This is part four of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto discussion.  You can find the original document here.

Advertisements

657 Responses to “4th Part of Prairie Muffin Manifesto Discussion”

  1. thatmom Says:

    27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.

  2. thatmom Says:

    “I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness. 😦 Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”

    We have discussed the Pearls’ teachings on and off throughout the Visionary Daughters thread and Spunky and I discussed Created to Be His Helpmeet on a couple podcasts but I am not really familiar with the Maxwells. Should we open a new thread just for this discussion?

  3. WWF Cindy Says:

    27) The letter “P” at the beginning of their names should be the only similarity between Prairie Mufffins and Pharisees. Never should the Prairie Muffin haughtily pray, “Thank God I am not like that…(fill in the blank).” Rather, she should always say, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.

    This is a lovely aspiration, in and of itself, but I have never seen this grace offered to those outside the circle of patriocentricity. Basically, all that has happened to me is a “looking down the nose” at me and some outright comments that equate to “thank God I’m not like that WWF or whatever.” Maybe they only think this applies to those who they deem acceptable based on limited atonement or something? It only applies to other PM’s???

  4. WWF Cindy Says:

    http://www.titus2.com/corners/5-05-m.htm

    Is this the same Maxwell as mentioned in an above post?

  5. Corrie Says:

    I can’t find the original post that brought up the Maxwells. And, yes, Cindy, that is the same Maxwell as was brought up in the comment above.

    I don’t know much about their teachings on patriarchy. But, if anyone has the book “Managers of Their Home” and noticed a “Corrie” with 6 children………that is me! 😉

    That was when Seth was a baby (he is now 10) and I nursed him while I taught school. I never had a separate nursing schedule (so you won’t see that in my schedule) for my babies. My oldest son (12 at the time) wasn’t traumatized as far as I can tell.

    One of the concepts that I gained from that book that was helpful is to pair up an older one with a younger one so I could teach a couple of others for a block of time.

    Now I am crying thinking about how fast time has flown by……….

  6. RichardD Says:

    Wow – take a short drive and there are a hundred more comments.

    I remember another reason given on the PW list that pants were immodest: it shows a woman’s private parts.

    Yikes! I hope not!

    Hmmm. I’ll have to keep an eye out for those pants. I don’t want to accidentally purchase a pair of genitalia pants for my wife or son. Does this not make it obvious to everyone how unbalanced these people are?

    Comment #601, previous threadStacy McD: “First we have to remember that modesty is an issue of the heart. Immodesty says, “Look at me!” Modesty says, “Look at Jesus.”

    Richard, Maybe Stacy picked up some pointers from your blog post on modesty?

    Somehow I doubt it. All of the answers in that interview were VERY carefully worded. I think Stacy’s answers to the questions she so obviously helped to choose (or wrote herself) are going through continual refinement (spin) to help make them more palatable to potential consumers of her products. I think Stacy quite likely watches various blogs and forums to see what the arguments are from the other side so that she can word things in a way that seem to say “that person was wrong about me.” But all one has to do to find the truth-to find her actual beliefs on these things-is to look at her blog. She does not believe that modesty has anything at all to do with this answer. She believes, according to her blog, that modesty is totally about which particular item of clothing you choose to wear.

    I would say that if you walk into church wearing a gown with a train or some other sort of period costume, your clothes ARE going to say “look at me”.

    This was actually the way I originally entered this general discussion about a year ago. A very nice lady from our church regularly wore Victorian outfits (complete with hats) to church-even to church picnics. At one of our picnics she asked if I had read her blogpost about modesty. I told her that according to the biblical definition of modesty, her Victorian outfit was immodest among all of the others who were wearing picnic garb (jeans and t-shirts). As the discussion progressed, I told her that you could not make a case that going to a beach topless (if that were the culturally appropriate thing to do) is immodest according to the Bible, unless the woman’s reason for going topless was to be noticed.

    I know this will strike many as a terrible thing to say, and I am certainly not encouraging that. But at the same time, the Bible does not prohibit this. It calls us to dress in a way that points others to Christ. This is completely attitudinal. It does not put any stipulations on dress whatsoever. Of course, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide each person to dress properly as they seek to magnify Christ and to not draw unecessary attention to themselves.

    (Go ahead – I’m ready for the excoriation.)

  7. RichardD Says:

    MY VIDEO reviewing the belief systems and the development of the patriarchy movement is online on my updated website!!!

    Very good presentation, Cindy. Without hijacking the thread, I wanted to comment on two things that jumped out at me.

    1) Women in this movement cannot take communion unless the Patriarch (husband) gives them his blessing. MY GOODNESS!!! That is absolutely shocking.

    2) Regarding militant fecundity … I understand the desire behind this. I have heard recently that Europe is heading toward a majority Muslim population due to the higher birthrates among Muslim women in comparison to others.

