go to God on behalf of the people, as they are the only ones who are finely attuned to the Spirit of God.

And he we go, back round the mulberry bush. The people can't really hear God for themselves, so they rely on the leaders. And if you disagree with what the leaders say/decide/choose for you are, in fact disagreeing with what God says/wants/chooses for you.

I have heard Diana address young people on the point of marriage and tell them not to expect to get married. In fact to do the opposite. She said that God is big enough to find you a partner and show you who that is, if he wants you to marry. Now I don't doubt that God is, but he gave us a brain for a reason. As we know, the bible gives us insight into finding a partner; the kind of qualities to look for in a man or woman.

However, we have the Struthers form of control where you are not expected to look for a husband or wife for yourself. Of course it is sinful to look at a man/woman and think he/she would make a good husband/wife. Struthers members should expect to do nothing apart from those actions and activities that are expressly directed by Struthers leaders. Maybe that's another rule to add to your 2nd volume.

Oh and you're right, you are sinful to like black pudding. Next you'll be telling me you're wearing lipstick



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2013 05:40AM by CovLass.

Hi Covlass,

Yes, you are so right and, when you put it that way, I can clearly remember such words and phrases being used by Miss T & Co. back in the day. I can see how the majority of what we were taught were OLD testament teachings interspersed with Miss T's and Mr. B's own versions of Biblical events and teachings. So it's really like they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God at all, or at least that he really died for nothing - if we're all still so sinful that his blood wasn't enough to allow us to communicate directly with God for ourselves. Hmmm, is that blasphemy?

Wasn't it BECAUSE of unscrupulous leaders that God sent Jesus to give the ordinary man (and woman) a direct line to himself and take the absolute power AWAY from those false prophets? Definitely food for thought.

Yes, I think volume 2 of the rulebook will have A LOT more rules in it :-)

And, yes I'm really sinful - I'm not wearing lipstick right now but I have been known to purse my cherry-reds now and then - ooops, I guess I ought to be on my knees doing penance then. But just let me finish this black pudding supper first please. :-)

As always biiiiiig love and huge hugggggggs
God bless xxx

Sorry, just to pick up on something else you said, Covlass,

"I have heard Diana address young people on the point of marriage and tell them not to expect to get married. In fact to do the opposite. She said that God is big enough to find you a partner and show you who that is, if he wants you to marry."

I have to wonder.. if DR thinks that's true, why did she steal someone else's man? Did God get the original relationship wrong then? hmmmm, more food for thought?

Hey CBarb

The thing that really stuck in my throat with Struthers and it was the thing that caused me to leave, was this underlying theme that the cross wasn't enough. The talks of "truly repenting," of having a "deep sorrow for ones sins," like you had to make up for your wrong doings to God and go through a time of penance, in order for God to forgive you and for Struthers leaders to pronounce you as "clean" rang massive alarm bells in my head.

I'm no bible scholar but I have studied it a fair bit and I don't see that ANYWHERE. In fact I see quite the opposite. Jesus said "it is finished." The apostle Paul encouraged spiritual believers to "gently restore" the one caught in sin (Galatians 6:1) We are told that if we confess our sins to God, he is faithful to forgive and cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)

Now I do think there is a case for putting wrongs right where appropriate. God has at times, convicted me about the way I spoke to someone and I have felt the need to not simply say sorry to God, but to go to that person and apologise too. However forgiveness from God comes at the time I go to him and confess. My standing before God is not dependant on the other person. They may refuse to accept my apology etc. but I digress.

Basically, the bible teaches that if you sin, you can go to God in repentance, ask for forgiveness and cleansing and he does that. True repentance means turning away from that sin, or at the very least wanting to turn away and asking God for the strength to fight temptation.

Repentance Struthers style means if you sin, (or even if you haven't sinned but they "discern" that you have) you must go and tell the leaders, who will then quiz you about all other sins you have committed. You must tell them everything, even if it's stuff you repented of and turned away from MANY years ago. They then discuss this among themselves and hold it over you, threatening to tell the whole congregation, as a form of control.

When, or indeed IF, they decide you have suffered enough for your sins AND you are total agreement with them AND you have successfully undergone all forms of exorcism as they deem appropriate, then and ONLY THEN can you be declared forgiven of your sin. The Pharisees took offence at Jesus exercising his authority to forgive sins, it seems to me that Struthers leaders have continued in the tradition of the Pharisees.

