|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Sept 20, 2010 7:20:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Sept 20, 2010 13:04:14 GMT -5
That whole teaching of the "Sex glands in the lips" irritates the crap out of me. I heard that so many times when we were still going to the Message church in PA. About how awful and incestual it was for parents that kissed their kids on the lips, even though it wasn't a sexual thing for them at all.
I'm really surprised that the Message girls in OH wore cape dresses, but perhaps they were coming out of Mennonite and Amish backgrounds?
I think I might have said this before, but I never understood why people didn't edit Branham's sermons. Keeping all the little quirks of the way he talked makes it really hard to take him seriously or read his stuff. Then again, I know that they view his words as the "Spoken Word" (hence the name of the books that include his sermons in written form), so that's probably why. They look at his words as God's words and don't want to detract from it, I suppose.
Branham's interpretations of scripture were SO off base. I don't know where he came up with this stuff, except to make sure that his followers were emotionally, mentally and spiritually battering women down into a place lower than a cow.
The NY, CT and PA church that's all connected to Joe Coleman (btw, my hubby's family would drive over an hour to church each way, too!) used to have a big youth camp every summer up at Lake Champion in NY. It was treated kind of the same way with finding a spouse. So ridiculous. Even though David and I were engaged when we went, we were treated like a scandal because we held hands.
|
|
|
Post by synesthesia on Sept 20, 2010 13:30:06 GMT -5
I already have my hair cut. I'd so wear blue eye shadow as well if it would keep men like that as far away from me as possible, but I don't wear any make-up.
Also, what is wrong with a wild look in the eye? It means the woman has character and it's nice when folks have that, I think.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Sept 20, 2010 17:53:34 GMT -5
It means she might know enough about S-E-X to know when a guy is bad at it.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 20, 2010 20:28:28 GMT -5
I'm not a violent person, but that quote about the cow made me want to kick that guy in the face. What test do we have to detect crazy, power-mad men at a single glance? That look of pure meanness, resentment and fear of women? That complete disregard for the welfare of others as long as they have a position of unquestioned power? How do we discern that when we choose our mate (if we are heterosexual)?
Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Sept 20, 2010 20:30:37 GMT -5
I already have my hair cut. I'd so wear blue eye shadow as well if it would keep men like that as far away from me as possible, but I don't wear any make-up. Also, what is wrong with a wild look in the eye? It means the woman has character and it's nice when folks have that, I think. I don't wear make up either, or need to worry about repelling a bad mate, but it's nice to know that blue eye shadow works so well as a repellent! I bet glitter sends them running! Oh, we are such Jezebels! LOL
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Sept 20, 2010 21:10:25 GMT -5
Keeping all the little quirks of the way he talked makes it really hard to take him seriously or read his stuff. Then again, I know that they view his words as the "Spoken Word" (hence the name of the books that include his sermons in written form), so that's probably why. They look at his words as God's words and don't want to detract from it, I suppose. The "folksy" quality can be either a boon or a hindrance, depending on the audience. Just look what it did for the last Bush! What I want to know was it just how he spoke or was it part of his shtick? On a lighter note, my mother can be quite scary looking without her makeup on.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Sept 20, 2010 21:31:25 GMT -5
I tried using some blue eyeshadow when I was still in high school and got the comment from one of my male friends that I must be very cold if my eyelids were turning blue. He did NOT approve. I didn't try that again. It's astonishing how something as simple as a reference to blue eyeshadow brings me back to those strict days. It's like they are all reading from the same playbook regardless of generation or brand of fundy church. And it's never about eyeshadow, it's always about blue eyeshadow. There was one girl who always wore makeup and refused to apologize for it. The one fact about her made everyone else suspect she just wasn't quite spiritual enough for our satisfaction. Even me. Me of the attempted blue eyeshadow, could not get over her complete lack of shame over wearing makeup every day. She was also very pretty and the boy most of us crushed on at one time or another did finally (after many years of procrastinating about it) marry her. So she kind of 'won'.
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Sept 20, 2010 22:25:44 GMT -5
I worked in a Fundamentalist/Evangelical school when blue nail polish became trendy.