    The problem with the thinking of the Patriarchy crowd is the same as was true for the Puritans. Covenant/peadocommunion concepts don’t always result in believing children. Try as you might, unless God regenerates the heart, you have a non-believing infidel for a child, who will grow up to be a non-believing adult. You simply cannot legislate Christianity. Christianity is a heart issue, not a legal issue (well, except for justification – but that’s another matter).

    Oh … and one more:

    3) It is a sin to educate your children in any way other than homeschooling.

    My son’s medical condition requires education that I have never found available through private or Christian institutions. They are certainly not available through any homeschooling systems or programs I am aware of. He requires the assistance of the State. I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.

    I highly recommend Cindy’s site to everyone. It’s outstanding.


  8. The truth is, in some way…SOME of these so-called “modest” women DO want to stand out.

    They are just salivating waiting for some poor soul like me (in jeans) to ask, “Hey, why are you wearing that hat?” or “why are all your kids in matching dresses?” or what not.

    Then they can say “Oh! We are Christians! We believe in Christian Modesty! We DOOOOON’T want our brothers to stumble so we would rather clothe ourselves modestly.” or some other apt answer

    And they do it for the attention to holiness they get.

    They don’t want to stand out, yet they do. It is such an oxymoron.

  9. Sandy Says:

    Richard,
    No excoriation from me. I agree with you. Modesty does not call attention to us. It is immodesty that does so. So, as to your topless beach example, though I would just as soon not go to one :), if it were culturally appropriate as in certain older Polynesian cultures for instance, then a covering would call attention to something that would otherwise go unnoticed.

  10. Irene Says:

    Richard,

    ‘I think the greater sin would be for us to fail to educate him by attempting to do something at home that we cannot do.’

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I think to be a good parent, we should want what is best for our children – and this will be different from child to child, and from family to family.

    Chosing to mindlessly apply a stereotyped principle in an absolute manner will only result in DISservice to our families – regardless of whether the stereotyped view comes from the world or from human leaders in the church.

    I also think it’s simplistic to assume that just because parents chose to send their children to school, they are not involved in their children’s education or that they are failing to train their children in the ways of the Lord.

    There are no ‘one size fits all’ answers regarding how we should apply the Word of God to our daily lives.

  11. Trish Says:

    Sandy wrote:

    “No excoriation from me. I agree with you. Modesty does not call attention to us.”

    I would add that modest does not call attention to us, modest calls attention to the God that we love and desire to glorify.

    1 Tim 2:9~
    I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.

    I must dress in a way that draws attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within me, rather than to my physical body.

    It is all a matter of the heart. One must live in the constant, conscious recognition of the presence of God, and dress and act accordingly.

    Trish

  12. Irene Says:

    Found a very good article on legalism, over at Bible Bulettin Board.

    It’s by Hardy Carey, called ‘Walking the Thin Line. Combating legalism in the church’.

    http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1019CDNotes.htm

    The list of areas in Christian life around which believers sometimes develop legalistic ideas is really something to think about.

  13. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I must dress in a way that draws attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within me, rather than to my physical body.”

    DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.

    We are told that our adorning is to be inward, and not the sort that comes from clothing.
    In other words, it is to be our good works, not our clothing, that shows that we have the heart and spirit of Christ.

  14. thatmom Says:

    “Regarding militant fecundity ”

    This is one more example of how things have moved further down the pike than they were 20 years ago within homeschooling circles. I saw it coming a few years back but this recent term is pretty funny to me.

    My husband and I had three children and hadn’t plan to have any more. Then we were introduced to the concept of trusting the Lord to give you the children He wanted you to have without interfering. This is quite a different concept than trying to have as many babies as possible for whatever reason, irregardless of the consequences to the health of the mother or the idea of stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.

    Long story short, we came to agree with the idea of using no birth control for our family and the Lord gave us three more babies and 3 more pregnancies that resulted in miscarriage. I never felt that I was in any race to procreate nor was I trying to build up any army. Sadly, I have known families where the mom’s health was in terrible danger because she was pregnant all the time and miscarrying left and right. I know one couple whose doctor finally told them, after 13 miscarriages, that they needed to stop even trying, which they did,thankfully.

    Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?

  15. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Oops, I hit the send button too soon. I was going to say,

    “I would add that modest does not call attention to us, modest calls attention to the God that we love and desire to glorify.
    1 Tim 2:9~
    I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety.”

    You can generally guess that a person is NOT a christian, if they are dressed very immodestly, but you cannot tell by a person’t modest clothes whether or not they are saved. Some Christians do wear “Modest Dress” but so do a lot of heretical cults. TRULY modest dress just sort of blends into the crowd — it is not obviously IMmodest, but nor is it noticably different from the dress of the culture in which it is found.

    Modest clothing which calls attention to itself by virtue of its radical appearance is not modest. It draws attention first to the wearer, and secondarily to the wearer’s religion, but it does not show that the wearer is Christ-like. In other words, it may mark the wearer as being religious, but it says nothing about the wearer’s heart.

