Welcome to the Forum, Happy Survivor. And I am so glad that you are indeed a happy survivor. From what you've posted, it looks like you have been attending recent meetings at SMC. So, from reading your posts, I am in a way surprised to learn that nothing seems to have changed regarding the preaching and teaching that is being given out by the leadership. I've heard it all in years gone by - about hair-dyeing and television etc etc. Then the rules seem to get diluted, for some at least. I also encountered SMC folk self-righteously watching TV on their laptops but, oh no, they would never sink so low as to own a television and pay for a TV license!

The problem with making such rules concerning appearance or lifestyle is, where do you draw the line? How is TV wrong but an ipad is OK? How is it OK to read books by different Christian speakers but not OK to go and hear the speaker at an event held outwith SMC and in the company of other Christians from other churches?

And Andrew Jewell talking about "running with the crowd". Can't they think of new things to preach about instead of the same old, same old stuff from years back. Who is this crowd they've not to run with? Why, it's us on here plus all other Christians worldwide who do not live as holy lives as the members of SMC!

Bingowings, you must know that going foreign holidays is a relatively recent phenomenon for the majority of SMC members. You mention back in the 80s. Well, back then, there were 3 Adult Camps and unless you were a school-teacher, your annual leave was filled up with attending Camps and there was no time or money left to go any holidays. So, many didn't go holidays. I gather that leaders are not allowed to miss a weekend at church ever, so holidays for them can only be taken on week-days.
What Cbarb and Happy Survivor have posted about SMC rings true with me and can be confirmed by reading many of the posts on this thread. There are plenty of sermon quotes with dates and names of speakers, in the articles on Latigo website. They have never had any answers to the questions in these articles. So maybe you could check these and provide answers or ask the relevant preacher what she meant when she said whatever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2013 11:13PM by Rensil.

Bingowings

Now I’m offended – you will answer Happy Survivor’s questions but not mine. I am most disappointed. If I hadn’t already plumbed the depths of depression due to SMC many years ago, I might take it personally.

Seriously though, this is unfortunately what I have come to expect in Struthers – “the wrong person asked the question”, “the question was asked the wrong way”, “you have distorted the question”, “you have the wrong attitude”, “you cannot seriously believe that”, “these are good people and I cannot believe they would do that”, “it would not be good for you if I encouraged your questions” or even “God has told me not to answer”. The excuses are legion, but the result is always the same – criticise the person asking the question, never actually answer it.

If you are genuinely not interested in what people claim are the rules but what was actually said when and where (in line with your comment to ChesterK55) then the example I quoted is in print in Mr Black’s book. I am sure your pursuit of the truth will compel you to check it out and post a response.

Similarly, I can provide exact quotes about TV if required. It would mean dredging through dozens of tapes from 20 plus years ago, but I am sure I could find it if I spent the time. The question is, what would then happen? If I provide a digital copy of clear instructions about the evils of television will you then agree it is (or was) a rule?

There is another point that is important however, and that is how messages are understood. Whether or not it was a published rule is not really the main point. Let’s just say that there has never been anything said against television. Lets just assume that there is no evidence available from sermons. OK, if that is true, why did the friend Happy Survivor refers to get rid of their television – was it all a big misunderstanding? What about the others who did the same, myself included – was it all a big mistake? Dozens of people all with the same misunderstanding, spread over 20 or more years? Is there not perhaps some obligation on the leaders to correct what appears to be close to a universal misunderstanding? Seems to me the trumpet has not sounded a clear note and no-one knows whether to prepare for battle (cf 1 Corinthians 14 v 8). Is that the fault of the soldiers or the one blowing the trumpet?

Hi All!

Another survivor here! Hope you like my handle. I am still thankful to have reclaimed my Saturday nights from SMC!!

I grew up in the 80's and 90's in the church. I must say that I agree with most of cbarb's recollections although I don't remember sports being banned. I have no doubt that my family were rather frowned upon for owning a TV and for going to France rather than Wiston on occasion!

Miss Taylor was an awful old woman and literally gave me nightmares. I am sure that she was responsible for the more extreme rules. Then Mary Black took on the role of Puritan in chief. I always thought HB was more benevolent although obviously not so good with the money ;-)

I also clearly recall daft rulings such as being told not to go ten pin bowling on a Saturday afternoon as it was "too worldly" and would interfere with the Saturday night meeting. What a load of absolute balderdash!!

Interestingly I knew Andrew Jewell fairly well and he did a fair bit of "running with the crowd" at school although he always maintained he would never leave SMC. I think it was a case of having his cake and eating it before settling in to his God-given (sorry, Grace Gault-given) role as a leader.

As for Cedars, I am so glad it wasn't established until well after I left school. Alison Speirs totally gives me the heeby jeebies!!

