17. What is to be done with those who do not walk, according to the decision of the conference?
A. Unless we can say that it pleaseth the Holy Spirit and us, (like it was said at the council held in Jerusalem in Acts 15) Such members shall be dealt with as other transgressors.
28* It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
29* You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
oh they didn't mean that part of it
28* It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to burden you with anything we could fool the conference to agree is a reasonable rule, and make it a sin worthy of eternal death if you get caught not doing it:
29* You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. You are also to study the conference rules and councils and totally submit to every jot and tittle or you will be lost, (not to mention kicked out) Farewell.
There is a very well defined doctrine in the ancient writing, not to mention the scripture that says do not add anything, neither subtract anything form the scripture, but it only is all one needs to find and keep salvation.
So, if one refuses to "keep' decisions of conference, since the first one said to not add anything to the but the four necessary things, how could it displease the Holy Spirit to refuse to submit to those rules that are built in rebellion to the obvious meaning and Spirit of the Holy Word??
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 6, 2008 11:05 PM
The obvious intention of this is to neuter the actual easily discerned intention of the Scripture.
Since the bible doesn't give them the right to do the evil of adding rules, and blaming God. They must agree to make the bible say the opposite of what it means. now it is not wrong for men to join a club that has agreed upon rules that are not exactly scriptural, but they must be agreed upon, and fully disclosed. And the people that want to "reserve their rights" to not be subject to those silly infractions must be allowed either a variance, or allowed to leave the club with all natural rights in tact
But the holdies turn the truth of God into a lie, and serve their own rules instead of the bible and anyone that complains is rooted out and killed in effigy by the avoidance
18. Can a member be justified to take interest in any case of circumstances?
A. With little exception agreed that no interest shall be taken unless we pay at other places at the same time, and is only to make up our loss, which is really no gain to us, and in reality no interest. Neighborly love shall reign or rule and help the widows and orphans and servants he shall take no interest but shall either loan it to the needy themselves, or give it to the church to do so; and if they ever need help, then we shall aid them and more than they requested of us, if we can, but also to others because it is right to return aid for good deeds according to 2 co 8 13-15. After conference, on Monday the 21st, further consideration was taken because it was referred to further consideration. It was undecided in regard to whether taking interest in back payments could be taken, which were to be paid if land was a gain. This would really be no increase but usury; but as there were a number who could not yet agree to this thing, it was referred to a conference in the future for further consideration.
YOU have to remember this was written int he 1800's and during a time there was a Gold standard on money.
Interest on real money is quite onerous and was looked down on by society at large, and almost all good people recognized the evil involved in collecting interest.
What we now use as money is not actually money, for since it has no intrinsic value, it is subject to a loss of faith in it and will continue to do so until it's faith value hits it's intrinsic value, zero. We are trading our labor for monetized faith in our system. One of the problems in our day is the interest rates are too low, you can borrow fiat money at rates lower that the rate of inflation.
I put my small inheritance from my uncle into silver about 5-6 years ago for retirement, and one of my boys needed some money to buy a well rig, I told him I would loan him the silver for no interest, but he had to pay back the principle ounce for ounce.
Had he took me up on the offer, he would have borrowed $7-8 silver, and at todays rate paid back $17-18 (over 100% in 5 years)
He wisely chose rather to get an sba loan at a guaranteed 6.7% annual rate, and got a clean fiat money loan at below inflation rate.
Now look at this decision
no interest shall be taken unless we pay at other places at the same time, and is only to make up our loss
We live in a system of "capitalism" Of nature capitalism requires monetized faith in promises to pay. For that reason very few if anybody is 'out of debt" and for that reason few if any tht have possessions are not paying interest anywhere.
Is this a good piece of legislation? Well, To be frank, and in my opinion the H people in general are extremely ruthless in their financial things, and if they were allowed to collect interest, I am quite sure that would be their focus for they are not allowed to do much in the way of entertainment, and money trading is quite entertaining to law keepers. Instead they keep their yards the envy of the neighbors, and that keeps them home. BUt it is probably just as mind bending.
There are many well endowed wealthy H people, probably much more than the average civil citizen, but having said my little stabbing and pointed opinion, whose business is it to see a man does or doesn't collect interest?
If all people that join the coG club agree to be subject to this rule, does that make it scriptural? And if it is indeed a rule why cannot one "opt out" if he so desires and just leave the club without damage? For Christ did not condemn the practice of collecting interest.
The New Testament is silent on the matter, and except in short spurts of history the real Christians were so persecuted, that to collect interest was not a viable option anyway.
But here is what I see in this legislation, you putting your nosy face in my business. Why do you have so little business, and why do you think you are such a good manager of your business that you feel it is your duty to stick your nose in mine and kick me out if I collect interest?
The church I now attend is probably the largest congregation in our area, perhaps 3-400 people come on a Sunday morning. I now know the names of quite a few of the families, and i know most of the trades of the men I know. But to be completely honest, I simply cannot imagine me going to any one of them and asking them if they collect interest on their checking account, and if I did do that, I cannot imagine any holy reason to care if they answered either way.
Where does the Bible even remotely give the church the authority to make it a sin to collect interest?
___
Neighborly love shall reign or rule and help the widows and orphans and servants he shall take no interest but shall either loan it to the needy themselves, or give it to the church to do so; and if they ever need help, then we shall aid them and more than they requested of us, if we can, but also to others because it is right to return aid for good deeds according to 2 co 8 13-15.
13* Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.
14* At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality,
15* as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”
Of course the h people are not required to give aid to people, and in fact keep themselves pretty well spent out and so don't have it even if they wanted to except to give their quotas, but to give them credit, the motive was cool, even if it turned into something not intended.
But here is the difference of Paul's teaching, and the H practice
8* I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.
Paul did not command, but the H makes it a requirement to "give" at least quotas
_____
On a side note, and for you younger people. I would admonish you to set aside an equal amount of money as you give to alms, set it aside and do not touch it except to put it to work to make you senior years more palatable.
If you give away 10%, then set aside another 10% for future needs, and put that wealth to work in the process.
If you give away 1%, then set aside 1%.
Something I learned a long time ago is the system is set up to barely allow a poor family to pay his rent. This is so he will stay poor and continue paying his rent!
If you set aside a little and protect it as the apple of your eye, you can eventually put that little to work and it will pay your rent, instead of your labor paying it, plus you always have it sitting there for the "killer deal" that comes your way from time to time.
19. Can musical instruments as they are now in the world, be used to the honor of God?
Answer, unanimous agreed that it cannot be done to the honor of God under the gospel.
20. Q. Can Parents stand in the church, and allow their children to play all manner of dancing tunes?
A. No they cannot. Agreed that such instruments should be destroyed as long as they are under age, if they could not be persuaded to help destroy them, then parents should destroy them. But when of age then they should not be tried if they have their instruments in their parents house and play on them. But one or more ministers did not see it, but thought by the unknown thing we would be free.
This idea about instruments is totally false doctrine, that is unless god is a skitzo.
Re 5:8* And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Re 14:2* And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
If harps can be used by the 24 elders in Glory, to worship God in heaven anyone saying they can't use them here for the same purpose is deceived.
Now, look at the deception used to pass this ordinance? "dancing tunes" how unlike what they say now.
Can Parents stand in the church, and allow their children to play all manner of dancing tunes
The motive is to make all instruments illegal and sinful, but the wording is palatable to almost any people reading on, for it doesn't say any instruments but those used to play "dancing tunes".
So they use deception to pass the legislation, and then add to their deception to include all instruments as time goes on.
I understand that even in the 70's before the "great purge", members were allowed piano's.
21. A man left his wife on account of debts, and is now 6 years from home; can she marry again? Answer, Not allowed to marry again according to 1 Co 7, 11.15. There must be evidence that the husband is dead, or married again
This is an interesting decision, for it looks completely right other than it is perhaps nobodies business and as such tends to the busybody. Certainly if the church disallows her to remarry, the church should be chargeable to her upkeep. But I agree with the decision other than that.
11* But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12* But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13* And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14* For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15* But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16* For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
General Conference 1921
5. Marriage with Divorced Persons
Question: May a brother or sister again enter the state of matrimony after he or his companion has committed adultery?
Answer: Unanimously resolved to refer to the Savior's words in Matthew 19:9, as well as to article 25 of the larger confession of the martyr brethren in which it is said, "that they (married people) can be separated and permitted to marry another only for the cause of adultery and death." Compare also Menno Simons' Complete Works, in German, Part 1, p. 340; Spiegel der Wahrheit, Part 2, p. 99, Article 16; and Art. 11, 1896 Conference. (Refer to Art. 2, 1933 Conference; Art. 16, 1956 Conference Council; Art. 3, 1983 Conference; Art. 9, 1993 Conference.)
General Conference 1983
Resolved:
A: We again reaffirm the past conference decisions regarding divorce and remarriage as stated in Art 11 of the 1896 conference, Art 5 of the 1921 conference, and the general tenor of the teachings in the writings of the forefathers.
B: That we do not read more liberty out of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 and the forefathers' writings than is intended; rather we encourage those who seek remarriage to faithfulness in a single state.
C: That in the event a remarriage is still sought, a conference wide counseling body of impartial brethren be sought. The approval of the staff where the problem originated and the unity of this body is necessary to further such a work.
General Conference 1993
Resolved:
B: That we do not read more liberty out of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 and the forefathers' writings than is intended; rather, we believe that a divorced person should not seek remarriage in the Church. Further we would support and encourage such members to faithfulness in their single state.
C: In the event a remarriage is still requested, a larger conference-wide body of impartial brethren, including conference counseling committee, be sought. Utmost carefulness must be exercised, seeking the unction of the Holy Spirit. The approval of the ministerial staff where the request originated and the unity of a larger counseling body is required to further such a work.
edited date
This message has been edited by Observer999 on Jul 9, 2008 1:16 PM This message has been edited by Observer999 on Jul 9, 2008 9:34 AM
Notice how in 1983 the issue now becomes a "problem". Just like the head covering the conference decisions completely change over time, yet the Bible hasn't changed. At least I don't think it has. This here would again show inconsistency with the forefathers including the founder of the church John Holdeman.