    Case in point:
    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/modest-womens-head-coverings-464943p3.html
    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=437294&highlight=head+covering

  16. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “…stopping nursing an infant so you will get pregnant right away. Somehow I don’t see how these latter attempts show a faith in God’s sovereignty.”

    God designed a woman to nurse a baby for about 2-3 years, which prevents ovulation from occurring for at least part of that time. This protects the health of both the mother and the baby, and ensures the health of any future pregnancies by preventing them from occurring to soon.

    Curtailing nursing so as to become pregnant again as soon as possible is unnatural. Whether or not it is a SIN, I couldn’t say, but it is not much different in intent than avoiding pregnancy artificially — both actions circumvent nature and allow one’s self-will, rather that God, to determine family size.

  17. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”

    It’s already here, and not just in FundiMormon groups, but it’s pretty much “under the radar” so far. Keep an eye on the Carolinas and Appalachia.

  18. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Comment stuck in moderation…

  19. abby Says:

    Irene, the one on that list that actually shocked me was “Patronizing of Businesses.” I have heard of boycotts on occasion because of bad practices, but long distance providers and restaurants are a biblical issue? I think I have heard it all now!

    On the issue of nursing, I nursed my daughter for 19 months (to the chagrin of many), and my doctor (OB/GYN) was actually quite impressed and–dare I say–proud that I had been nursing so long. He even encouraged me not to get pregnant right away after weaning to give my body “a break.” I got pregnant 10 months later, a sufficient amount of time, I think.

    It disturbs me that anyone who believes breastfeeding is the right feeding choice would curtail it for the sake of having yet another baby. I would much rather have them spaced out 3-4 years apart than intentionally try to get pregnant after only a year (or a few months). My mom had my brother 11.5 months exactly after I was born. She had all sorts of trouble, pre-term labor, specifically, and I believe it was because she got pregnant again so soon (not on purpose). Everything turned out okay, but it just shows how dangerous it is to get pregnant quickly after having a baby. Your body NEEDS that time to heal, and I think it goes against the will of God to “make” it happen again so soon.

    I also have a friend who, after his wife had two complicated pregnancies, and several bad miscarriages, took it upon himself to get a vasectomy (with her consent, of course), because he didn’t want to put her through the agony another time. (Talk about loving your wife the way Christ loves the church!) I would much rather hang out with that kind of Christian than one who believed that his wife should continue to suffer through just so they can have a full quiver.

    Having lots of kids can be a great thing, but only when it’s done responsibly.


  20. I shared our story on my now defunct blog, but in a nutshell…we have been pregnant 5 times.

    Our first 2 babies died before birth. Our next one was perfectly healthy. Then our last 2 were born with a genetic disease that we know now my husband is a carrier of (sorry for bad grammar).

    We have been thru testing time and time again. 50% of the time we will have a child with distal arthrogryposis multiplex congenita. Our type can be lethal, they think 70% of the time.

    We decided it was too great a risk to put me and our family thru anymore. If we want more, we’ll adopt and be very happy about it. But honestly, I am very happy with the three children God has granted us with. I don’t see the need to adopt 10 more to prove my “militant fecundity” (or adoptivity or whatever)

    Long story short, people CANNOT make decisions like we have unless they’ve walked in similar shoes. It is very easy to say you’re going to just have all the kids/pregnancies you get when life is good and health is good.

    I have, sadly, run across blogs of families with medical problems similar to ours, and they choose to keep having babies over and over, many of which die or have very poor health and quality of life. I cannot choose for them, but I know what we’ve chosen to do. To some of these folks, the fact we abstain from more children because of medical issues is akin to abortion or something. It boggles my mind.

    All I know is that my husband and I, and our children just cannot take losing another child. It was almost the death of me going thru our personal situation. I’ve made peace with it, moved on, and TREASURE the three I’ve been given to raise this side of heaven.

  21. thatmom Says:

    Cynthia, did you see this at that link?

    “I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”

    Finally, an admonition to men! 🙂

  22. thatmom Says:

    Lindsey, thank for sharing your very personal story. You hit the nail on the head….it is all personal and aside from those things that are clearly stated in Scripture regarding these things, we are people with minds and choices. I have heard this teachings to which you refer and they are so mean-spirited and lacking in any compassion whatsoever. Thank you again for being so transparent.

  23. Sandy Says:

    Cynthia Gee,
    Those posts were absolultely fightening. Yikes!
    They certainly prove the point that outward appearance has nothing at all to do with inward purity.

  24. abby Says:

    From #27 “This is not to say that obedience to God’s law is not important, however. Prairie Muffins gratefully accept the yoke that Christ places on them, and they seek to have the mind of Christ with the godly perspective which sees the burdens of our Lord as truly light; He is the One who gives us strength to carry those burdens, and He is even the One who carries them.”

    Didn’t Jesus say “My yoke is easy and my burden is light?” I see that as an invitation to something that doesn’t need ANY strength to carry. It’s not about us, is it?