That nearly killed some of the people on the staff. The principal (a woman) decided that policing nail polish colors was going too far and let it go. A lot of people were very angry. They wanted her to make a rule that only "natural" colors were allowed which apparently were pinks and peaches. Then, of course, there was a sizable no nail polish lobby as well. And a small group of us asking what nail polish in any color had to do with educating these kids. We were the most unpopular group of all!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 20, 2010 23:22:34 GMT -5
I really think that Branham should be reincarnated as a heifer cow. Sierra, your story almost made me weep. The very thing about you that makes you such an incredible person-- the strength and independence that made you a survivor-- are the very thing you were taught to devalue. You were a swan cygnet, eating your heart out because you were too "ugly" to be a duckling. *hugs*
|
|
|
Post by apprentice on Sept 21, 2010 12:04:22 GMT -5
I find it extra sad that so many of these stories have themes of "It didn't feel right but I did it anyway" running through them.
The courting-couples stick is pretty funny, though (in a sick way of course).
And exasperating to know that if I pointed out that I'm happy and healthy, despite being far worse than just a dater (FAR worse), it would be denied utterly. Sometimes I wish I had grown up in a religion, so at least I could maybe understand it all a little better.
|
|
|
Post by lucrezaborgia on Sept 21, 2010 12:20:57 GMT -5
And exasperating to know that if I pointed out that I'm happy and healthy, despite being far worse than just a dater (FAR worse), it would be denied utterly. Sometimes I wish I had grown up in a religion, so at least I could maybe understand it all a little better. The furthest I ever got was an evangelical group that ministered to the Haitian community. I went along because they were my friends and I was extremely poor at the time, so the free trips to bowling and whatnot, as well as free food, made me a semi-captive audience. I was booted out though, when they found out I had sex. I tearfully confessed it to the leader of the program to ask for forgiveness and was immediately told that I was no longer welcome in the group. After that experience, I decided that, for me, what I was doing wasn't wrong and just didn't tell anyone who didn't need to know. Your mileage may vary!
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 21, 2010 17:58:30 GMT -5
I'm really surprised that the Message girls in OH wore cape dresses, but perhaps they were coming out of Mennonite and Amish backgrounds? ... The NY, CT and PA church that's all connected to Joe Coleman (btw, my hubby's family would drive over an hour to church each way, too!) used to have a big youth camp every summer up at Lake Champion in NY. It was treated kind of the same way with finding a spouse. So ridiculous. Even though David and I were engaged when we went, we were treated like a scandal because we held hands. First of all, you're right on about the editing. No one felt authorized to "tamper with the word." An editor should not presume to improve upon the pure Word of God (although if you press them about it, Message believers will backtrack and claim that Branham only spoke directly for God when he added "THUS SAITH THE LORD" to whatever he was saying). There was a mix of clothing at the camp. You can actually see pictures of it here under the 2001 archive: www.bcfellowship.org/IV/Family_Camp/imageviewerplus_xl_popup1.htmThis is the main page: www.bcfellowship.org/family_camp_at_BCF.htmlSome girls wore cape/prairie dresses of their own making. Some did wear jean skirts. But the "Message divas" I mentioned were the incredibly skinny blonde girls with lots of coordinating layered shirts and floor-length straight skirts. They were the ones whose families could afford to dress them in Message approximations of the latest trends, I guess. As for the older women... well, they spent all their time glaring at me so I tried not to look in their direction. I'm intrigued that there are branches of the Coleman church in CT and PA as well. My church was based in Philadelphia, and we had sister churches under Ron Walbert in Elkton, MD and (I think) Elijah Gibbs in Meriden, CT. I never knew the Colemans existed - so deep the doctrinal rift must run! I really think that Branham should be reincarnated as a heifer cow. Or better yet, a little girl. In the Message. That'll teach him, huh? I find it extra sad that so many of these stories have themes of "It didn't feel right but I did it anyway" running through them. At least in my case, and I suspect that this is a generalizable rule, it was because it was taught to us incessantly not to trust our (fallible) judgment in matters involving the Word of God. Our hearts were "deceitful" and "desperately wicked" and we were forever second-guessing ourselves to see whether we were being led astray by our "fleshly lusts." Message doctrine implied (if not outright stated) that there was no neutral thought or desire - it was always either inspired by God or Satan. The mind was basically a sorting facility for good and evil thoughts. So whenever something wasn't explicitly honoring to God (going to church, reading the Bible, taking communion, witnessing) it defaulted to Satan. I spent my entire youth believing that crushes were Satan's distractions and that God might at any moment punish (in a horribly abstract way) either me or the object of my desires for my fleshly lust. My journals are full of begging God to deliver me, either from crushes or from unspecified "failings." I was convinced that Satan could read my diary and use it against me, so a lot of what I was going through is totally inscrutable to read. I can only remember about half of the "besetting sins" I was pleading about.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Sept 22, 2010 9:02:51 GMT -5
Tapati said: "What test do we have to detect crazy, power-mad men at a single glance? "
The single best one I've ever found is the rule that if someone is disregarding your boundaries in small ways at the very beginning, or trying to control you ("You should cut your hair different" "I know you wanted X but I went ahead and ordered Y for you." "I am going to get demonstrative and clingy right when you're supposed to leave for work." "That band sucks, I'm throwing away this CD for you.") they're testing you to see if they can get away with worse.