Can anyone imagine going through such a process for remarriage? This is why it is almost unheard of in legalistic type groups. There are others in the same vein. There are many seperations and divorces in these groups but no remarriages occur by permission so far as I know.
My sister will not remarry [though unfaithfullness] was evident. I ask why not
and the answer seems always to be the same, it's safer if we don't. Safer! Safer for what? I'll not go into that, it's just too old covenant.
Marriage is a personal thing. Marriage is not a corporate thing. This is an imperfect world and imperfect things occur. I thank God that He is redemptive in His nature and that He works things out for those who indeed Love him.
Under the law which we are dead to [if we are in Christ], Moses whould give a writing of divorcement because of the hardness of hearts. Was Moses more of a God-man when he kept to the strict law or was Moses more of a God-man when he had mercy! We need to answer this to ourselves.
It is better when mercy triumphs rather than judgment.
The scriptures mentioned are still under the OT law. Jesus reminded them of that. Jesus had to because He kept the letter of the law. Under the OT, divorce was allowed because of the hardness of the heart. (Unforgiveness) Jesus brought the 13th commandment in by saying if you love, (which is love and forgiveness) you will keep the other 12. Keeping the letter of the law killeth the spirit. calledoutPTL
You got it proper Calledoutptl. That type of truth indeed sets one free. Free to sin? No, but free to walk in Love and soundness in all our relationships.
While still in the old covenant Jesus reminded the pharisees that it was they who said that if infidelity came about that a man can divorce his wife. Not so Love says; from the beginning it was one man and one woman! This is absolutely true of Love! Love never fails! We may fail but Love does not! The record of the New Covenant begins in the book of Acts. The gospels speak of what was to come concerning the New Covenant!
There was no law set in motion here when Jesus said this. Jesus the one of Love was making an observation and statement of Love. Only those who still have the veil of the old covenant over them would think of this as a law to enforce. No one wants divorce that I have ever met, and those who are in the middle of such a disaster incredibly need our support and care and acceptance!
Mercy still says the same as it did through Moses!
Marriage relationships are incredibly important! A nation can break down if the marriages fail. Family is incredibly important! The glory that comes down from the Father to His Son and from the Son to the husband, when uninterupted covers the wife and family!
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 9, 2008 3:14 PM
22. Q. Can it be allowed to teach, that the Son of God was not born in eternity, because it is concluded that this would divide the Godhead?
23. Q. Can it be allowed to believe (S)wedenborgs teaching of the resurrection of the dead?
24. Q. Can it be allowed if it is believed that persons are taught the truth after their death, to deliver them from their errors, if they did not have the opportunity to hear the truth in their lifetime?
25. Q. Can it be allowed to believe that schools exist in eternity, to raise and instruct children?
26. Q. Can it be allowed to teach, that it was written neither the devil nor the serpent, who deceived Eve, but human wisdom?
A. The foregoing articles No 22,23,24,25,and 26 All refer to such sectarian teaching that they cannot be allowed and to be believed, because they despite the heart.
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
There are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation. All three Persons of the Triune Godhead have existed for all eternity, and their names reveal who they are, not simply what their title or function is.
I wrote a special book about the spiritual world called Heaven and Hell, containing descriptions of many things in that world. Since every human being comes into that world after death, I also described what it is like for people there. Everyone knows—or can know—that we go on living after death, since we are born human beings created in the image of God, and because the Lord teaches this in the Bible. But until now no one has known what that life is like.
People have believed that we would then be souls. And they have thought of the soul as similar to the ether or the air, or like a breath such as people breathe out when they die. They have thought of it as remaining alive even though it has no eyesight, hearing, or ability to speak.
Yet after death we are human beings every bit as much as we are now. In fact, we are so fully human that we do not even realize that we are no longer in the previous world. We can see, hear, and speak as in the previous world. We can walk, run, and sit down as in the previous world. We can lie down, sleep, and wake up as in the previous world. We can eat and drink as in the previous world. We can enjoy the pleasures of married life as in the previous world. In short, we are human beings in every way.
It is clear from this that death is not the end of life, but a continuation of it; it is merely a crossing over. (True Christian Religion #792)
24. Q. Can it be allowed if it is believed that persons are taught the truth after their death, to deliver them from their errors, if they did not have the opportunity to hear the truth in their lifetime?
25. Q. Can it be allowed to believe that schools exist in eternity, to raise and instruct children?
My thoughts on these two are that them must be referencing a purgatory type argument, though I have no idea why they are brought up in conference, obviously they must have at least started a foothold in the laity and needed squelched.
Those who believe in an available penitence after death, must believe in this also.
26. Q. Can it be allowed to teach, that it was written neither the devil nor the serpent, who deceived Eve, but human wisdom?
Here again why this was being put into conference is beyond me, but perhaps some of the people didn't believe in the devil?
In talking to many people through the years, I find the people that reject the teaching of "God"'s existence also reject the teaching of a literal devil.
A. The foregoing articles No 22,23,24,25,and 26 All refer to such sectarian teaching that they cannot be allowed and to be believed, because they despite the heart.
Now, here is the thing that equates the real reason for these being put to conference, for the principles themselves are fairly easy to discern and are extremely mainstream answers.
But they 'cannot be allowed" and that disallowing is the theft, not the teaching itself, for where in the scripture are people holding unorthodox views accused of sectarianism? But here the church has granted itself the right to disallow teaching, and blame it on sectarianism which will later evolve into accusations and witch hunts for people with "sectarian spirits"
Now if you are wondering what is your responsibility toward people with strange doctrines, those that are "in the church" Why should one not use the bible to clear up "false teaching?"
Why is it people want a nice little box full of robotic clones who all hold the same beliefs, and kill anyone that disagrees?
oh, and one other thing, I though it necessary to understand the meaning of
sectarian
Also found in: Wikipedia 0.03 sec.
sec·tar·i·an (sk-târ-n)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
n.
1. A member of a sect.
2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.
h.mmmm
Is there anyone in the H that is bigoted ... to a factional viewpoint?
It's tribal my man and it becomes genetic. It's a tribal thing a whole lot more than about any real truth being involved. It's about controlling other human beings.
To be Cherokee means something altogether different from being a Choctaw. A Cherokee will [not] be appreciated among the Choctaws unless the Cherokee begins to allow himself to be controlled and changed by the Choctaws. It's the way of men. My wife is a Choctaw and southern white cross. The Choctaws are [a southern tribe in Miss. and La.] She holds a closeness in her heart to the Choctaws, but with these Cherokees here in these mountains of east Tenn. she holds no affinity. The thing becomes genetic.
I found the tribal control thing out when as a Mennonite-tribal-man I became a serious agnostic in my twenties. That type thing was not against tribal ruling at the time and I was treated well and accepted as a full brother, but if I had challenged the tribal system I would have shortly been disengaged from the system. I did not challenge the system, I was only challenging God!
Think about it.
Later in my twenties I came to actual belief in God.
And that brings up the idea that at first he did not want the "church" to be sectarian, but in it's exclusiveness of definitions, they used the conference to make it the very thing they despised elsewhere.
Yes it is tribal Doug, and that is not necessarily bad.
My sons and daughters are extremely tribal, defining our family by it's peculiar traits, that flow through the blood lines, and having to reassess their importance as the family grows by marriage, for other tribes with their own peculiarities and glories come in and make us check our own understanding.
Since 'we" do everything "just about right" it is tough to shift gears and let someone else do it their way, even though it is different that our way!
But institutionalizing understanding simply makes the people one big blob of boring agreement. Who wants to marry their own brother or sister?
Exactly Fred; what we hate in others is what we already have in motion in or own lives at one level or another. "The judgment we mete out comes back to judge us." If and when we make a judgment call we must do so from a much higher realm than what is mentioned here.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:15 AM
The protestants as they call them in Mennonite circles do much better than than do the ana-baptists in this matter. There are indeed tribes in those realms as well; but these tribes make allowances for personal salvation and personal revelation.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:19 AM
YOu know Doug, I believe in a personal, God, a God who intervenes in the lives of those he loves.
He doesn't come with a direct revelation, sending an angel down from glory with a sword and give us the law "do it or else" Rather he is interested in our best and highest good. wanting to guide us by his eye, and as faithful servant looks on his master for the signal, so the follower of God will discern the guidance of God, and move before evil happens as it occurs to the people without discernment
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
Indeed true; the realm you speak of is personal revelation.
If a Cherokee gets a certain personal revelation while in the midst of the Choctaws who have an established mindset, the Cherokee will find himself down across the river somewhere. This also is the way of dogmatic and religious tribals at their worst. The worst seem to think that the worst is the best.
At their best the tribal Christian person will have a lot of tolerance because of his or her Love. I believe in free christianity, it works much better! I have not rejected the church as a life-giving organism, I can fellowship where ever the risen Christ is preached; in some tribes personally I do better than in others.
Peter was a man of God; Paul allowed for this to be sure and yet these two men did not agree on the issue of mixing law with Grace which is an extremely important issue if fuill victory is to be walked out by Christ!
When I say it becomes genetic what I mean is that the minds actually become what the essence of the tribe is. This is why an outsider as they are called never makes a very good Holdiman Mennonite. Sometimes this group is more tolerant with these but the fact remains that to be a good one, one must have the genes. With these genes it then becomes difficult to fit in with other tribes out beyond what we genetically are. We understand the genetic process of breeding up a pure breed strains of dogs, for example. Some strains automatically hunt and kill while other strains automatically do not kill but only point.. God's Love revealed in us really helps a lot in this matter if we fellowship other tribes of christians.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 9:06 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 9:02 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:45 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:37 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:34 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 8:32 AM
Good comments, fellows; ... several comments of mine.
In the conference reports Fred is posting, we should realize that there are ( must be) language difficulties to English, and so the real intent may not always come through. As well read a person as John Holdeman was, he certainly would have understood inconsistencies that appear today. I suggest, that we really do not understand him in many ways. There is no doubt that he was a controversial figure in his day, and he held to odd ideas of the NT, however, I also believe that H folks today may be as far off from Holdeman, as Holdeman was off from his peers of his day. Many, probably most of his peers believed their way was the right way.