    She sort of misconstrues the entire verse here, and clearly misses the point. Jesus was comparing himself to the pharisees and how they place heavy burdens on people. Jesus says that there is no heavy burden with him, just follow him. Clearly, Carmon sees her faith as a rather heavy burden, thankfully, she sees that she cannot carry it alone. But that doesn’t change the fact that she needs someone to tell her that it doesn’t have to be this way.

    I understand the part about “following God’s law” but this is another area where I think the patriarchs have got it all wrong (obviously!). We are not under the law, but grace, and Paul said it was wrong for us to continue to live as if we are under the law, because Jesus fulfilled it, meaning we no longer have to. This is the whole message of Romans.

    I often wonder what would happen to some of the young women in this movement if they just picked up their Bibles and started reading them all on their own. Would they come to the startling conclusions that what they’ve been taught all along is wrong? I have a friend who grew up in sort of this situation, and she is now an atheist, because there was no grace in the churches her family attended. It was all about the law. And she can’t see how I can live as a Christian and not believe those things that were drilled into her head for 20 years. I’m finally coming to understand why it’s so hard for her to understand the passages in the Bible about grace and about freedom for women. She interprets them through a patriarchal lens, yet she rejects that ideology.

  25. abby Says:

    Cynthia, I am reading one of those threads you gave. It disturbs me that someone keeps referring to Jews in such a derogatory manner. Almost Nazi-like. But I guess I do need to consider the source.

  26. Trish Says:

    Cynthia Gee wrote:

    ‘DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.’

    I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.


  27. Trish,

    I’m not sure how you meant that comment, but I will assure you that for myself, as a Christian, I highly revere the Bible and what it does and does not say.

    I do not allow others to ADD to it or detract from it in order to “get their way.”

    You are correct. It is a heart issue.

    Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.

    (and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)

  28. Trish Says:

    Normal Middle,

    I don’t understand your last statement:

    “(and here is a huge shocker Trish—not every Christian adheres to a literal translation of every single word of the scriptures. We are all not fundamentalists or reformed, or whatever the label du-jour might be)”

    Can you explain further what you mean?

    Thanks.

  29. Trish Says:

    Normal Middle wrote:
    “Marble countertops, organic baby food, and my tight fitting jeans are not addressed in the Bible. Thank God He saw it fit to give us our own minds and free will to exercise how we will walk out our lives before Him and all the world.”

    1 Cor. 10:31~ Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

    Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.

    God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”

    If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.

    Trish

  30. WWF Cindy Says:

    Trish wrote: Normal Middle, if in your heart your marble counter tops, organic baby food and tight fitting jeans glorify God, than you also are correct.

    God wants us to be conformed to the image of His Son Jesus Christ, and so that is my ‘plumb line’. I always try to ask myself, “Does this please God? Is this what Christ Himself would do?”

    If my answer is yes, I will proceed! If the answer is no, I need to address the issue and make a change.

    Most excellent points. Some things in Christianity are uniform and other things are left up to each man’s (or woman’s) discretion and the conviction of the heart. Romans 14 provides us this privelege and “wiggle room,” but the critical factor surrounds honoring God and fearing Him in all that we do.

  31. Cynthia Gee Says:

    ‘Cynthia Gee wrote:

    ‘DRESSING in such a way so as to “draw attention to the heart and spirit of Christ within” oneself is not in the Bible.’

    I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.”

    Trish, you have a point — we really should try to back up our points with scripture, and I was feeling rather under the weather this moring, so I neglected to do that.
    Anyhow, here goes.

    Jesus said three things about dress and grooming, and two of them are direct commandments to His followers:

    First of all, Jesus says that we are not to worry about “raiment”:

    “Luk 12:22 ¶ And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.”

    ESPECIALLY, Jesus forbids His followers from dressing in such a way as to appear “religious”:
    “Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they(the Pharisees) bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not……. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,”

    This goes along with Jesus’s one other commandment regarding dress and grooming, which prohibits His followers from allowing their outward appearance to a clue as to their religious activities:
    Mat 6:16 ¶ Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. Mat 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; Mat 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.”

    SO, we are absolutely forbidden from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform.

    This is underscored again in 1 Timothy:

    1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

    and in 1 Peter:

    1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1Pe 3:4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

    Many see these verses as only forbidding he lavish, worldly sort of immodesty (back then it was lavish jewelry and “broidered hair” and nowadays that might translate to tight designer jeans and “bling”), which these verses do warn against, but the greater point in both 1 Timothy and 1Peter harks back to what Jesus said in Matthew 6 and 23, which is that our beauty and our COMMENDABILITY ought to come from our inward qualities, ie, the “hidden man of the heart,” an ornament which is a delight to God and not an outward garment put on to impress our fellow man.

    So, again, it looks as though the word of God forbids from announcing our religion by adopting a distinctive Christian uniform. We are of course to avoid those things which are actively IMMODEST, but otherwise, we should look just like everyone else, and not wear clothing which announces our religiousness.

