An excerpt taken from the April 23 issue of the MOT titled 'One Fold' written by Roland Thiessen, Hythe, Alberta.
>>> It is the work of Satan to build division and place walls between believers. There has been far too much categorizing and judging going on in Christendom, creating the devisions and denominations we see today. This is so clearly contrary to God's word. The present-day united undivided Anabaptist(re-baptizing)church has a great responsibility to welcome those "other sheep". This cannot be done by an ecumenical movement or by compromise. Neither is it accomplished by holding forth the Church of God in Christ,Mennonite per se but by holding forth the simple, united, undivided church of Jesus Christ. Would it be better for the church to somehow identify itself more as such and less specifically by it's leaders past and present? <<<
Definitely much more here than meets the eye. The technique used to build bridges in the readers mind between true and untrue ideas is unsurpassed. Due to smooth technique, and the reader's momentum, both the true and the untrue idea become connected, and then subsequently accepted as true. This stuff is definitely beyond the scope of the casual Holdeman reader to notice. Wow! This is one of the most cunning works I have ever read. It has several very powerful brain-washing techniques happening at the same time.
This message has been edited by oldmanrip on May 17, 2008 9:12 AM
Here is my question. Hitler's minister of propaganda would be proud of this work. Several technical constructions used to brain-wash can be identified. It is an extremely dishonest piece of writing because it resorts to technique rather than the power of verifiable fact. Is the writer aware of his skill, or is it completely automatic, and flows from the spirit that binds them all together, i.e., the unifying spirit that flows in all fascist/cultish systems which control and steer herds.
You know what I noticed that is so cunning about it is that it first assumes the position that everyone else (ie the "other sheep") should get in line with the COGCM,,and then throws in a "per se" but the "per se" then switches to a literal "undivided CGCMA" and then puts the responsibility on the lay people by letting the leaders off the hook. And by letting the leaders off the hook it puts the guilt back on the people to stay "undivied" or in the fold in oder that....
"It is the work of Satan to build division and place walls between believers"
Great observations, Scott and Paris.....this article reminds me of those little "things" we used to do with a circular piece of yarn. If you wrap it just right around each finger, then follow a certain set of steps, you get interesting shapes, such as duck feet, Jacob's ladder, and so forth. This article is an intricate series of twists and turns with the end conclusion already in mind from the very beginning. Each statement is twisted into the next to draw the desired reaction from awe-inspired readers. However, when taken as a whole, it is the same old tired logic that reaches the conclusion that if everybody else would just do it our way, then we would have perfect peace, harmony, and unity.
I see that Doyle dropped in this morning, so I thought I'd bump this. I am still interested in hearing WHAT it was that he thinks Cousin Roland was tring to say in the MOT article that was discussed a week or two ago.
If I tell you what he had in mind, would it help you?
My dad used to say that sometimes talking to me was like talking to a fence post. It didnt change a thing. Are you open minded enough to want to know what he meant?
Well, maybe your Dad would still be correct in his assessment of you - I don't know. As to whether or not it would help me, I don't think that my spiritual life will be enhanced (or hindered) by knowing what it is that you think Cousin Rolly was trying to say. But, it would be interesting to hear your take on it.
I'm not promising to agree with you, but I think it would only be fair for you to attempt to enlighten us - you really don't want to see us burn in hell because we didn't join the OTVC due to you not doing your little part, do you?
As far as open-mindedness goes, that is not really a prerequisite for wanting information. For example, if I was talking to a white supremacist and asking him why he believed what he did about non-white people, would I need to be open to changing my views to his, in order for me to want him to give me the reasons for his bigotry? I don't believe so.
This message has been edited by StevenThiessen on May 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Unfortunately, unless I completely misread what he is trying to say (and I am still waiting for enlightenment from you on that), he is my second cousin. Just goes to show you can't pick your relatives...
Interesting. I shouldn't have insinuated that ya'll were intentionally misreading him. I doubt that is true. But I do think that you are looking for things and viewing thatings from such a different angle as I am, that we both will view things completely different.
I read Thiessen this way; He is gently saying that Holy Spirit inspired unity is INclusive, suggesting that the Holdeman church has been too EXclusive towards some of these groups.
I think you should call cousin Thiessen up and ask him.
"He is gently saying that Holy Spirit inspired unity is INclusive, suggesting that the Holdeman church has been too EXclusive towards some of these groups."
I do agree that this is what he seems to be saying, and is what we all wish he were saying. But this is exactly what makes the writing so utterly dumbfounding. The right words are there, but the underlying substance and action are totally lacking.
If you tie this article (suggesting greater INclusion of these "other sheep") together with recent postings on unity by TR, you get a hollow, hollow message that ultimately says that the H church wants to be INclusive, but only to those that are perfectly aligned with its established beliefs and practices (the truth, as defined by the H church). Obviously, this is a logical contradiction that has no real meaning. This brings us back to the title of this post...the science and art of propaganda.
I can't believe we are having this conversation...if indeed, it is even a "conversation". Doyle's intelligence is on trial here, and I would say the verdict is pretty much in. People should not be allowed the dishonesty that Doyle is attempting here.
If you interviewed fifty million people, it would be generally understood (I believe without exception) that the word "inclusive" is not describing the inclusion of set members which have identical characteristics. The word "inclusion" (for all of us) has a built-in suggestion of tolerance, i.e., to include members which demonstrate diversity. To say that we are "inclusive" towards identical set members is redundant in the extreme, and downright dishonest. Doyle is attempting to redefine the word here, but what else is new? Bottom line is, we simply don't want to admit how onerous, tribal, worldly, exclusive, and ethnocentric our little morbid naval-gazing inbred helpless-pole party really is.