Swedenborgers... I recall a discussion with my dad as a teenager; he brought up the subject and suggested (if I recall or understood him correctly) that even in the 1930-40s, there were some (very few) who sympathized with this view. I asked what it entailed and his response was that man progressed higher and higher till he/she reached heaven. Having read about Warner's view of "becoming sinless" as a second work of grace, it may be related to such beliefs ?? (For what its worth.) This also why I stand on the view, that man is a sinner and will be till we receive new bodies at the resurrection. We are still earthy man when we are renewed by the Holy Spirit, and such renewal is BY FAITH, but we are still made of the same skin and bones. Of course, a renewed mind and life will also show forth fruit of such renewal.
I have to confess I get cynical, when I spend too much time looking at the terrible misunderstanding of the Bible among those who claim they are the recipients of the ultimate message of Jesus and are carrying on the exclusive lineage of the NT church. Especially, when I am reminded in another thread of such doings as is said of Bro. Peters from Florida. I have email from one who tells me of family moving away recently from the "mess" and being released from "repentance" (sic) (hard time using the term) in their new congregation. I shake my head.
But Fred... keep it up. You are a God-sent to extreme H thinking, and you are getting through to them.
Jesus' mission was NOT tribal, but was for ALL who come to God by faith.
This brings us to another vein of this thing. I may catch some flack here but that's okay.
Since we understand that the mind not only the body is altered genetically by prolonged enviornments and a prolonged emphasis, we finally conclude that it is very important what that enviornment is!
The historical Jews have been developed genetically as a type of super-race in their own right. Certain types of cancer are unknown among Jewish people today. Eating habits of the law formed this resistance very likely. Where ever they are in numbers they lead the financial realm of things for which they have been hated. It comes natural to them to be hated for this. Money control is one of the stongest controls. It's a Goldberg syndrome.
Inventions come natural to the German mind. The Japs do not invent but they improve upon what others invent, they do this naturally and they do it well.
I believe that God wants a pure and super race to cover this planet and the back side of it was displayed by Hitler in all his nastiness. Hitler had a certain vision of a super race and many perished because of it. Stalin had a vision of the perfect government and many perished. The surface of doctrine is what Hitler and Stalin had and they promoted it with vigor while actually fighting each other. Does this sound like denominationalism?
The surface of a doctrine will not peform this thing in any way. The denominational scene cannot perform it because these are simply too involved with the surface of doctrines while mixing just a little Grace into it.
It can all be the Spirit of Grace while we come into the image of who we gaze upon, when we have a single eye toward that one who's Christ the Lord!
I do believe that pure and simple christianity which has a Christ centered consciousness only, can fill this planet ultimately! This will produce the enviornment and the genetic changes. I believe that He will present this world to Himself in fullness finally. "By one man Christ Jesus the Father has chosen to bring all things back to Himself, both in heaven and in earth!" Things must come to refining and redemptive judgement first. A massive revelation of Christ will occur as we gather together unto Him! So far we have been gathering together unto doctrinal truths rather than freely and fully unto Him!
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 10:56 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 11, 2008 10:16 AM
Pr 11:3 The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.
Many times God sends us a choice. We chose uprightness or integrity, or we chose compromise, the easy way, or the slothful way.
If we walk through a gate of uncleanness, God sends a hedge of thorns, to prick us back to eternal life.
Pr 15:19 The way of the slothful man is as an hedge of thorns: but the way of the righteous is made plain.
The times I have passed down the thorn laden paths, were so painful, that I have endeavored to "be careful".
Now, being a roofer for many years I had the "privilege" of working in the wasps living quarters, (the roofing eves) and i learned that if I didn't roof even when they were around, then I also didnt buy diapers that week.
So I learned exactly how far you could push them, and when you had to leave.
This week I was working with my 14 year old son, and we moved a set of stairs to work under the trailer. He simply refuses to watch out for the warning from the wasps, so I would move the stairs, and they would go around me and bite him. Poor kid got bit 4 times yesterday.
But the point is do we listen to the Lord, and watch for the enemy before he bites?
Pr 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
Pr 27:12 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
27. Is there any grounds in the gospel to silence a minister?
A. With the exception of several ministers (who said they had no light to say so) it was decided that there was no ground in the gospel to do so. Rev 2;1-5 3 1-3 was taken as examples to show that when minister sin, they are to be admonished to repent, and if they do not they are to be excommunicated.
2:1* ¶ Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2* I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3* And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4* Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5* Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
6* But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7* He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
3:1* ¶ And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
2* Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3* Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
4* Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
5* He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
6* He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
"we should realize that there are ( must be) language difficulties to English, and so the real intent may not always come through. As well read a person as John Holdeman was, he certainly would have understood inconsistencies that appear today. I suggest, that we really do not understand him in many ways."
WHAT?!
Translation without rose colored glasses on:
Here we understand that Gods last name IS Holdeman.
This is one of the most anti-truth decisions, and is probably one of the most foundational damaging legislation they ever conjured up.
First off, the minister is voted on to be a representative of the people. He is the servant of the people. He is a delegated teacher to the people. The people therefore are his maker, his manager and his authority at least in his ministerial position.
Our preacher went around publicly and privately attacking me in the eyes of my piers, which cost me countless hours of instruction to help his victims see that I was innocent of the charges. (In holdeland, you cant just say "he is a liar" oh no, you have to carefully lay a non refutable legal case to each layman, so that there is no way the charge can be denied. I spent so much time going back to the laymen he accused me of that I almost lost my business! I had to continually be looking over my shoulder for the next trap he was setting. Several of the laity even came to me and asked me how I could stand the public assaults he was performing on me from the pulpit. SO I went to him and asked him too "stop" it.
He usually said he would but it is hard for a leopard to change his spot, and a wolf to change his bark and hunting method, so a reversion to his methodology was always forthcoming !
He then start 'rebuking" me for instructing him. Now folks, we take a vow to be open to rebuke, okay? A good leader is a good follower and he lost me here, anyway he told me it is wrong for me to rebuke him. SO I studied the place of the authority here.
Now the authority of God's church in the bible is the senior elder of each family. This is because he has all his family in subjection.
1Ti 3:4 1Ti 3:4* One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
If I have my whole family in subjection (which is the only way I could scripturally qualify to be an overseer), and I say "jump" and there is 23 children and grandchildren "under me" how many people in there will jump?
obviously 24, (all of them and me) So my say so become a major voting block. SO you take my unworthiness, and the other 6-8guys with their families in order, and you have a board of overseers, that have arisen by natural selection, and spiritual talent. The Senior men in there with little "say so" have their children a mess, and so disqualify themselves to sit the board of overseers.
These men on the board have the votes to put in or take out anyone they want to elect to teach or lead, for any reason they see fit
The man may well be a natural "minister" but without the laying on of hands of the elders, (the granting of delegated but licensed authority) he has no right to be a teacher or minister to that particular communion.
This make the church blameless for the senior elders with families in order have no motive except to help their families make it to glory, and live right in the here and now.
So in this decision, they turn the natural authority that God gave the senior elder that keeps his house in order, into a dirty thing and makes the political machinery that elects a man to be the holdigod of the local congregation, to be a beast that is untouchable.
Ray Nicols (Pincher creek) said it best "the preachers will take care of the preachers"
And he meant what everyone in there knows, the preachers are untouchable by the people that put them in and keep them in.
To gather together unto Him, to me means that we must get past all the trappings of religion that we have gathered together unto. This is an internal heart matter, it's a Spiritual issue!
If we gather together unto Him we invite Him to reveal Himself to us! There will be a vast order of people in the last days of this age who will be and are approaching Him in this way! He does not turn down this invitation. "When we see Him we shall be like Him". Only by seeing Him in all that He is do we come into the image of who He is and that by looking through and then past accurate doctrine! consider 11Cor.3:17-18.
Over 500 people saw Him after the resurrection in His glorified body and yet no one was changed at all so far as we know. Seeing Him with the reflector eye system we have will simply not do it, because those eyes cannot see Him. He is Spirit!
Carnal eschatology is just more of these trappings. A few windows are opened by eschatology but the issue of looking through the windows to see Him, is simply not what the carnal minded escathologists are looking for.
I do not need to labor this. Those who are gathering together unto Him know who they. It's a heart matter.
one of the scriptural references he uses to "prove" ministerial untouchableness is the reference in revelation saying "thou hatest the deeds of the nicolaitians.
I find it fascinating that they use the very teaching that commends an action, to prove an action evil.
The deeds of the niolatitains is the deed of hating a conquering the laity, God hates the idea of conquering the laity also, and the decision is nothing more than a conquering of the laity!
_____
Now, the other thing I see in this legislation is the presumption that they have properly discerned the excommunication doctrine, for where in the named passages does God tell the church to expel the ministers or anyone else for that matter?
They have to "add" that in there to make it there, for it simply isn't there.
the elected ministers job is not near as important and high falutant as the holdies make it, for if they don't do and speak for the overseers, they simply are "taken out" by them!
Can you imagine the terror the H ministers would have if the true overseers in there would wake up and regrow their emasculated manhood?
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 12, 2008 8:04 AM
Yeah, doug, the reason I asked the question, you have a system for gathering unto Him, and all your religious writings {I haven't read 3% of them} read like a recipe.
Jerry just mentioned on the Baptism thread you had "cult talk". You might want to examine that.
1. I am giving my opinions, and openly encourage anyone that has a different take, or understanding to hop on in here and so state. Yes you might get picked on but that is the fun of an open forum.
2. I went to a senior elder in my congregation, when I realized there is a problem in New Plymouth. I explained to him the job of the overseers, and how God had made him one.
I then asked him "think about it, and get back to me.
He apparently went to the preacher for "advise" and instead of coming to me and explain himself, he went forward to the front of the church and groveled saying that "he loved the mother church" and is sorry he "questioned her" and asked the church to forgive him"
All I saw was the fleshly part of the thing we did to the bulls when we castrated them and tossed the remains on the ground. this senior elder with an obvious threat over him, by his pet wolf groveling at the threats of the preacher instead of protecting his charges!
Oh H men, where is your manhood to stand against your servants?