It takes more than a glance, though.
|
|
|
Post by stampinmama on Sept 22, 2010 9:05:28 GMT -5
I'm really surprised that the Message girls in OH wore cape dresses, but perhaps they were coming out of Mennonite and Amish backgrounds? ... The NY, CT and PA church that's all connected to Joe Coleman (btw, my hubby's family would drive over an hour to church each way, too!) used to have a big youth camp every summer up at Lake Champion in NY. It was treated kind of the same way with finding a spouse. So ridiculous. Even though David and I were engaged when we went, we were treated like a scandal because we held hands. First of all, you're right on about the editing. No one felt authorized to "tamper with the word." An editor should not presume to improve upon the pure Word of God (although if you press them about it, Message believers will backtrack and claim that Branham only spoke directly for God when he added "THUS SAITH THE LORD" to whatever he was saying). There was a mix of clothing at the camp. You can actually see pictures of it here under the 2001 archive: www.bcfellowship.org/IV/Family_Camp/imageviewerplus_xl_popup1.htmThis is the main page: www.bcfellowship.org/family_camp_at_BCF.htmlSome girls wore cape/prairie dresses of their own making. Some did wear jean skirts. But the "Message divas" I mentioned were the incredibly skinny blonde girls with lots of coordinating layered shirts and floor-length straight skirts. They were the ones whose families could afford to dress them in Message approximations of the latest trends, I guess. As for the older women... well, they spent all their time glaring at me so I tried not to look in their direction. I'm intrigued that there are branches of the Coleman church in CT and PA as well. My church was based in Philadelphia, and we had sister churches under Ron Walbert in Elkton, MD and (I think) Elijah Gibbs in Meriden, CT. I never knew the Colemans existed - so deep the doctrinal rift must run! I was looking at some of the pics on that website and YIKES! Bad memories! The front rows were always reserved for the holy rollers, it seems, even in the groups you were in. The ones that made the loudest noise, raised their hands the highest and jumped around the most. The church that David went to have men on one side and women on the other. If families or couples wanted to sit together, they had to sit in the back. The hair styles in those pics are so typical of the Message churches. And the latest trends that you were talking about were very prevalent in the Message church that we went to. If you wore anything other than that, you were looked down on as poor and not trendy enough. The main church was in NY city where Coleman was and they set the trends. It was always intriguing to me that everyone in that church was SO materialistic. Of course, living in NY city had a lot to do with it, I'm sure, but it filtered over to the church in PA, too. Everyone was in competition with each other to have the best of the best. It was SO hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on Sept 23, 2010 9:13:23 GMT -5
I am totally creeped out by that website! Having been over on the cultwatch website, I am even more creeped out. Such slick marketing! Notice how in the family camp 2006 they prominently display all the people of color? Of course just looking at all those over-worked tired and worn plain women makes me sad for them. I remember wondering for awhile if I should feel remorse over getting my tubes tied. We were visiting my father-in-laws church. A happy shiny QF dad and his oldest son were heartily leading worship. They had been there well in advance of the start of the service. A few minutes into worship, the harried QF wife and mother comes in. She was not trim. She was not happy or shiny. She was stressed. She looked exhausted. She was also dressed in what I shall call late Dallas/Dynasty era clothing- big hat, big shoulders, big collars dress that had been in style in that decade previous. I remember saying to God in my heart, sorry if this is wrong, but I am soooooooo glad that is not me! I am glad I stopped at two kids. And in my heart, I felt God smile at me as if to say you are just fine the way you are in my book.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 23, 2010 9:19:40 GMT -5
I was looking at some of the pics on that website and YIKES! Bad memories! The front rows were always reserved for the holy rollers, it seems, even in the groups you were in. We were taught, at one point, that ONLY the front couple of rows were "anointed." If you didn't choose to sit there, you were faithless, disobedient, quenching the Holy Spirit, or harbouring a "spirit of fear."