Hi guys

I just thought that I'd share with you an incident which I had totally forgotten about but which a friend recently reminded me of.

Those of us who were around nearer the beginnings of the church will remember how often HB preached on the 'evils' of gambling (including gambling on the stock market).

I now vividly remember that my Dad owned a game back then, I can't remember the name of the game now although I believe it is still in print, however this game was about stocks and shares and was actually a very good game for playing as a family. We all enjoyed it greatly.

Anyway, I can't remember who it was - it could have been me - happened to mention this game to someone else in the church and before we knew what was happening my Dad was reprimanded for having such a game and the game went into the back of a cupboard never to see the light of day again.

Does this strike anyone else as being totally absurd and hypocritical in light of the huge amount of the churches money lost by the said HB himself in the shares fiasco of the 80's?

As I've said before, the level of hypocrisy in SMC just makes me gag.

As so many others have posted here, certain things seem to be OK for the select few but not for the rest of the church members and it seems that includes whether or not it is evil to watch television programmes or if it's just evil to OWN a TV set but OK to watch programmes on your laptop or tablet.

Would you class these types of 'unwritten rules' as absurd or insane, or both?

I'll be interested to see if Bingowings actually does come back with any answers to any of the questions posed both here and on the Latigo site, although I suspect they probably won't but I'd love to be proved wrong in that one.

Personally I now believe it is a matter of pride with the leaders of SMC that they are afraid to be shown to be just human after all because they realise that this will have an adverse affect on the remaining few who are still 'under their thumbs' and happy to be dictated to while paying the salaries of the privileged two families who are in authority in the church and school.

I wait, with baited breath, to be proved wrong - now that would be a happy day methinks and I would gladly humbly apologise if such proof of my errors were to be posted here.

As always biiiiiiig love and huge hugggggggs to all
God Bless xxx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2013 08:26PM by cbarb-again.

Saturdaynightfever - welcome! That is indeed a well-chosen moniker!

Yes, cbarb ("-again") I remember the sermons against gambling on the stock market as well, and I also remember Chris Jewell, who was and is the treasurer, explaining to some of us (who hardly knew what the stock market was) why Mr Black believed it was wrong. Interesting that Mr Black and Chris Jewell then later appeared to be central to the shares fiasco.

I think that is one of the key issues - that there are apparently different rules for different people. Whether it is being alone with some one of the opposite sex, gambling on the stock market, how you deal with a vow you have made before God or eating black pudding, there are the rules they try to impose on others and very different rules for themselves. That is one of the reasons I for one would love to see some of the rules written down - and why they don't want to write them down.

Then again, the times they are a-changin'- many of you will have noticed that Cedars School now has the bursaries policy that Latigo has been asking then to produce for years! There is a good article on the Latigo site about it as well. I have to say I agree with the overall thrust of that article: (1) great they now have a policy (2) why did they not do it when it was first raised (3) some fairly sensible criteria for the allocation of bursaries, but -(4) one criterion that stands out, which is that staff members can get a discount of up to 100%! I think the final table on the Latigo page says it all - if they are giving bursaries of up to 100%, they need to at least publish the breakdown of allocations against each of the criteria.

To get back to the issue of rules, anyone who has not been around as long has to realise these thing were seen and heard by all. We do not need a copy of the Saturday night sermons to know that Mr Black preached against gambling on the stock market - ask Chris Jewell, or Grace Gault - they were both there at the time. No one is denying the facts of the matter - they can't. It is just that the SMC leadership think we are guilty of the horrendous sin of not believing that the emperor has wonderful new clothes.

Hey folks!! Just posting to say hi, especially to new posters. Hi! And welcome.
....and the prize for best "handle" goes to Saturdaynightfever. :)
And besides, I must not have ticked "Send replies to this thread.." and have missed recent posts.
Some interesting reading here and examples of how peoples' views/attitudes/opinions can differ.
Surely this is a good thing, as it means the truth resonates louder, having been built on solid ground.
Regards and happy days (still picturing you dancing Cbarb..hehe), Cornelius Dredd (Once Ifellaway..)

To whom it may concern:

"bingowings" has been banned from this message board.

RRModerator, undoubtedly you have made this decision due to some rule-breaking. Are you able to say why?
It might be useful that any underhanded or manipulative stuff is publicized, as it further enhances how the org works.
Just wondering... I, of course, defer to your best judgement.
Regards, Cornelius.

"bingowings" was repeatedly attempting to post personal attacks regarding members of this message board now active on this thread.

These personal attacks were not approved and therefore did not appear here.

After bingowings' repeatedly submitted posts in violation of the rules bingowings was banned.

Thanks RRModerator. I got the feeling I was missing something. Agreed, personal attacks do us no good.
Thanks, Cornelius