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.
1. There is no doubt of the fact that difficulties existed in transition between German and English existed in late 1800 1950s. My opinion is, that the German speaking H folks had a far better grasp of the real message of the BIble, then did the early H English ministers; and what Fred has posted were "German thought patterns" translated to English, and badly done.
2. I catch your sarcasm; of course, all of us use colored glasses when reading or applying others ideas or even when reading scripture. And ALL old H writings have been translated with such bias.
Thanks Jerry, I touched on that a minute ago on the baptism thread be interested to see your thought on my idea there
_____
Hank, you do realize these early decisions are done in Jh"S handwriting? so he did any translations, is that what you are referencing?
in other words they held the meeting in German and Jh translated the minutes?
Now this decision is codifying the idea conveyed in true doctrine regarding offense. The object is to make the offended the evil one, and the offendor the stalwart.
28. Is the ground of the gospel without any limitation, so that all things at which offense may be taken, must be put away? Or can we find a ground that we must not put away all things at which offenses must be taken. Rom 14 Co 2;16-23 and 1 Tim 5;23 were explained and too lengthy to explain here.
Romans 14:1* ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2* For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3* Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4* Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5* One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6* He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7* For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8* For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
9* For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10* But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11* For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12* So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13* Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
14* I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15* But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16* Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17* For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18* For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19* Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20* For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21* It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22* Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23* And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
____
2 co 2 16* To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17* For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
__--
1tim 5:23* Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 13, 2008 7:46 AM
In actual practice, I have had several of the come to me through the years and tell me that my actions are "objectionable"
They don't come and say they offend them though, for the psalmist claimed "great peace have they that love they laww, and nothing shall offend them"
But how they get around this is by humanizing their ghost, or idol, they point to a non living no named entity and claim it might be possible to offend that non entity, although it is supposedly an unnamed brother.
Now, common sense tells a person, that if you actions are evil, then it is possible to have a conscientious brother come to you and so state.
For instance, I see you have been manhandling the young girls in an inappropriate way.
This can be openly discussed, I well remember my daughter telling the preacher to keep his paws off her, and when he failed I mentioned it to him to "not touch"
there is a victim, a perp, and a bible verse
1Co 7:1* Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Of course he got me kicked out of there before it went past that stage, but you get the message!
However I remember a brother telling me the story of his grandfather clock, as I recall it was Minister Errol Wadel (Sp?) of Phoenix, He told me this story as he was attempting to twist me to conference obedience during revivals one year
1. Apparently he bought a nice clock, and he liked it.
Any sin there? nope
2. Then several of his charges came to "reprove him" for the possession.
Sin here? Well lets look at motives:
Now common sence tells you that these brothers are covetous, jealous, and extremely carnal, and the holy Ghost was sending them to him to help them wake up to deeper things. I had already been suffering under the curse of the "Josephs greedy brothers".
In otherwords they were obviously jealous and Errol's place was to continue in the possession, until at least the time this 'problem" was resolved, for the bible clearly has a principle involved in promise.
Ga 2:5* To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Pr 6:34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
Pr 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?
Jealousy is an evil thing and almost unbearable for it divides friends, and relationships without rational reason. It is an evil that is tough to deal with too, for it may well sit there hidden for years.
You can hate me with jealousy, and I look on your countenance and see it, but I am simply unable to help you because your jealously makes you hate me and my life.
But If I stroke your jealousy by willful submission, I make the beast grow in you, and by my actions I am sending you to eternal torment. The highest calling of agape love it to stand before 'envy" for it takes a work of grace to do so.
Now back to offense, if you are offended, the offense must be looked at or left alone, for it must be discerned, not all offense being taken is evil for Christ himself took offense.
Mt 16:23* But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
But the offenders are the ones that are in trouble with the Lord, not the ones that got offended
Mt 18:7* Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!
What i see in holdemanism now is a bunch of sniveling crybabies that refuse people to do what common sence and the holy ghost will allow of them, and instead every detail of their lives has to be regulated.
I got a dog a few weeks ago and he refuses to not chase the chickens, and the goats, SO I put up a nice cable, and put a pulley on it with a short chain, and he has perfect liberty to anywhere the cable allows him.
This is what the silly "offense" system they have developed does to these otherwise sweet people, for they have this cable that disallows the good and fun things and nice and pleasant things of life, in deference to not offending a non breathing brother, who will never arise to complain, 'you have offended me and are causing me to stumble"
They so fear causing a brother to stumble by their pleated slacks, or short sleeves during worship, wearing of sandals, or possession of normal big boy toys or pictures on the walls or just whatever, that they have put themselves on a pulley and rope to stay free.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 13, 2008 10:10 AM
Now, in my little stint in that spiritual cesspool, I absolutely never in my life encountered so much jealousy, and I mean never. If you put every bit of jealousy pointed at me for the remainder of my life, the jealousy found in the 5 year of my life in holdemanism is 1,000 (hyperbole) times more.
Jealousy (envy) is a cardinal sin, and if it is allowed, then the conference rule keeping looks sort of superficial
first ask yourself if you have ever been jealous or envious?
then ask yourself if there was anything the person that was causing the jealously if he did anything aye or nae, would any action help you not be jealous?
Obviously the problem is totally in you, and since you are in jealousy you are not in the kingdom of Christ's pure love,
Anyway, the highest calling of agape love is to help your brother get right with God.
Now you are jealous, but hiding it under conference legalism, I am the object of your jealously and enjoying my life but watching you put spiritual daggers in my shadowy effigy.
if i want to help you, I also want you to see your problem, don't I? For you will end up in hell, not to mention the hell you already live in being consumed by hatred.
SO I keep the thing that cause you jealousy unless it is sin.
this exposes your hatred to the cleansing power of God.
This is why Paul told them he would not be subject no not for an hour!
But holdemanism has made rules that "must be followed" so small jealous emasculated people can go to the rule book and force others to "submit" to their jealous and envious rampages in the name of some silly alleged offense against a no living entity.
You therefore have a group of people that snivel at idiosyncratic gnats, and swallow huge willful cardinal sins in the process.
Very shallow! And if you point it out to them they go tell the preacher and with his help they start a whispering campaign to smear your good name into h-oblivion.
29. Whether we should give an excommunicated member the hand or not?
A Nearly all considered it nearest to the intent of excommunication and avoidance not to give an excommunicated member the hand.
I am not sure if my parents were even actually exed yet, when my grandmother died, during that very trying period. But I will never forget the total disgust that my relatives had of those people that we worshiped with that would walk right past my parents with the bare nod of a head then act all sympathetic to my aunts and uncles that were non- H. It is a sad state indeed when common courtesy cannot be extended.
Well locklady, I can see withholding of the hand on someone if I think they are a jerk and did me wrong. In fact I am more apt than not to cross the street and not look at them if I see them coming.
But I have trouble reconciling the idea of a universal punishment-discipline performed on someone under the false pretense of a presumed just tribunal, when there is no justice at all in there but all is done under implied statutory adhesion contracts with no real bible foundational truth upholding the alleged and church proven misconduct.
I mean not shaking somebody's hand is really not a punishment, more it is like a little boy saying "I won't play with you unless you give me your tonka truck"
Fred; my view and comments of German/English difficulties of John Holdeman are gleaned from the following:
Clarence Hiebert refers to ( page 61 of his thesis) "300 personal letters, both English and German, which were discovered at various places", from which he says he gleaned a major part of his information for his study. He also speaks about Holdeman's education (page 66) and says " Undoubtedly, the literature in his home would have included, first and foremost, the German Bible, the writings of Menno Simons and Dirk Philips, the Martyr's Mirror, the classic literature usually found in Mennonite homes."
The first English MS book was published by Funk in 1871 (I suppose he had it translated) and DP's book was translated by A. B. Kolb and published by Funk in 1910. It would appear that these books which moved JH to his beliefs in 1855-65, were in the German language.
The major works of John Holdeman, "The Mirror of Truth", was first written in German and translated by CGCM in the 1940s. I recall one session at our house as a child, with 6 (? ) men around our dining room table busy at it. As an adult, I had more then one discussion about that translation process with my dad.
Another clue; in the Introduction to "A History of the Church of God" by John Holdeman, (published by CGCM in 1959) the following is written:
"The General Conference of 1956 moved to have this (the third) edition published making corrections of outstanding grammatical errors and omitting footnotes. The Doctrine Writing and Proving Committee has endeavored to comply with that move." end of quote.
My friends, based on my fathers comments of the Mirror of Truth translation, then there could well have been changes made to hard to understand sentences, to reflect church thinking of that time.
One more clue, is the "language use" Fred is posting, which is from John Holdeman's own handwriting; hard to understand in many places. I submit, that this is the result of Holdeman's difficulties, along with his colleagues , with the English language.
Well Hank, in reading his writing, I would have to say that I think he had a good command of English.
I wonder sometimes if they dont just "rewrite" the manuscripts to fit their practice better.
I got that feeling when the "Bible Practice and Doctrines" came out, for it was intended as a replacement for the "Mirror of Truth", since there are things in that writing that simply do not fit holdemanism as we know it.
Since the handshake is sort of a duh in holdemanism and barly needs to be discussed, I'll go on, but anyone wants to make comment please feel free.
This one however I plan on jumping into so I wanted to post it, I don't think the H people ever read this one before, at least certainly not the New Plymouth H people, and it is a particularly exposing of motive writing.
30 Whether we cannot change decisions made by the conference?
A. unanimously agreed, that it is a duty according to the Word of God to change decisions that are not according to the gospel; but it must first be proven by the word of God, that such decisions are unscriptural; and this must be done in conference, in the presence of those who helped to make them if they live and can be present.
30 Whether we cannot change decisions made by the conference?
A. unanimously agreed, that it is a duty according to the Word of God to change decisions that are not according to the gospel; but it must first be proven by the word of God, that such decisions are unscriptural; and this must be done in conference, in the presence of those who helped to make them if they live and can be present.