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Sept 23, 2010 9:54:12 GMT -5
We were taught, at one point, that ONLY the front couple of rows were "anointed." If you didn't choose to sit there, you were faithless, disobedient, quenching the Holy Spirit, or harbouring a "spirit of fear." Was it not possible that you just came in a bit later?
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 23, 2010 10:17:41 GMT -5
Was it not possible that you just came in a bit later? Of course, at the risk of its being said that you deliberately came in later to avoid those holy front rows.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 23, 2010 12:18:36 GMT -5
Was it not possible that you just came in a bit later? Of course, at the risk of its being said that you deliberately came in later to avoid those holy front rows. Oh yes. My pastor used to tell us to be at church 30 minutes early to be "in the spirit" by the time the service started. In practice, this meant the "holiest" people would get there an hour early and beeline for the front rows. Except the front two rows on the right side were reserved for the pastor's wife and 7 children. My mom started a Sunday school in our church because she felt so sorry for all the little kids forced to sit still through the song service and the 1.5 hour sermon. Notice also that in the Family Camp photos, in the activities section, little boys usually sit in front of little girls - if it's a mixed group in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Sept 24, 2010 5:57:38 GMT -5
Oh yes. My pastor used to tell us to be at church 30 minutes early to be "in the spirit" by the time the service started. I don't think we were ever told to be at church half an hour early, but I sure heard a lot of "stay in the Spirit" or "you need to be in the Spirit". Very confusing, and also infuriating because it often meant ignoring bad stuff that was being done to you, reacting most unnaturally to something, or just plain letting someone walk all over you.
|
|
|
Post by whiteclover on Sept 24, 2010 13:26:47 GMT -5
Quote from the article.
And I noticed the old fellow always looking right in the face of a heifer before he went to bidding. Then he turned her head and looked back and forth. I followed him along and watched him, and he looked her up and down. And if she looked all right in statue, then he’d turn and look her in the face, and sometime he’d shake his head and walk away. . .
“I don’t care how she’s made up; she might be beef plumb to the hoof; but if she’s got that wild stare in her face, don’t you never buy her.”
This has been bothering me since I read it.
I live on a 30 000 acre ranch. We have upwards of 2000 heifers. Beef heifers.
If you can get close enough to ANY of these bovines to "turn her head" and "look back and forth," you are WAY too close to her and will find yourself on the receiving end of a hostile kick. Or else she's been sedated. Or she's dead.
They ALL have that WILD stare in their eyes.
So, unless "Jeff the Rancher" is buying 4-H heifers that have been halter-broke, it ain't gonna happen.
Just lacks authenticity. From my neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Sept 24, 2010 16:34:55 GMT -5
Haha, whiteclover. Thanks for the reality check. I love discovering the obvious unreality of Branham's tall tales.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Sept 24, 2010 17:01:40 GMT -5
I wondered about that myself. I never thought about whether it was possible to get close enough to look the cow in the eye, I just wondered if you would really find anything out that way.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Sept 25, 2010 0:48:48 GMT -5
Whiteclover, that raises another question. How could a "beef heifer" be a "good mammy to her calves"? She won't have any calves, will she? Doesn't "beef heifer" mean she'll be killed before she has a chance to breed? Or is this my ignorance showing?
|
|