  32. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Ugh.. the grammar and spelling in that last posting is a mess — I’m taking meds which make me a little loopy — but I trust the message is clear. God Bless…

  33. Trish Says:

    Cynthia Gee…yes, your message is clear and we are on the same page. Hope you are better soon!

    Trish

  34. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Hope you are better soon!
    Trish”

    Thanks, I hope so too. Intestinal flu or whatever this bug is, is no fun AT ALL… 🙂

  35. Corrie Says:

    ““I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.””

    Amen, preach it!!!! 😉

  36. Trish Says:

    “I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”

    Where is this found in the Bible?

  37. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I believe not having a beard in the Bible is a symbol of shame and homosexuality.”

    Where is this found in the Bible?”

    I’ll get back to you on that…

  38. Andrea Says:

    I didn’t know it was considered a sign of homosexulaity, but didn’t one of the Levitical laws warn men against clipping the sides of their beards?

  39. Andrea Says:

    . . . that should be “homosexuality” of course, and I found the instruction in Leviticus. In 19:27, the NASB says “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” Then in 21:5 it says “They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh.”

    I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?

  40. abby Says:

    “Militant fecundity is scary and, frankly, if this is the goal, why don’t they get really patriarchal and have several wives, concubines, and maid servants to produce for them? Anyone else see this coming?”

    This article is about a sect of the LDS, but much of the dress, attitude, etc. is eerily similar to some of the patriarchal attitudes:
    http: //news.yahoo .com/s/ap/20080408/
    ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

    I hope I never see this in “normal” society.

  41. sarah Says:

    I don’t know why the reference to militant fecundity and PMM tenet 27 sparked these thoughts, but here goes:

    I think that the home school community, accepting itself as normal will be an important first step in addressing the issues of radicalism in our movement.

    We tell ourselves we are different, weird, separate, etc. and believing that we are weird contributes to the separatist nature of home schoolers and especially radical home schoolers. We’ve got to tell ourselves that we are normal people who made or were part of a family that made an acceptable lifestyle choice. It’s a lifestyle choice that society should accept, and should welcome. When we tell ourselves and the rest of the world that we are weird or special, it makes it easier for us to retreat into our own little home school world. That in turn breeds some of the radicalism and crazy ideas that come out of our movement.

    When we classify ourselves as out of step with mainstream or different, we also make it easier for non-home schoolers to disregard us. When non-home schoolers disregard us, our voice is lost in the public square no matter how loudly we speak. When we feel marginalized in this way, it creates a fear of non-home school or worldly culture and its government.

    The entire PMM is about celebrating the weirdness/differentness of Prairie Muffins. I think it’s ok to be a Prairie Muffin, if it is something you make an informed choice about. But I don’t think you should say, I’m a Prairie Muffin and therefore I’m weird. You’re still a human being – you might make different choices than non-PM’s or non-home schoolers, but you are still a normal, fully human person.

    Finally, what is the real difference between saying, “There but for the grace of God” and “Thank God I am not like that”? I struggle to see a distinction.

  42. sarah Says:

    A follow up – the reason I don’t see a distinction is both statements still place you in a position of otherness, usually with superiority, to the other person.

  43. Beatrice Says:

    Sarah, post 41 I thought was really good. Good in a way I can especially appreciate. I grew up among Christian homeschoolers, being homeschooled. Many familes that I know in my circle are NOT legalistic, but wonderful, Gospel loving people who freely mingle with public and private schoolers. But weird literature circulates in our kind of circle, nonetheless, and I have been scarred by some of the ideas I came across, especially ones aimed at Christian homeschooling girls. I see stuff by VF, which is among the more hardcore crazinesss, getting more and more hardcore, and more and more popular. (Among people I know, too.) We need people like you to say stuff like this!!!!!!!!

  44. santafeboy Says:

    😦

    WAAAAHHH! I can’t grow a beard. How am I going to tell my wife that I’m a homosexual?

    WAAAAAHHHHHH!

  45. RichardD Says:

    Hey – That santafeboy has to go. I’m sorry folks. Once again, I was signed into my son’s blog.

  46. Sandy Says:

    Santefeboy,
    You kinda remind me about the time that an entire town called me Eric’s mom because he was working as an evangelist in that small town and everyone knew him. I was asked to speak one night in the church he was working out of and introduced myself as “Eric’s Mom.”