Notice a few words and principles that need labored
1. unanimously
2. duty
3. change decisions
4. a. proven b. by the word of God
5. unscriptural
6. done in conference
7. in the presence of those who helped to make them
8. if they live and can be present
I was wondering if someone had a copy of the decisions from 1956 forward done in "e" format? or was willing to at least post the ones in there for this particular study.
there are several decisions that shed light on how to change a decision, and who can go before the conference,and how the question can be brought to conference
GENERAL CONFERENCE November 6-7, 1939
1. Conference Ruling on How to Amend Former Conference Article
Resolved, and unanimously supported, That two-thirds majority of all ministers and deacons present will be necessary to amend any former Conference article; with the privilege that the number for and against may be recorded. (Refer to Art. 4, 1956 Conference; Art. 1, 1962 Conference; Art. 1, 1974 Conference.)
GENERAL CONFERENCE November 5-10, 1950
1. Voting Procedures
Article 1,1939 Conference shall be amended to read: Resolved, A 75 percent majority vote of all delegates present will be necessary to adopt, amend, or repeal any Conference article. (Refer to Art. 4, 1956 Conference.)
Two-thirds majority vote of all delegates shall be required to enact
or repeal a Conference Council resolution. .
GENERAL CONFERENCE Apr 16-19,1956
4. Amending or Repealing Conference Articles
Resolved, It requires the votes of two-thirds of the delegates present to amend, repeal, or adopt Conference articles, the same as Conference Council articles. Article 1 of the 1950 Conference was repealed. (Refer to Art. 1, 1962 Conference.)
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 3-5,1962
Article 4 of our 1956 General Conference was retained.
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 8-11,1974
1. Conference Voting
Resolved, We adhere to our former decision, Art. 4 of our 1956 Conference.
And for something completely different or not!!!
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 26-28,2003
11. Authority of Ministers' Council
Resolved, That we add the following clause to Article 6 of the 1974 General Conference: We understand that a General Ministers' and Deacons' Council is authorized to make necessary decisions that would carry the weight of a General Conference decision. These would be in cooperation with the ministry in other lands where pertinent. Such decisions would be subject to any future General Conference.
Now notice that there was a unanimous decision to fix a problem decision.
30 Whether we cannot change decisions made by the conference?
A. unanimously agreed, that it is a duty according to the Word of God to change decisions that are not according to the gospel; but it must first be proven by the word of God, that such decisions are unscriptural; and this must be done in conference, in the presence of those who helped to make them if they live and can be present.
DO you suppose this was because they all intended to have a superficial legalistic society that did not remotely resemble the bible?
Probably not, they fully intended to honor the bible, and considered it a duty to do so.
So my question is, where are the duty bound soldiers of the cross that take the time to "change those decisions that they know are not scriptural?
So first off I cannot exactly tell you why or how they jumped aroud and made this principle void, bu look at the different ways posted by Observer9999
GENERAL CONFERENCE November 5-10, 1950
1. Voting Procedures
Article 1,1939 Conference shall be amended to read: Resolved, A 75 percent majority vote of all delegates present will be necessary to adopt, amend, or repeal any Conference article. (Refer to Art. 4, 1956 Conference.)
Two-thirds majority vote of all delegates shall be required to enact
or repeal a Conference Council resolution. .
Okay, so in order to enact a change at the conference level in 1939 a 75% majority of delegates was required,
GENERAL CONFERENCE Apr 16-19,1956
4. Amending or Repealing Conference Articles
Resolved, It requires the votes of two-thirds of the delegates present to amend, repeal, or adopt Conference articles, the same as Conference Council articles. Article 1 of the 1950 Conference was repealed. (Refer to Art. 1, 1962 Conference.)
In 56 it was changed to 2/3 present delegates
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 3-5,1962
Article 4 of our 1956 General Conference was retained.
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 8-11,1974
1. Conference Voting
Resolved, We adhere to our former decision, Art. 4 of our 1956 Conference.
in 62 and 74 the 56 was confirmed
And now notice that ministers council, now has the authority of a conference decision!
GENERAL CONFERENCE Nov 26-28,2003
11. Authority of Ministers' Council
Resolved, That we add the following clause to Article 6 of the 1974 General Conference: We understand that a General Ministers' and Deacons' Council is authorized to make necessary decisions that would carry the weight of a General Conference decision. These would be in cooperation with the ministry in other lands where pertinent. Such decisions would be subject to any future General Conference.
What this is saying is that if the council of ministers gets together and makes a decision without the body present, their decision is still binding as conference law.
Now, as way of illustration of why i wanted out of that horrible den of iniquity, in order for me to go to the conference and "prove" that say titus 1:5-7 means overseers are required,
5* ¶ The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
6* ¶ An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
7* Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
The scripture clearly instructs titus, an elected minister, to appoint that overseers are in every town. These people are the authority over the elected officials in the local church. the ordained elders are subject to the overseers who are naturally selected by talent and family awesomeness.
In order for me to take that to conference I must get a 2/3 majority vote of the delegates of the conference.
So who are the delegates? This one is easy, since I already have a page made up of it. here
1939-1 P 34 Resolved, and unanimously supported, that, two-thirds majority of all ministers and deacons present will be necessary to amend any former conference article: with the privilege that the number for and against may be recorded.
1946-2 P 44 Conference Delegates
Ministers and deacons are recognized as delegates in General Conference and General council, and congregations without a minister or deacon may choose a layman to be their representative at such meetings.
1950-1 P 52 Voting Procedures
Article 1,1939 Conference shall be amended to read: Resolved, A 75 percent majority vote of all delegates present will be necessary to adopt, amend, or repeal any Conference article. Two thirds majority vote of all delegates shall be required to enact or repeal a Conference Council resolution.
1956-4. P 65 Amending or Repealing Conference Articles
Resolved, It requires the votes of two-thirds of the delegates present to amend, repeal, or adopt Conference articles, the same as Conference Council articles.
1959-8. P 76 Ballot Vote
Resolved, That all doctrinal matters be submitted for a ballot vote by all delegates present. Matters considered doctrinal are to be thus decided in Ministers’ Council prior to conference.
1962-1 P 85 Voting Procedure
Article 4 of our 1956 General Conference was retained.
1967-8 P 94 Should We Have a Delegate Conference or Continue as in the Past?
Resolved, that we continue with the present system of General Conference.
1974-1. P 101 Conference Voting
Resolved, We adhere to our former decision, Art.4 of 1956 Conference
So let me see, I need to get 2/3 of the delegates and all of them are ordained ministers and deacons, I need 2/3 of them to vote on a decision that they are not authority but the senior elders that are qualified, and naturally selected because they house is in order, and they are willing to serve, I need these delegates to vote themselves out of authority and install delegates that are not ordained.
So what is the chance of this happening? About the same as hell freezing over! for theses people stole the authority, and since they stole it they are not about to give it back! For thieves never confess unless they either get saved, or are threatened with punishment.
1974 General Conference
6: Conference Decisions
Resolved, that conference decisions are mandatory and that we teach and practice them. (refer to Art. 11, 2003 conference)
God is the God of "natural law". He can be proved by study of natural law, and therefore it behooves us to look at how natural law changes bad legislation?
I mentioned not long ago about the legislation in Idaho about 15 years ago making it a crime to home school, so the parents went ahead anyway and home schooled. Nature gave the children to the parents, not to the state, and so the parents have no obligation to ask permission to teach their own children, that is part of parenthood granted by God.
So they taught their kids and the stated decide to make a big deal out of it.
They arrested the parents and kidnapped the children. The media got a hold of it and it made national news. Here is johnny and susie crying for mommy and daddy and then daddy sitting there patiently in jail!
A few weeks of that , plus the fact that the kid were getting sick, made the legislature change the bad law before they got "unelected"
The proper way to prove a thing is right or not, is for a man to take his liberty, and then the charging party to come to him and say, "you are sinning against the word of God"
Yes this is a thing that must happen each time instead of making rules and then giving out citations for misbehavior liek the civil authorities do.
The problem with holdemanism is they are so far off now that the bible takes second fiddle to their own conference conjuring.
Since the ordained thieves are in full authority, they simply need to convince the congregation to discipline the alleged miscreant for any alleged misconduct they can get to stick.
So they go play "ring around the rosy" with the congregation, explaining how the miscreant is off, and needs disciplined and they do this until they have a quorum on the floor of the congregation to their side. Then they simply tell the congregation that so and so is off and needs to repent and they vote him under discipline.
What is the willful blatant sin?
none
Who did they harm?
Nobody
who will hold the charges if convicted?
Nobody
who is unjustly punished by everyone convicting?
The victim who is charged by the system,
How can people just punish someone they have no honest idea what their sin is?
They are blinded, they are like the guy that thinks the kids should be taken from the parents if they refuse to public school them.
There are people in there that literally hate me to the point in fact that reliable witness have told me they wished God would kill me. (thank God he doesn't answer their prayers!)
I am no different than when we had sweet Christian fellowship together though, but they have to hate me or else they will honestly look at what I am saying and then themselves get the boot, so it is a dog eat dog world in there, and they have to sear their own conscience to punish people with no bible sin to charge them with.
The proper way to change rules is built into the truth.
The true way starts with an honor to the principles found in,
Ac 15:28* For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
And then not add to them! So the Word of God refutes every conference decision they ever made that touches on requirements of conduct or possessions and church governments!
How can they add to the necessary things? only by deception and finding a different "Holy ghost" or one that changed his mind!!
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 14, 2008 11:15 PM
that such decisions are unscriptural; and this must be done in conference, in the presence of those who helped to make them if they live and can be present.
since almost all decisions are unscriptural, they should all be shelved! But you must remember the motive of a conference is to lie and deceive people into taking the obvious meaning of scripture and turning it into a falsehood, and fill the empty void with a lie that beneifts the kingdom of satan. SO they are pointing one way 'we only want truth", and this looks cool to the causal reader, but in actuality, they have no intention on making a scriptural church, for they hate scripture, and love their conference conjures (lies).
Now if they were to say what they really meant.
"We aren't about to give up our stolen power, and we aren't about to let the stupid laymen have a say in the church." Well that wouldn't go to well with the souls in there. So they have chosen to pretend to make it doable, and then make it nigh unto impossible to bring it to the floor.
