Liz25, you were asking what the iPad carry-on was. Well, in 2010, the Cedars School in Greenock introduced iPads to the school, supplying an iPad for every single pupil to be used for teaching, homework, art, everything really. Cedars was the first school in the UK to have a 1:1 iPad deployment for the pupils and the story made it into national and local newspapers. Alison Speirs’s son, Fraser, was the brainchild behind the deployment and he worked for Apple at the time. One of the articles below - the Forbes one - explains that the iPads were leased from Apple at an initial cost of £1400 per month to cover the whole school. The cost reduced over time.

Struthers members were never told how much the iPad deployment cost nor where the money came from. Once I remember hearing that the school fees had paid for it then later on we were told that the money had come from church funds and donations. We later found out that the church funds had indeed paid for the iPads. There was a fair amount of discussion about this on the Forum in past years. I can find the pages and put them on here if anyone wants to read them.

There was so much talk from the leaders about these iPads. This was before iPads were in common use and at a time when many families in Scotland wouldn’t be able to afford to buy one for their children.

The other article below, by futurescot in 2019, explains that Fraser Speirs, who by this time was Head Teacher at Cedars School, had ditched Apple iPads and gone over to using Google Chromebooks (which happen to be a lot cheaper) for the school, because he was critical of many of Apple’s systems and products.

[futurescot.com]

[www.forbes.com]

Thank you Rensil for the iPad info! I’ve now read the article in the link you attached. Of course, the funding! I’d known about the school being a first but hadn’t considered that huge cost & of course, who was paying for it.
Welcome dmcc and like you, the thought of the cost of the School and who was funding it (many single women within the church for starters) has been a pain to us for many years.
When our eldest started primary (2001) I can’t say there was huge pressure but the question was definitely in the air: would he go to Cedars school? We could see his primary from our back garden so that was an obvious choice!
I agree with dmcc that the church school was a total vanity project. It will be tough for those who attended to accept this and I appreciate that but what preparation was there for life outside if you and your parents also attended Struthers church?

GirlWiston, your timetable makes for painful reading. When were children allowed to be children? I think Struthers was a perfect storm of having recently come out of the Victorian era ( Miss T!), Mr Black’s closed Brethren views and some very compliant young parents and students.

Unlike you, I only started attending at around 21 years of age, as a student, and committed myself fully when I started my first job in 1980.
To detail my own timetable ( while working a full time,professional job -then 3 days/week) over the following 28 years until we left, would cause my stress levels to rise!!
As I started to reduce my attendance I suffered criticism ( from some).
As a couple, we tried to alleviate the pressure by moving or applying for different jobs. These were always interfered with by leaders with some rather drastic consequences. But that’s a story for someone else to write and not me!

If anyone is interested in the iPad issues, the comments are largely on pages 84 to 120. For those that have not noticed, the Forum does actually have a good search function. If you are using that, note it defaults to the last 3 months, so you will have to change that to “all messages” if you want to go back further.

I had a quick browse through these older messages and noticed some really interesting bit I had not read for years. I won’t repeat them all here as you can go back and read them for yourselves if you like, but here are a few odds and ends, including one of my posts at the time.

Quote
Cbarb
Rensil is right about the control over young people in SMC. I've experienced such control in my past and, oh the palavver when I tried to hide my pierced ears from my Mum! In those days the SMC fashion in head-gear had migrated from the white crocheted berrets (of which there were always a few spare in case some poor woman turned up without a hat) to those little head-square scarfs that everyone wore tied at the back. I must admit it did make it easier to hide the demonic deed by pulling the edges of the scarf down over my ears - you couldn't do that with a crocheted berret!

The level of control exerted over young folk in SMC is quite abnormal for a healthy church and, as Rensil pointed out, kids have been advised to have less contact with their own families if the leaders deem those families to be 'un-fit' (in other words, they don't attend SMC). Yes, the level of control in SMC is really quite serious indeed.

Quote
Saturdaynightnever (What a brilliant name, by the way)
Miss Taylor was an awful old woman and literally gave me nightmares. I am sure that she was responsible for the more extreme rules.

Quote
ThePetitor
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. Let’s 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?

And let us not forget the incident below, where a supporter of Struthers ended up banned. That tells you a lot about their underlying integrity. I had just said, "the result is always the same – criticise the person asking the question, never actually answer it." (see above quote) and shortly after Bingowings was banned for doing exactly that thing - criticising the person rather than answering the question! I wonder if Bingowings wants to come back on here, apologise for these unpublished personal attacks, and thank the moderator for stopping them before they were published.

Quote
Rrmoderator
"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.

Quote
HappySurvivor
Thank you RRModerator for taking the decision to ban Bingowings. I may have been one of the contributors whom you have saved from being publicly smeared and discredited. Are there no lows to which SMC will not stoop? They really take the biscuit.

My health is suffering from the fallout surrounding my decision to leave SMC on Saturday 31st August. I am feeling the wrath and extreme displeasure of SMC.