  47. mrsjoy Says:

    Sarah, Re #41,42 and Beatrice#43-

    I couldn’t agree with your assessment more Sarah. Like Beatrice, I was homeschooled; I am now a second generation homeschooler. I struggle with both extremes- I think NormalMiddle has it nailed with her ‘handle’. I would define myself in the normal middle too, and I get worried when someone says “homeschooler” and immediately thinks “Vision Forum/patriocentric”. I am also worried about how many of my friends (as Beatrice noted) are getting sucked into the VF paradigm. I get just as worried when someone says “oh, you’re one of those “crunchy” organic/make their own babyfood/bread/birkenstock mommas”. There are extremists in every crowd- but I cannot stand it when I, as a homeschooler, am defined by a snap-judgement, knee-jerk reaction based on an extreme. Yet, as a human, it’s so hard not to make those knee-jerk responses myself! It’s a huge struggle…

    Lindsey- BIG TENT Homeschooler, BABY! 😉 😀

  48. anne Says:

    So you are saying that homeschooling has not always had the VF slant? That is not how one lady portrayed it. She said:
    “For those of us who have homeschooled since
    the mid eighties or more-it’s unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. This way of
    thinking-what pw and others stand for- was the norm-*totally* . Now we
    are odd and hyper-patriarchs? I just don’t want them to win and to
    keep so many families from getting the support that they need to walk
    the walk that’s true. The one that works and is Biblical for Christian
    families. To me, it shows that we are all doing something right too.
    Otherwise, why would anyone bother. Why do they want to ruin the
    McDonalds, Vision Forum or whoever else, if they aren’t actually
    succeeding in helping change the hearts, minds and characters of
    Christian families. I’d encourage you not to give up on pw even if it
    is harder to access. It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and
    a way of life. If we isolate ourselves, then we are more open to
    defeat. We need one another. And if we don’t help share “the vision”
    with other families who are just beginning, then what will
    homeschooling or the Christian community be like in 10 more years? We
    are on a down hill slope and this is an important issue. Don’t give up
    the ship!”
    I was under the impression that homeschoolers have always held to a VF belief. I am seeing that is not true.
    Thank you for opening my eyes once again.

  49. mrsjoy Says:

    anne, I’m not sure I am best qualified to answer that question. Karen and Corrie and Lindsey could probably speak to that better. My perception is that there has always been a large contingent of home schoolers that were Christian and conservative, but that the VF/hyper-P crowd was a small part of that sub-crowd. I know that homeschooling today is 1)very much more mainstream and 2)there’s a distinct contingent of homeschoolers who are not “conservative Christians”. But because we homeschoolers are a pretty independent bunch, it’s hard to “nail” it down census wise as to who is homeschooling and why.

  50. mrsjoy Says:

    And, I can’t say I am suprised by that letter at all.( I am assuming that it was posted on the PW list by what it refers to?)

    I’ll be curious to hear what Karen has to say about it!

  51. mrsjoy Says:

    And not to beat a dead horse either, but Vision Forum (and Jennie Chancey and the MacDonalds, et al) make serious $$$$$$ in the home school circuit, so, no they don’t want to lose their market base!

  52. Corrie Says:

    Wow, Anne, thanks for posting that. I remember reading it a while back and it seemed very emotive but very light on substance. The patriarchal movement might have dominated the homeschool market but it choked out a LOT of people who disagreed who then went and formed their own conventions. Their vision is myopic if they think that their way is what most homeschoolers used to believe is the right way.

    “It’s not just about us, it’s about a movement and a way of life.”

    Yep, that about sums it up. It is a movement and a way of life but where does the Bible fit into all of it?

    I went to the Peoria Homeschool convention last year and I had two couples strike up a conversation with me out of the blue. They were kind of new to homeschooling and had young families. Both of these couples, independently of one another (this happened at two separate times) told me how they were turned off by the whole VF thing when it was big at Peoria a couple of years ago. They didn’t go for a couple of years after Doug Phillips had come to speak there because, in their opinion, he was so extreme. The finally decided to try again last year and they were pleasantly surprised by the lack of hyper-patriarchal focus.

    I think if we look around and see all of the other conventions cropping up we will see that people are PROTESTING the hyper-patriarchal infiltration of the major conventions. People do not want to be sold a lifestyle. They want to learn how to teach their kids math and grammar and how to organize their day. They are out of touch with what homeschoolers want. No one wants to sit there and be lectured about how their husbands should be there and that women should stop dominating the homeschool scene! And this is exactly what happened at one convention I went to where Doug Phillips keynoted. I was with a bunch of homeschooling moms from my church and they were totally having culture shock. They had no idea what all of the patriarchal sub-culture was about.

    I am GLAD that conventions are waking up and starting to see the problems with peddling someone’s idea of how everyone should live.

    I believe the Y2K debacle was the start of purging the conventions of these extreme elements. After all, I felt like I was held hostage to their hysteria in 1998 and 1999 and it dominated the conventions. All sorts of craziness being taught and basically any extremist was given a platform.

  53. Corrie Says:

    Richard,

    “WAAAAHHH! I can’t grow a beard. How am I going to tell my wife that I’m a homosexual?

    WAAAAAHHHHHH!”

    Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face! 😉

  54. Corrie Says:

    “I can’t find the link to homosexuality, though; anyone help me out?”

    Andrea,

    I know that I was joking on my part. But, I think the quote was from someone who was serious.

    Of course there is no link between beard or no beard and homosexuality. But, I do think that this perfectly illustrates how the word of God can be twisted to say something it does not.

    Besides, everyone knows that feminists are the reason why there are homosexuals in the first place! We all know that there was no such thing as homosexuality until women got the right to vote and then it all went down the toilet.