______
One other thing is "if they live" the conference is a "legal person' and by every definition an idol. It has life and can sue and be sued, it can buy and sell property, but it is not a breathing thing built by creation, but rather a fiction built by precept of law.
To allow the fiction, to hold charge against a man is an evil beyond words, for it is by every definition what idolatry is, the charged party must pray to the conference for forgiveness.
What kind of a 'true church" would force penitents to genuflect at the altar of a "Legal Fiction to find forgiveness and fellowship?
Fred; you say JH had a pretty good command of English; however we do know that his grammar is off in many places, and that CGCM reports that they re-wrote "History of the COG" by JH, to correct this. We also know that his early church/Bible life was German. All I am saying is that we are not sure that his full message has come through in the translations and in folk lore.
Here's my issue. When I reflect on the happenings at CGCM from say 1950 (I was born in 1941) to 1976 (when we were separated from H) and the turmoil that followed; it raises my curiosity, or should I say my interest in how a societal group changes its outlook or thrust. Granted, we all have our prejudices, our particular view of what truth is from our home and early church life, differences in emphasis in different congregations impacted by different personalities of ministers and revival preachers. And we see, ( my experience till 1975ish ) , that we got along at CGCM churches quite well with such differences. THEN, a drastic change came; change which likely puzzled most (most?) church leaders themselves, and forced me to reassess my life of faith.
So, if change takes place in my short span life span of 35 years at CGCM, ( till 1976), what else transpired from 1860 to 1950ish, when I started to understand what God/Jesus/church was all about. There is NO doubt, that change occurred during that earlier time; we can read about the debates, the conferences, the particular splits (small ones) and excommunications that occurred that created life-long separations (really only at the table, and not differences of real faith in Jesus Christ) even in some of my older relatives.
I submit that we likely do NOT know half of the real history at CGCM, and the gradual changes that brought CGCM to the place they are today.
I can only come to this conclusion. We cannot depend on the accuracy of "the faith" we grew up in, but each MUST find Christ as He comes before us in the "Living Word" (we read about Him in the paper pages of the Bible, but the Word is alive) and place our trust in this "WORD". This is my plea for our H brothers; and for all who seek after Christ. This may take us out of our comfort zone; but we can be assured that when Jesus came in the scene two thousand years ago, the comfort zone was clearly challenged... and upset.
Cults adapt, evolve and change in whatever way is necessary to maintain control (especially psychological control) of those trapped in it. Whether JH would have ever intended the COGICM Inc. (a Kansas corporation) to become what it currently is could be debated. However, the seeds of it were sown back in the 1850s when JH was 'holding his light above that of his brethren' in the (Old) Mennonite Church there in backwoods Ohio.
Hank, what is an interesting study in the history of the system is how a few unnamed souls got control and kept it, the subtility involved is somewhat if not entirely creepy.
And how the whole mainstream group moves as one in fear of the unnamed thing that is moving people to actions in done in unity based in fear.
Don Milsap, when attempting to get me to "want" to be the same as "the rest of the congregation were" attempted to tell me since everyone does it, doesn't that prove to you it is of the Holy Ghost?" (or something to that effect)
While I thought he was being silly, it was also a study in the group mentality. To give these people credit, they really feel they are right.
If you take the individual will of 17,000 people assembled in conference, and get them to all be one in unity, then the person with control over the vision, gets to control everyone.
Exactly why they don't see that is dangerous and evil is beyond me! When I was in there I was like "yea right, I'll just do that"
At this point in time though, the powers in control are so well hidden behind the foggy curtain of conference incense smoke that they are unrecognizable by most of them, and when it occurs that one arises to expose them they are dealt with quickly and sharply.
32. Is it right that so many ministers move away from one place and take away the seed from other places?
A. The majority, if not nearly all answered in the negative; several were in fear to answer in the negative, because of doubts whether such a case exists, they asked the question whether there was such a case in the church.
33. Whether a minister can move away from their flocks to different places.
A. Referred to the decision made in Kansas, Nov. 1884 Article 9
_____
Nov. 1884 Article 9. When ministers desire to move away from their churches, it was decided that they should council other ministers and the church, and if agreed that they can move, then they have the liberty to move. One minister desired the matter placed before those ministers who have the general oversight over all the churches; and did not seem really united with the above decision. When there is no agreement amongst those who have examined the case, then it shall come before such ministers (or bishops) who have the general oversight of the churches.
Now here we see the conference having to figure out how to deal with problems that arise to fix unanswerable things that happen when you don't do it right in the first place.
if, the church properly ran it's government by the bible this question would not even need to be addressed, as the old timers said the bible is all that is needed or necessary to answer the questions of life in regard to things of salvation.
But since they are unwilling, or unable to get a quorum to make the "church" match the bible, they then must degrade the bible to fit their practice.
Now think about it a minute, if a church was ran by naturally selected overseers, and those overseers were the fathers of faithful children who are in subjection, as the bible says they are to be, then the overseers are in a position, to have a teacher or preacher ordained by majority vote from the floor to "minister" to the flock. The men get together and decide and that is it, perfectly peaceful and no fight except with a few men that are spiritual enough to have "faithful children" which is no small feat in itself.
Their "hands" and those of their sons and other elders under their subjection according to the word of God, are laid on that said ordained minister to minister to their flock.
But the people in charge of the CGCM, don't want to give the authority to "hire and fire" local talent to the people that hire them, instead they want to make it a lifetime calling, thus assuring a legal quagmire that gets tighter and tighter with each conference, so they have to look at how and whether an ordained man can move!
First of all common sense tells you that any man can do whatever he wants to do.
But conference legalisms forces the man to stay put in the local beast if things are haywire.
Now most of the time people leave because of problems, many times they see them coming before they actually happen.
Sometimes a thing arises like the thing that jerry and I went through with the "naked movies", a subtle untruth not quite right but not quite wrong gets flaming through the community of believers and distrust and accusation arises, and people take sides, until the ministry is unfruitful, and a real drag to everyone. Now I don't particularly care what people's opinion of me is Like my late brother said "if you don't like my face, beat it" so Jerry's shaded comments don't bother me except superficially, but a flame of gossip going through a community that profess a love feast toward each other is a tough thing to worship in so something has to give.
Compare that with
36* ¶ And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37* And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38* But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39* And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40* And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
There is contention, and "feelings" in christian life, and sometimes a separation is in order and it is not sin.
But the preachers are considered "property" and really can't move without "the say so of the church" I understand they will get exed if they do leave without permission.
What they do in this lack is make it so since they cant get away from troublemakers, they vote themselves the authority over them and gain absolute control!
I don't blame them either I certainly would not want to pastor a group of holdies. just the thought gives me the creeps.
But the point is the idea that an ordination to serve in a communion is only and just that, if they go somewhere else, the communion that ordained them has no say unless they send them out so the ordination is void. For an election to serve is not a lifetime calling but a gift from the church, a license if you will, granting them conditional permission to serve the communion under the overseers and elders.
Fred, about reputation; I'm going to take this opportunity to honor my father, an H all his life. My father was a solid believer and he was a maverick. And so, he received behind his back negative comments and it really bothered my mother. Dad said it a hundred times, "it is only the truth that hurts... and you can only lose your dignity of you succumb to untruths."
Any person who makes an honest progressive mark in the community or on life, will be criticized and have questionable comments passed along about him/her. Such have no real effect when an honest person disregards them or stands up to them. In the final analysis, truth and righteousness will prevail.
Final analysis may not always become apparent in one's lifetime.
Hank and Fred, (and others who hold similar views)
If you were to present a realistic view of the church that existed in the New Testament, I could better grasp what you said. BUT, there is the problem.
Fred especially, you seek to point out what you believe to be errors in the CGCM, but fail to prove that you have a hold of anything greater. I'm aware that you are a live and let live sort, even so far as concerning basic doctrine of what one lives by, but I fail to see that such a view actually stands the test against Scripture.
Hank especially, you seek to point out that we ALL MUST seek Christ, which is true and fundamental, but fail to prove that this truly brings one to the same mind and judgment concerning the substance of a living faith, and how it guides one in the doctrine such choose to live by.
Any person who makes an honest progressive mark in the community or on life, will be criticized and have questionable comments passed along about him/her.
Hank, actually, if you interact with people much, I think you will find that ALL people have these criticizims and comments made of them, irregardless of whether they "make progress" or not.
, but fail to prove that you have a hold of anything greater.
Tr, I have a tender conscience so deceiving people to get them to think the church is god or even remotely good, goes against my grain. Standing to expel, and avoiding people that I know the other side of the story, and it wasnt clearly portrayed at the mock trial, simply makes me sick. Refusing to allow people to freely leave without punishing them from natural God given rights is an evil that I honestly think God detests.
The idolatry of asking the 'church" meaning the CGCM incorporated, a legal idol, my asking that idol to forgive me is sin I simply won't do it, and i think anyone expecting it of me sins against me. I would learn to hate truth in that environment. And I hate being around people that sew discord through lies and deception, and rumormongering.
And then when I go to church and see these people genuflecting at the altar of those heinous things, I simply do not want anything to do with it, and do not equate them with holy living.
There are few things one can do that is not an improvement over submitting to holdemanism's lies.
YOU guys get it all or nothing You can't condemn stuff even you think is wrong, yet your people call that perfect liberty.
I have the bible, and I think the bible is way greater that kissing the idols of conference lies. But if you like it, go for it, I simply ask you to instruct your people to cease punishing their kin for leaving those lies, is that too much to ask?
TR; as believers, we are fortunate that the scales of eternity with the things we do well, (and CGCM does many things well) are not thrown out of balance with the things we do not do well. It is only the "grace of God" that put the scales in our favor in the end. That is why I continually say, ALL must place their trust in Jesus Christ, for it is He who puts us in right standing with God.
You say... "we fail to prove that you have a hold of anything greater."
The scriptures say, Luke 9:46-48; "Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be the greatest... and Jesus said to them, Whoever receives this little child in my name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great.
I have a responsibility this morning. At 10 AM, we will bury our daughter-in-law's mother, the other grandmother to 3 of our grandchildren. When our our son, our d-i-law, with 3 children look over that open grave, I will put my arms around them and tell the children that the real grandma Dueck is alive in the presence of Jesus; and that we will meet her again because she trusted in Jesus and lived for Him. That to me, is what matters in life.