The technique used to build bridges in the readers mind between true and untrue ideas is unsurpassed.
Scott, maybe you could clarify what these "true" and "untrue" ideas are for us poor miserable decieved ones, and explain why you believe so... as by this statment, I gather you have a pretty good idea on what is true and untrue, yes?
This stuff is definitely beyond the scope of the casual Holdeman reader to notice.
Why exactly do you believe that? I would really like to know.
This message has been edited by anaverageh on May 26, 2008 9:42 PM
Personally, I don't find any of the statements in the paragraph quoted above to be specifically untrue. On the contrary, the words are correct as stated. What is untrue (and unstated, but implied) is that the writer intends to do anything about these wonderful ideas of INclusion. If he really practices what he wrote, he will soon find himself on the outside of the H establishment, because historically any effort at reaching out to these "other sheep" in a fellowship sense would be met with swift punishment. Please read the Mirror of Truth article "Avoidance of Babylon" to understand the theory.
This article is either a) just a bunch of empty words that sound good to the H reader OR b) a true call to action that will result in a fundamental change within the H church
>>"He is gently saying that Holy Spirit inspired unity is INclusive, suggesting that the Holdeman church has been too EXclusive towards some of these groups."<<
Wasn't that J. Holdeman's intent and purpose, to have his own exclusive 'right' church?
>>has been too EXclusive towards some of these groups."<<
Going by that statement, then you are admitting that the H church has been wrong all these years for being exclusively the only right church?
It is the work of cgcm to build division and place walls between believers. Without building walls and placing them between members, the work of discipline as we practice it would be impossible.
To build walls we take 1/4-1/2 lies and mix them with known truth. for instance, if someone is opinionated, well it would be nigh unto impossible to discipline them for it, so we spread rumors about how they are offended or unforgiving and the strong opinions are an out for that. Never mind that the truth is the opinions are actually convictions, we need to get them to Conform! so we build walls and separate them from the brethren, and if they come to a more mannered way, we quit the plowing!
There has been far too much categorizing and judging going on in Christendom among us , for if we are talking of our neighbors that go to the baptist church we say they are 'so called Christians", we all know that means they aren't really Christians for we are the only true Christians, but charity requires it, and deception makes it work with these special buzz words! But never call on a "so called Christian" to pray, and if your offspring falls in love with one and marries him/her, then expel them! and never eat with them again! But in a good spirit!
Creating the divisions and denominations we see today. Never mind that ours was born of the same spirit in the 1860's when Jh got holier than the people he left.
This is so clearly contrary to God's word.
Unless we perfect people do it! for we have special sanction from the father of lies to not practice what we preach!
The present-day united undivided Anabaptist (re-baptizing) church has a great responsibility to welcome those "other sheep".
of course they will have to toe the line and do exactly what our wolves tell them to do or we will kick them out after letting them come in! And maybe with a little black magic, some of their kids will stay and dilute our inbred gene pool.
This cannot be done by an ecumenical movement or by compromise.
But only by lifetime called servants masquerading as overseers in a whorish system of lying doctrinal jello that teaches that God is actually the voice of the elected delegates sitting at conference! and rebellion is not submitting to the voice the delegation decides on! (blasphemy)
Neither is it accomplished by holding forth the Church of God in Christ,Mennonite
Here the author appears to be using negative council, for the average H honestly thinks the opposite of this statement, and hopes you are 'spiritual enough' to get the real meaning but the onlookers will not see it.
per se but by holding forth the simple, united, undivided church of Jesus Christ.
"Holding back" is more like it, for they use the worlds tactics of a police force, and subjection to ordinance to discipline by, and call the terror that people have in refusing to submit, they call that unity, while they watch their men cower in the presence of their preachers hoping they don't slip and speak their real heart, and their women don depression pills to keep sane.
Folks, the picture of CGCM unity is held in fraud by deception, and lies and is not of God no matter how pretty a frame you put around it.
Would it be better for the church to somehow identify itself more as such and less specifically by it's leaders past and present?
It would be better if the cgcm, simply called upon their membership to repent in sack cloth and ashes.
May God richly Bless your day!
This message has been edited by bawar on May 28, 2008 6:38 AM
For Pete's sake give Roland a break! I did not read the entire article but I can find no fault in the paragraph he wrote in the first post here. Nowhere does Roland say the "united, undivided church of Jesus Christ" is contained within the CGCM. This man needs to be applauded for his open mindedness, not reprimanded. I happen to know a little bit about this man and I think some of you are reading him completely wrong.
Rm, anything that an H says regarding "church" is laced with supposition based on h being the otvc, even if he doesn't honestly think so. Sort of like the classrooms in soviet Russia, 'remember class, there is no God" so the H has to continually remind itself the the Holdigod of H conference is more real than the God of the bible. Even though they don't say it that way
But if you know the guy and he is okay, well praise God then! I never met an H in good standing that wouldn't curse those who God has not cursed if the conference told them to.
Huh... this is fascinating. I read the excerpt from the article first as Scott did, assuming a traditional Holdeman viewpoint... in which case I think Scott's initial assessment of the article is entirely correct. It's typical H "double talk," professing one thing while meaning quite another, and bringing the reader to the "logical" conclusion.
But... without knowing anything about the writer, it's not fair to assume that he thinks along traditional Holdeman lines. Is it possible that he really is a bit of a free thinker, and is challenging the church to do things differently?
(If that were the case, I would question how he survives in the H church, but that's another matter completely.)
This was an interesting exercise in perspective for me.
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
Are you open minded enough to want to know what he meant?