    This reminds me of one patriarchalist who told me that the reason that Paul tells women to ask their husbands at home if they have a question is that it makes the husband feel good about himself. He told me that the reason why husbands are not good leaders or have no desire to study scripture is because their wives don’t ask them enough Bible questions. No lie.

  55. Corrie Says:

    Abby,

    I was thinking about the polygamy thing today, too.

    All those little girls were taken from the compound.

    But, would the patriarchalists say that the government has no right to interfere with a patriarch’s right to govern his family as he sees fit? I do wonder what the patriarchalists have to say about Warren Jeffs and the recent raid on his compound. A very BRAVE and COURAGEOUS 16 year old girl had called the police. She had been forced to marry some pervert at the age of 15 and she had already had one baby by the time she turned 16.

    After all, polygamy is what most patriarchs engaged in. To be consistent, the patriarchal stance is built upon the same eisegesis and hermeneutics that the polygamists use to build their stance. I could argue for polygamy using the patriarchalists arguments. I would have to take a bath in hot water and bleach afterwards but I could do it if I had to in order to prove my point.

    After all, patriarchs often married little girls, even when they were very old. Nothing perverted about a 50 some year old man taking a 15 year old girl as a wife, right? Especially when you have the idea that females were born just for your own personal needs, wants and desires and they were put on this earth to serve you and have your babies.

    I will tell you what this WWF would do to any 50 year old man who would come near my 15 year old daughter in order to take her to be his wife. I would get my baseball bat and break his kneecaps. And then I would pray to stop in order to do no more harm to other parts of his body.

    But, being in a cult will blind you to the truth and the saddest part in all of this is that mothers are NOT protecting their children. That natural born instinct has been sucked right out of them by the cult-mindset and false doctrine that has muted them and taken away their voice and right to protect their own children from perverts who would prey on them for their own perverted jollies. They give over their little lambs to be used and abused in the name of God because they have been rendered powerless.

    The whole thing turns my stomach. God Bless that brave young girl who defied her “authorities” and exposed the sickness for what it is. All of those other innocent girls now have a chance because of her. Her innocence was ripped away from her by her father and her religious leaders.

    I know several patriarchalists who believe that their young daughters at the age of 15 or 16 are ready to get married because they are menstruating thus making them a woman. They have also said that there is nothing wrong with an older man showing interest in their young daughters.

    I just canNOT fathom such a mindset.

  56. Corrie Says:

    Trish,

    “I would add that almost nothng written on this blog is ‘in’ the Bible! Again, it is all a matter of the heart.”

    Really?

  57. Corrie Says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/07/texas.ranch/#cnnSTCVideo

    I think this guy is talking about the “normal middle”. He makes some excellent points that could be applicable to a lot of things we discuss here.

  58. Joanna-from -England Says:

    I thought the whole thing about beard/no beard came from the issue of men who are eunuchs not being allowed to be priests in the temple, rather than specific reference to homosexuality – it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female: sorry, Richard and other guys who post here) or who were not ‘whole men’ in the area of genital endowment were prohibited from serving as priests.

    Of course castration was quite a common way of dealing with P.O.Ws and making them good servants for their conqueror throughout that whole region: the Persians and, I believe, Hittites, and so on did it quite routinely for guards for women’s quarters.

    Castration means that men don’t grow beards, so obviously if you didn’t want to be mistaken for a eunuch, and no patriarch would stand for that sort of thing, you had to grow a beard . . .

    Would anyone like to tell Doug Philips that?

  59. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Thank you, Joanna, this was the instance I was thinking of. Eunuchs couldn’t grow beards, and eunuchs were forbidden from serving in the temple. Many eunuchs were also pagan temple prostitutes, so this is where the whole beardless = eunuch = homosexual came about.
    Of course Jesus turned that one on its head, when He said,

    “Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].”

    The Old Covenant was of the flesh, the New Covenant is of the Spirit.
    It takes just as much “orchido-fortitude” to serve the Lord under the New Covenant as under the Old, but under the New Covenant, this is something that women and even eunuchs can have plenty of — just ask the three Marys, or Queen Candace’s servant!

  60. KES Says:

    There are actually people who believe polygamy is not a sin according to the Bible. If any of you are members of homeschoolalumni.org, you should check out several threads in their Marriage and Relationships forum!

  61. Joanna-from-England Says:

    And devotees of the goddess Cybele castrated themselves in her honour and also worked as temple prostitutes, as in Apuleius’ ‘The Golden Ass’ (which is written towards the end of the Cybele cult, but references centuries old practices) so there were clear cultural reasons behind the Jews wanting to make that distinction

    Really like the phrase ‘orchido-fortitude – wonder how else it could be used . . .

    Interesting that Jesus obviously recognised some sort of genetic sexual/gender issues: ‘so born from their mother’s womb’

    And of course a famous eunuch who was made a eunuch, and accepted it for the kingdom’s sake would be Peter Abelard, who was catrated by Canon Fulbert after his affair with Fulbert’s niece Heloise.