Hank my condolences at your loss, but what a great testimony!
I see the holdies doing things that at first glance seem right, but after getting to know motive, their first appearance seems to be lost in detestable reasoning. When fear motivates almost every action, it seems to me to be depressing, and exposes why so many h's have to take anti depressants.
My faith is fairly simple, leave me alone or prove I sinned against you, but they hammer and hammer until they ran me out of there for things that I hardly even now understand, and what i know seems so trivial when compared the sins of deception, hatred and lying.
Tr, has at several times asked me to show him something better, but hasn't opened his eyes to my meaning.
____
TR, truth is better than lies, stay where you are if you can open your mouth against misjustice. But if you are required to shut up to keep the peace, then speak anyway and suffer for it.
Ac 4:20* For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard
I mean it is one thing to suffer at the hands of the true "false church" (meaning the persecuting church found in the martyrs mirror) but it is a whole nother things to suffer at the hands of the thing you call the "true church". God's church simply does not persecute people for asking it to prove it's teaching with the bible and reject that which is unprovable.
Ac 17:11* These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Ac 17:11* These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the conference reports daily, whether those things were so.
Conference teaching is in fact either totally true and subject to correction by open reproof, or it is false and attempting itself to be right under principles of denominationalism held by membership agreements and or deception.
If the former is the case, why can't you reprove it openly, if the later is the case why can't you terminate membership and leave unmolested if you disagree with the rules?
My point in exposing the things in your system that don't add up is not found in condemning you guys, I mean who does everything right? But rather to get you people to realize that you are a flawed people like the rest of us, (except perhaps Jerry whose perfection reaches the clouds and even amazes Christ) and in those flaws, you are sinning by not letting people freely leave unmolested.
I would have stayed a Holdeman if you would have let me go, but when I realized people are not allowed to leave without suffering family loss, I decided that is simply not found in the scripture, for the whole purpose of the scripture is to bring the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers. Setting them outside the family table is divisive, and not conducive to family altar.
If you in fact think the avoidance is right, which in my opinion is a grossly twisted half truth in holdemanism, but if it is right it certainly is not right for the family table, but only for the table of the harmed party, who can clearly explain the reason for the avoidance, and the steps needed to clear up the problem and find restoration.
Hank
My Prayers are with you. It is times like this that sometimes a person's Faith is tested. I know that if you keep your communication with God he will keep you through difficult times.
Herman
Hank, our thoughts and prayers are with you during this time. And I agree with Fred and Herman; what a great testimony to pass on to the grandchildren.
34. What is to be done with those who come into the church unconverted?
A; It was unanimously decided, that if any person comes into the church unconverted, and walks in the fear of God, that such an one shall not be excommunicated, but put where received, but it must be a certain case. But nearly all agreed with a former decision made in 1875, that if any one is called a brother, and is a fornicator & ect that such an one should be excommunicated 1 Co 5, 11
This is from the second conference and probably what he meant as I don't have record of a conference in 1875
4. It was decided not to withdraw the kiss from a brother before he is excommunicated, unless his sin has already excommunicated him; as by fornication, and adultery, & ect. It was decided not to quit the avoidance of the excommunicated members, before the church is unanimously agreed to receive them into the church.
11* But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
Now a couple of things come to mind, one is "why' why do they need this? Why is not the scripture sufficient for the problem? And do they gain in making this ruling?
It was unanimously decided, that if any person comes into the church unconverted, and walks in the fear of God, that such an one shall not be excommunicated, but put where received,
TO properly understand what the bible means by "in the church" compared to what the CGCM means one must look at the standard of membership as applied by the ancients.
And as an interesting note is that in this reference they were baptized in the rhine! (not with the Rhine by sprinkling)
____ 10th century credit
The last witness adduced about baptism is Juo of Carnuto, who, besides various other matters, makes this salutary and true declaration with regard to baptism, "That the novices would confess the creed before baptism; that they were then, while answering, washed from the old wickedness; that their baptism took place on the holy Easter Sabbath, and that they were first instructed; that those who desired baptism had to throw off, by prayers, the yoke of the devil; that they were asked: Do you believe on God," etc. Thereupon it is noted what said passages of Juo indicate. Finally it is shown that he also opposed monachism, discrimination as regards food. Conclusion.]
____
Of course the Martyrs mirror doesn't prove anything unless they say what the bible already says, but if you look up Creed, you will find the importance of that statement of faith to be unfaltering at the baptism ceremony throughout the ages of the "true church" that the holdies deceivingly profess to be continuing and therefore reject the notion of simply being a denomination that one can join or terminate membership in by membership contract.
If you don't understand why this is the turning point or extremely important legal point of membership, you need to get this for their whole deception derives it's foundational power form the idea held in these two separate forms of government
___
Now, my point is that the H needs to become a corporate idol before it can transform itself into legal living entity that can in itself sue or be sued charge and be capable of holding charges separate from the humans that made it by precept of law. The church in the bible of course is actually set up in a trust form of government and the trustees hold the liability for the charges if they are to be applied. The division is that the property completely belongs too God, that the trustee has full control with the guidance of the trust document. THe corporation on the other hand takes the property and grants it to the shareholders, and the officers of the corporation own limited control, and have limited liability for running it, and they can be replaced. The legalities of forms of government went unstudied by these simple people, and they hardly understood the importance of government.
In countries with bad governments people starve even if there is water in the ground for crops, and fertile soil, because the government is oppressive, so the people morn and have no fat on their thin bodies.
In governments like the US and Canada, the people are free and they have farms, and they also have freedom to farm, thus insuring food, and blessing from the natural fatness of the land!
My point is however not the fatness of the land, but the idea that government is extremely important, and that the H never actually looked at government of their system in a logical, systematic way that reconciles with scripture, and insures the fatness of the spiritual man.
_______
Now this decision is one that is referenced at least in practice several times in holdy land
It was unanimously decided, that if any person comes into the church unconverted, and walks in the fear of God, that such an one shall not be excommunicated, but put where received,
It is not so much what is said here, but rather what is not said,but implied for instead of allowing any particular member to just withdraw membership they are implicating they are using a trust form of government, but deceivingly installing a corporate form with "members' (stock, or merchandise) The stock if not properly brought in may be returned to the supplier.
But the real evil is the certificate of ownership in this merchandise, it is implied that the corporate has possession and the stock (the man) has no say.
Obviously this man realized what a bunch of legalists he got himself tangled into and wanted out, so claims "unconverted at times of joining or baptism" (which is their joining ceremony) but they have decide to retain full possession of the property (the souls of members) if they sin by gross notorious sins.
please don't misunderstand me, sin is gross, but the idea that a man may join a corporation, and then must appeal to it for release is not only sin but fits the definition of idolatry, for he is forced to speak to a dead inanimate legal entity.
if I make a doll, and force you to speak to it to get out, re you not speaking to a doll? and asking a doll for anything is that not idolatry?
So the H is beginning their trek into forced idolatry in this decision, though it is extremely subtle here.
Many people that want out of that soulish entity, look at annulment of baptism based on non-conversion at time of baptism.
To me that is simply unacceptable and in the doing one is accepting the false premise that their souls belong to the CGCM forever and they cannot just declare themselves out by notice or declaration.
Now slavery is not necessarily outlawed but a hidden thing nowadays with a limited freedom and usually held in debt obligations that in the old days were called indentures.
THe membership of the H is considered by them not an indenture but is an actual full blown selling of oneself into a perpetual slavery. They may "come in" but there are only few ways to "get out" death, and annulment for cause being the only ways they recognize.
This is extremely illegal and if a sharp attorney could actually prove this in court, he could get the legal entity or CGCM INC. to change it's methods. For it is actually impossible to "sell" one self into perpetual slavery for the dividend becomes the property of the one that paid it since the slave gained possession of the dividend at the closing.
At any rate, here they institutionalized the presumption that they have possession of the souls of their members. And it is up to the people in charge whether they will let them out or not as apposed to the right of the individual to decide.
11* But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12* For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13* But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
___
11* But now I have written unto
Now to discern this passage one must go to the front of the letter to see just who he is speaking to:
2* Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Now does this look like an exclusive letter to the holdies? I think the Theirs and ours tells it all, this letter is not to the group think mentality, but to the individual in the group.
Pul simply does not put it on the church organized to discipline those who do not "practice" this command.
Then we go to the "keep company", We met an older couple at Mccall, they have been going to Calvary for years, and travel 2 hours to get there. I have seen them but simply never spoke to them before. Anyway, I don't know them at all so haven't had any reason to "judge them" but i invited them over for Sunday lunch this Sunday.
When (and if) they come over, we will be keeping them as "company".
Keep company with means :
4874 sunanamignumi sunanamignumi {soon-an-am-ig'-noo-mee}
from 4862 and a compound of 303 and 3396; TDNT - 7:852,1113; v
AV - company with 1, keep company 1, have company with 1; 3
1) to mix up together
2) to keep company with, be intimate with one
now; not always but most of the time the Bible meaning is discernible with common sense and very little addition of snobbery. This passage arose because a dude was servicing his fathers wife. In our day that would still be looked on as extremely heinous, and in fact I don't think Hollywood has ever slunk that low yet! But the Christians were glorying in the grace they had to fellowship with this fornicator, by not dealing with this low life fellow.
Now, this sin was open and notorious, it was not challenged, it was simply well known and unquestionable that he was doing this and it was a sin that is simply not acceptable for Christians to be bragging about.
Now, furthermore common sense tells you you don't want to have your little people look up to this pervert, for, if this is not addressed and dealt with the little people may get the idea that for grace to abound one must commit willful heinous and notorious sin like this fellow was doing.
So we have the sins below mentioned being equally punishable by the same "not keep company" and "put from among you"
1. Fornication
2. covetous
3. idolater
4. railer,
5. drunkard
6. extortioner
Once in a while, I suddenly get traction, and there will be screeching and smoke as the rubber burns, and I will remember again the power of religion to render socially uncouth and ungracious behavior acceptable. Bottom line, one can only marvel!