Quote
cbarb
Sorry, just to pick up on something else you said, Covlass,

"I have heard Diana address young people on the point of marriage and tell them not to expect to get married. In fact to do the opposite. She said that God is big enough to find you a partner and show you who that is, if he wants you to marry."

I have to wonder.. if DR thinks that's true, why did she steal someone else's man? Did God get the original relationship wrong then? hmmmm, more food for thought?

Yes this message was commonly given to the girls. I got the feeling that the 30something year old unmarried women at struthers are a little lonely though of course I don't think one needs to marry in order to be happy with life. I know of about 5 in particular who would have made very good mothers, and had the desire to be, but there was always a sense of defeat around them when the topic of marriages came up.

I am very curious about this man-stealing business... is this a rumour or confirmed fact?

And I am wondering as well what peoples opinions of Grace and Jennifer are? I found them to be much nicer people though ok only experienced them at camps.

Cbarb,

Like others, I found much of your rule book amusing. I have to say I do find simple things like the wearing of hats quite significant. Is it right or isn’t it, and why was it a rule if it is no longer required? In most organisations, it wouldn’t matter but, given the uniformity of behaviour required in Struthers, people need to know these things.

I am afraid I cannot add much to your draft, so I though I would instead contribute a different document. Not sure if it is totally accurate, but I thought this might do a s a first draft of a complaints procedure.


SMC Complaints procedure – draft for discussion

Introduction
Our complaints procedure is based on a number of principles including the right to face your accuser, the right to appeal if you are not satisfied with the outcome, written records, and the right to be accompanied.

There are three different stages to the complaints procedure.

Stage 1
At this stage, you will be given an explanation of why the leaders are right. No matter what the issue, you are entitled to a detailed and sympathetic hearing and explanation of why the actions of the leaders are correct.

Stage 2
If you are for any reason not satisfied with this explanation of the infallibility of the leaders, the procedure will move to stage 2. A stage 2 appeal will be heard by the same person as the stage 1 grievance, but a Higher Authority (God) is also likely to be introduced. If involved, God will represent, and will speak through, the management of the organisation.

At this stage you will be told why you are wrong to question anything said by the leaders. The organisation is committed to spending as much time as possible to show to you the error of your ways. If you do not fully understand this, you may return again and again to have the message repeated.

If the grievance involves any other people, it will be explained that you have sinned against God only, and He is therefore your accuser. You will be invited to meet with Him in prayer.

Stage 3
If you are still not satisfied, you can continue to stage three. At this stage you entitled to be accompanied. To avoid any ambiguity, this does not mean that you may be accompanied by any other person. The entitlement is to be accompanied by demon of our choice.

This stage is also likely to be heard by the same person as Stage one and Stage two. At this stage you will be informed that your soul is in peril and that you are in danger of missing the high calling of God. You will be given the opportunity to repent and to be subjected to the ministry of exorcism.

It is at this stage that there will also be reference to the written record. This is known as “The book of Life” and is securely stored in heaven. The leaders have direct access to this and may inform you of the content if you demonstrate appropriate remorse and humility.

Outcomes at this stage can be a ban from attending, instructions to others not to fraternise with you, a public announcement of your sin or shunning by the leadership.

Hi folks

ThePetitor, your complaints procedures seem pretty accurate to me, think we might include them in the rulebook volume 2!! When it's written down like that it does send a chill down the spine and shows the manipulation and control being exerted over people. If a catholic priest was to recount, on the public platform, all the confessions he heard in private he'd be out of a job very quickly and might even be excommunicated. Can SMC leaders be excommunicated? Well, we know the answer to that one don't we?

E. Ray, the man stealing is a true story. GR was intending to marry another young woman in SMC (who no longer attends) the relationship had all the correct blessings from Miss T. & Co. (or they wouldn't have been allowed to sit together during services). Everyone expected that these two would get married. I can't remember if they were actually engaged at that point - although I suspect they were since they sat together in services. Anyway, along comes DH (as she was known then) and decides she wants GR for herself. Honestly, it was quite laughable really... my friend and I used to take little bets on how long it would take DH to wheedle herself into the seat directly behind the couple or directly across the aisle from them.