They are of course continuing to stoop to that level, using the pulpit to publicly criticise those who raise issues rather than attempting to answer them. Exactly the same stuff - anyone who questions anything is automatically, evil, filled with bitterness, unspiritual, missing God's high calling, is attacking the Lord's anointed, has a hidden agenda etc, etc.

Just stop these ad hominem attacks and answer the question!

WestofEast - I do think you might be onto something here around mental illness. It's not my area of expertise but I do think we would perhaps frame a lot of beahviour in a different way now. That said, I absolutely agree with the spirit of what RedRoad has said in terms of people being accountable for their behavior.

Redroad and others who have commented on other churches as having only a 'social gospel' or not being 'true christians'. It got me to thinking about SMC's ecumenical involvement - which is scant at best. Who can remember the easter 'March of Witness'. A procession through the town with various musicians, banners and singing. SMC did take part in this - but on one condition: When the march reached the centre of the town and everyone congregated (Clyde Square?), Hugh Black would be solely responsible for the preaching. (He, himself, wouldn't march of course for 'health reasons'). I distinctly remember thinking - what must ordinary citizens make of this spectacle.

Girlwiston - absolutely fascinated to read your account of leaving. I love your account of enjoying and experiencing life beyond SMC. There are key elements of this that I absolutely can relate to. You sound well-grounded and sincere. Incidentally, I totally get your point re the "not on this forum to bring SMC to accountability". For me, although it's entirely one-sided and I guess you could say, symbolic, I do see a sense of bringing them to accountability in what we're doing here. Even if it's just a public record for all to see.

A Theist 101 - Another fascinating account and insight, absolutely laced with delusion, manipulation and lies. I'm sorry you had to experience that but it sounds like you've taken it in your stride and come out the other side.

Al Duff - With all sincerity, I have to vehemently disagree with some of your comments around ET. Particularly referring to her as a 'seer' or an 'oracle'. In my opinion, it's precisely this type of thinking that helps create the problem - ie, it's how the power is created and maintained. She was an actor, playing a part and SMC was her stage. At best, she was deluded and misguided. The fact that she referred to herself as the 'mouth-piece of the holy spirit' tell us all we need to know.

A couple of people have mentioned baptismal verses and alluded to them as being insightful. This type of 'insight' is well understood and easily replicated. You can find a brilliant example of it here:

[www.youtube.com]

Dear Blackwatch

I understand where you are coming from, and let me reiterate what I said above: Struthers keeps people in perpetual childhood and my advice to its congregants is to wake up and smell the coffee.

I was glad the iPad issue has been revisited. I was in the church at the time and had I suspected for one second that they had been secretly paid for by church funds, Alison Speirs would have felt the full force of my wrath.

The school, as I've said many times, was based on a mistake. It was rooted in imagination not revelation. It turns out, if I am understanding the numbers correctly, that it was in addition based on an outrageous misappropriation of funds. Instead of, as all private enterprise is meant to be, being a cash cow, it was a vampire sucking the blood out of the naive, faithful tithers.


I strongly suspect - to address your point - that Miss Taylor would not have supported it. It was spiritual lightweights who came up with the idea. Even Mr Black was uncomfortable with it (see my previous post where I relate how I confronted him on it).


I do stand by my assertion that she was a seer, had second sight. I looked at your video but I confess it lost me after a bit. But Miss Taylor cannot be compared to an astrologer or a madwoman. She did have spiritual gifting, I am personally certain. We live not just in a drab materialism but in a colourful world with a supernatural dimension. She no doubt got many discernments badly wrong, but she got some right. She was dogmatic and tyrannical, I agree, but I cannot deny her phenomenal spirituality.

I also liked the way she rose high out of humble circumstances and defied sexism along the way; and that she did everything gratis - whereas most ministers expect to be supported full-time by their congregations. She never took a penny from the church, kept slogging away as a secretary. Surely that is laudable.

I am another member of the ET sceptic wing. I think that, latterly, she was losing the plot a bit. But during my early, formative years, when in possession of all of her marbles, she struck fear into my heart and, it seems, those of others on here. I think this persona was deliberately assumed and her behaviour was, quite simply, cruel towards young impressionable people who had no choice but to be there every week.

I do not think she had any particular gift. I am happy for her that she was content to continue in a humble job and rarely stray beyond the bounds of Inverclyde but do not find anything of what she did laudable.

Al Duff

Out of interest, did you watch the whole video?

No. Sorry.

Hi,

It’s great that on this forum people can disagree & not be sent to the blue room for deliverance for it ;-) ha!

The thing is we all had different types of relationship / encounters with Elizabeth Taylor & hence our resulting various definitions of that person.

That said the video is indeed interesting & gives food for thought - thanks @Blackwatch

Thanks too for the best compliment I have ever received being grounded & sincere - very kind :-)
It’s been a loooong road…

Nice evening ahead,