1) one eager to have more, esp. what belongs to others
2) greedy of gain, covetous
Now covetousness is a tough thing to deal with and is called idolatry
Col 3:5* Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
We see a picture of covetousness:
Jos 7:21* When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
King David had his his focus off pretty bad to when he first saw Bathsheba.
2Sa 11:2* And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
Now covetousness is not the same thing as desire for to desire is legitimate, it is the wanting of getting a thing through legitimate means, whereas covetousness is the desire coupled with a willingness to cheat to get it.
Many people ruin their children because they don't keep these things clear in their mind.
Pr 21: 25 ¶ The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.
26 He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not.
When you contrast "slothful" "labor" "coveteth' , and "giving", you have a way clear picture of principles in the scripture to help your kids want to work!
Look at the other way of putting this verse to clarify principles involved:
Pr 21: 25 ¶ The desire of the righteous giveth him life; for his hands labour.
26 He desires to give all the day long: and spareth not but The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour.
Now I can be a tough guy and actually issue an order, but that is really not my way. i am way more inclined to say, "well the lawn needs mowed, or the hay stacked" Than to say you and you go do it.
So last year the lawn looked like boiled terds. I simply do not like mowing the lawn, and would rather live on dry ground with no water that to mow. (we have about 1/4 acre of lawn)
Anyway, since i don't like doing the lawn, why would I tell my kids to do it? I like the kids more than the lawn! Now here is the thing, they like a nice lawn and invite their friends over to play volleyball, our lawn and yard are kinda cool. In fact I like to look at it myself.
Click image to enlarge <br />
However I don't like a lawn enough to "do it", and since they weren't taking care of it, I decided to make it a pasture and let the sheep and goats graze on it.
SO I told them that, and Ben says, Dad, we don't have a decent mower!
Well we have a boy that is artistically capable with a gift of engineering, but when he touches the machinery he tends to break it, so actually we had two riding mowers, but when they break down after every mowing and that particular son destroys them in the fixing, it became my job to spend 2 hours fixing the mower every time they wanted to use it. I don't like fixing mowers.
SO I told Ben to find a mower, and I will buy it, and it will be his, but he has to keep the younger kids from using it! I simply had no will to tell the younger kids not to use the mower, so now I can tell them to ask Ben before they use it! Ben has no problem not letting them use it!
Now we have a nice commercial mower that will do the whole thing in about 20 minutes, and the big adult kids do the lawn.
I never once tell them to mow it!
Now I am talking about covetousness, desire, and the ability to teach your young-uns to want to work.
Another thing I hate doing is stacking the hay, actually I wouldn't own any animal except a dog and cat, but that is not my dear wife's way, and I really like her so so much that I also put up with her animals since she puts up with me.
Anyway we need about 20 tons of hay every year to fed the goats and sheep, and cow, and horses.
This gets tricky and I actually have to issue an order to get it done but I cheat to make it palatable. I usually do not pay them for working around the house, but I told the one boy to go stack the hay and "turn in your time" I don't pay him much for working for me, but pay is better than nothing and working free! So I give the adolescents $2.50 an hour when they help me at work, and that way I don't "feel bad" about telling them what to do. Plus they want to help me. A lot of time I give them 'double pay' if we get a lot done. Any way, I told Josh (13) that if he got all 180 bales put in the barn today, I would give him double pay. (guess if he did it?) Yup! in 5 hours, $25!
Worth it! You bet! Every cent! (like i said, I hate doing hay)
But back to covetousness, a covetous man is tough to be around, for he is always scheming and bragging, and generally being for lack of a better word "pathetic'. Any healthy American or Canadian can simply have anything they desire, for our system is built on the principles of honest labor and business, and you don't have to cheat to get gain.
Ec 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.
this covetous thing is a biggie. been having trouble with it lately. If I would post a picture of my house right at the moment, I seriously doubt that there would be one person here that would be covetous of it, but boy howdy am I having a struggle being covetous of others houses. Not that I want the other person's house mind you, but I want a house that is as nice as theirs with a yard that looks like a park. problem is I do not stretch far enough health wise to get it all done to look like that. Last yr we were on a roll and getting some things done. Our financial situation was the best it had ever been so we got some things done like new windows in and some more rooms refinished inside and it looked like we were going to be able to take off the front room's walls and replace them, put in new windows there and finally after 29 yrs be able to put on nice new siding so Our house didn't look like the house Jack built. then the bottom fell out of our income and now we can barely make ends meet again. then I was still making progress and fell out the back door and ruined my ribs so now can't move anything. and LM is working long hours for which it takes 2 days wages a week just to pay for the fuel to get him to work each week and we are going farther behind. and I am sitting here hoping I heal fast cause we are gonna have to use that wood burner cause we won't be able to pay for the fuel oil, thinking if I don't get better fast how in the world am I going to be able to carry wood in.
I am not complaining mind you, just contemplating here, the constant changes life brings and How to meet the challenges and why have I never been able to have what other mennonites seem to have, what did we do wrong or did we even do anything wrong? Are our life priorities just different and bring different results, like a less than perfect house but lots of friends in many places. A row of children that have learned that there is more to life than money, and how to live without the best or all they want. Grandchildren that think they have the best grandma cause she sent them new sunglasses for when they go to town, got them 4 pr for .99. cheap way to make yourself indespensable.
But when I look around at my little space and know that I can't have my handicapped friends over cause I can't get their wheel chairs thru my 28 in doors and turn a corner to get in if they could get thru the door, I find that it makes me sad, because I feel like I am failing to be able to share and be a hospitable person that I want to be.
I find myself jealous of open spaces, and desire more for us than what we have and then think Okay I already have more than a large percentage of the world, and I can give more than I do already. Sometimes I think that Satan is having a hay day in this world, keeping us all going round and round and round on all kinds of issues, striking us each where we are the most vulnerable and using ourselves against ourselves to keep us from being what God desires of us.
and do we ever recognise how much jealousy and covetiousness play into our lives in many little areas. even in people relationships.
Locklady, everyone desires, that is not covetousness, for to be covetous one must manifest an immoral desire to take steps to "take".
I have heard of several people in the H getting the boot for 'covetousness' but the ones I heard about got it more for too many possessions and they made the brothers covetous.
If Herbies duramax makes me feel covetous, (a real temptation for me) I just accuse him of it and make him get rid of it, or he get's the holdeboot, then we are both equals!
What is wrong with this picture? I simply cannot make anyone covetous even if I was the richest man married to the prettiest girl in the world! For it is a heart problem, possessed of the beholder not the possessor of the coveted!
I had to deal with this in my own life, my left eye is extremely weak, so I simply couldn't tell where to "swing' at the baseball. This made it easy for me to allow baseball to be a "sin" but that attitude is sin, not the baseball.
I decided with my will I was going to not only like watching baseball, but shout the team down! Just because we don't shine in an area doesn't make the area sin.
You want a nicer house? Well God may or may not give you one! And if you take steps outside of grace to get one, it comes with a heavy price! Go out and praise God for you friends that have one like you would like!
And if the Lord gives you one Praise God. But praise him also if he doesn't, for to be sure we will not take it with us when we leave this world.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 22, 2008 11:04 AM
3. idolater
Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any cult image, idea, or object, as opposed to the worship of a monothestic God.
Funny thing is how many people in the H actually love the doctrines of their church! are they not ideas?
Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any ... Idea I find it interesting that these same people will cut off their own kin for alleged sins of "bad spirits" foreign spirits" 'carnal dating" having a radio ect. and things like that but the scripture tells us to cut off the people who worship ideas instead of the God of the Bible.
So, if a man that calls himself a brother puts his idea above Scripture, saying "we don't see it that way" what are Christian's suppose to do with him?
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Funny how the Children of Israel were continually falling into idolatry, but the Christians don't even know what idolatry is! (ignorance is bliss)
TR, earth calling TR? TR, are you reading this stuff? Especially Freds last post on idolatry? This is what I'm talking about over on the "TR And Something Greater" thread. You holdemans are totally guilty of this, you idolize the "church".
Main Entry:
4rail
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Middle French railler to mock, probably from Old French reillier to growl, mutter, from Vulgar Latin *ragulare to bray, from Late Latin ragere to neigh
Date:
15th century
: to revile or scold in harsh, insolent, or abusive language
synonyms see scold
— rail·er noun
credit
Railer
–verb (used without object)
1. to utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation (often fol. by at or against): to rail at fate.
–verb (used with object)
2. to bring, force, etc., by railing.
[Origin: 1425–75; late ME railen < MF railler to deride < Pr ralhar to chatter < VL *ragulāre, deriv. of LL ragere to bray]
Now, to be a railer, have you ever been around someone that simply cannot be entreated? They have a hairpin trigger and cannot be talked into calmness? they scream and become extremely unreasonable and unapproachable?
Well this type of person is a railer!
H.mmm How exactly did the holdies "shut me up"?
Well the minister told me after I confronted him with the bible, that he vowed to "do it that way" when he was "ordained" even though he obviously saw the bible told him to do it different. So he became belligerent and unapproachable to me, for the bible and the conference go in two different directions and he chose the conference over the bible. We are simply on two different pages, and their is no fellowship there.
Then the people would shut me up by saying 'i'll get back to you on that one because "you are so much smarter than me" (flattery) and they did get back, by standing to have me put under discipline! (there, now we're even)
But, who is the belligerent, the one that goes back to reconcile, or the one that forces obedience by force or demand punishment for a lifetime with no recourse?
That shows who is the true "railer" for a railer is belligerent and is in a groove like a railroad, and they are attempting to "railroad" you into their thinking without reason or scripture to back up their idea. And they refuse to listen and act according to truth.
35. How free from the world must the ministers be to spread the gospel?
A. unanimously agreed that they should so that they can fulfill their calling. It was also unanimously agreed that the church was in duty bound to support them so that they can fulfill their calling.
36 Whether moustache can be allowed, or not? Answer, this remained as it was, because some believed it a duty, others not. referred to future conference.
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.
so Jerry's shaded comments don't bother me except superficially, but a flame of gossip going through a community that profess a love feast toward each other is a tough thing to worship in so something has to give. 