DH would begin the service in a certain seat and, part way through the service would have a little coughing fit that meant she had to sidle out of the hall (presumably for a drink of water or something). A few minutes later, she would sidle back in but to a different seat, one which was closer to the couple. Sometimes it would take her two or three trips out to the kitchen or toilet before she would eventually end up in the seat directly behind GR (even moving people along the bench so that she could get that 'all-important' seat behind him or directly opposite in the next aisle). By the end of the service she would be right in GR's face and command all his attention. My friend and I used to have a laugh about it because DH must've thought she was being surreptitious about it but in fact she was absolutely blatantly obvious about what she was doing. GR's original intended couldn't fail to notice that DH was trying to wheedle herself in between the couple - I mean EVERYONE could see it. DH obviously wanted GR and she wasn't giving up until she got him. While it was quite funny to watch her antics it was also very sad for GR's original intended - who left SMC eventually and who could blame her. She was a lovely young woman and a highly paid professional. So, all I can say is that Diana Hoare really lived up to her maiden name.

So what I was saying was, if the original relationship was fully blessed by the powers that were, at that time, and therefore presumably blessed by God also - then either the leadership got it wrong to begin with or God got it wrong. Personally I believed then, and still do, that DR is a thoroughly unscrupulous and unholy person. I remember being really annoyed for GR's original intended because you would invariably see DH digging her sharp little claws into GR and he was so blind to her wiles - or was just ignoring them and enjoying the attention - that he would go off into corners for long confabs with DH over who knows what - even at the church camp - which is where (I think) GR's original intended finally gave up and disappeared leaving the two of them to get on with it.

Now, if DR believes that God intended her to have GR then she is making a mockery of the commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (or husband)". OK, so the original couple weren't actually married at the time but - to all intents and purposes, since God had presumably given his approval for that relationship they were pretty much as married as you can be without having had the ceremony performed. But that shows the kind of manipulation the woman is capable of and, from what I've seen posted here, her manipulative ways extended also to the current leadership of the day - otherwise she would not be a leader in the church now.

As always biiiiiiiig love and huge huggggggs to all
God Bless xxx

Anybody else get the creeps reading ThePetitor's draft?
ThePetitor, compliments on your writing. Looking through smc-tinted-specs; I can definitely deem this draft as acceptable. In fact it is complete and infallible...though we can always adjust it to meet any specific requirements of any leaders involved in a complaint/grievance...in the interests of preserving their elevated status and therefore pleasing God, because that is ALWAYS more important than ANY complaint levied.
(Glasses off again..) Yep, I think it's scary because we recognize each turn of phrase, each course of action and the whole freaky mindset.
Good efforts all. though you should admit that really it is smc leaders' hard work. You are merely writing what they taught you! Don't expect credit for that may come under vanity. And unless you are an actual smc leader, but then it is called holiness.
CovLass, it really was a privilege to be pronounced clean (and then to be pushed forward with your upgraded testimony....until you inevitable get stagnant and need yet more cleansing...). I can remember the feeling. But I never once related this feeling, or the desire to feel that way, to pride or vanity. It is leadership approved, so how can it be anything other than right?? You truly can't see through it at the time. Well, you can, but you don't want to while you bask in your temporary elevation. It's still beggars belief when I think of how strong the desire was to please church leaders and elders. Because that would, of course, be God's will....
Anyway, would you and Cbarb kindly stop trying to turn this place into Black Pudding Eaters' Anonymous? I'm starting to get cravings and fear a relapse. I told myself years ago that I would only eat Stornoway Black Pudding (and Hornig Haggis..) but I can't seem to buy it round here, except in one rather pricey restaurant. :( But if y'all keep talkin 'bout it...I have to get to a cafe for a bog-standard Full Scottish Breakfast (and secretly pray that it WILL be Stornoway pud!)
To be serious though, about the hats. Did this happen after HB's time, does anyone know? It's just that he seemed to be behind the pudding ruling too, so if one of they leaders likes the stuff, that rule could just be dropped too maybe?
And seriously, television is allowed now? Is this true? How on Earth can people discern for themselves what to watch. There has to be a list of acceptable viewing, or people will definitely get full of sin. And then they will need some heavy shepharding. Oh, now I see how telly could be a good thing.
Right, I think that's me done with the sarcasm. But it's so hard not to reduce their practices to absurdity.
Anyway, DR a husband-stealer? I love gossip, do tell. ;)