    St Augustine recognised the need for his own ‘castration’ or denial of lust when he parayed ‘Lord, give me chastity – but not yet’

  62. Joanna-from-England Says:

    Sorry, typos. Fatigue.

  63. Sandy Says:

    For those of you interested in the polygamy, I posted an article on my new blog over the pawst weekend about it.
    runwithpatience.wordpress.com.

    Let me know what you think

  64. thatmom Says:

    Sandy, good words. I am linking to your blog today. We need more Titus 2 women like you who actually think about what Scripture says and apply it with wisdom!

  65. Sandy Says:

    Karen, Thank you

  66. Abby Says:

    I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and say that polygamy is one of those tricky things that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid. But then again, the Bible doesn’t forbid slavery either.

    That doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, because often they are used to further man’s conquest of the world, in very sinful ways.

    The important thing is that neither of those things (along with other things not expressly forbidden) is what God intended for us. They are the results of a corrupt world.

  67. Abby Says:

    About the homeschool thing, I did a little research a while back, and found that homeschooling became quite popular in the 60’s and 70’s with hippy groups who didn’t want the government telling them how to educate their children. So homeschooling Christians may have started doing so around the same time, but they don’t have a corner on the market.
    I’m a member of a home preschooling yahoo group, and it’s safe to say that 90% of those women are NOT Christians. And most of them create their own curriculum for their homeschoolers (preschool and school-age).

    My personal views on homeschooling are very close to Sarah’s views. I think that every family has to make the decisions that are best for their family, and if that means working mom, public school, etc., then who am I to judge people’s hearts? I have so many friends who are public school teachers, and I have a great deal of respect for them, because the job is NOT easy.

    This whole idea that there’s only “one way” to do the Christian life is so easy to get sucked into, but it bugs me to no end.

  68. thatmom Says:

    Anne and Joy,

    Ok,let me just say that when I saw that comment from the PW list about how those of us who are speaking out against patriocentricity within the homeschooling community are some kind of radical, new, big-tent homeschoolers, I laughed out loud.

    And then it made me really mad BECAUSE there are many women on that list who could refute those claims and could TELL THE TRUTH but they didn’t. Instead, they not only allowed those assumptions to stand but they all sat back, wringing their hands together and then talked about how they needed to stop us. This was the same conversation where we were called radical feminist homeschoolers.

    You know, once again, lies, lies, lies. And because the truth must be suppressed from these dear women in order to prop up the all-important paradigm, so many of those ladies will only hear what the PW powers that be want them to hear. So sad.

    Here is my mini-history of the homeschooling movement, as I lived it…..

    At the risk of sounding like my 86 year old mom, let me say “I remember back in the day….”

    The first people I remember meeting who homeschooled were hippies who lived in our area. They had offered to do a workshop on homeschooling and since we were interested and had lots of hippy juice flowing through our own veins, we went to hear them talk. They were a tad too hippy for us but they had hearts of gold, loved their kids and were Christians who wanted to disciple their own children, (hey, NCFIC church gurus, did you hear that? Hippy Christians were discipling there own children nearly 30 years ago!!!!) They were probably what you would call unschoolers and were more loose than we preferred to be, but their children were great and educated.

    When my husband was getting ready to get out of the army in the late 70’s, we began thinking about what we might want to do, where we wanted to live etc. We started reading Mother Earth News and one time when he was on a field exercise, he picked up a copy of Living on Five Acres at a used book store. We read it and thought we might like to be agrarians and part of that culture was homeschooling. But we didn’t come across any Christian homeschoolers in our readings until we met the ones I mentioned above and then when we heard Raymond Moore being interviewed by James Dobson. It took a few more years to convince us that this is what we wanted to do with our own children, so we began homeschooling in 1985. Homeschooling was alive and well long before then but we lived in the Midwest and hadn’t been exposed to it.

    The first year we homeschooled, I sort of did my own thing with a variety of textbooks and real books. Then we enrolled in Bill Gothard’s ATI program which was just in its third year and the wisdom booklets were only partly finished. Looking back, I think one of the things that attracted us to this program was that they did have conferences and opportunities to hear speakers because it was pretty lonely. We were the only ones in our entire county who homeschooled for many years so we welcomed the fellowship!
    We spent about 8 or 9 years in that program, but the last 3 or 4 were in the process of deprogramming and there were so many other materials available that the wisdom booklets seemed to lose their appeal. That and the fact that they began to be goofy. We went to local conferences and they had such a variety of speakers, most of who hadn’t yet been bitten by the patriarchy bug. In fact, that word was never used. And as I have said many times, Bill Gothard, as intense as his teachings were, really encouraged dads to be involved but in the early years wasn’t weird about girls being educated and he always made moms feel like their job was really important and that they were on a team with the dad.

    At that time, the popular speakers were Greg Harris, Michael Farris, Mary Pride, Gary Fraley, Inge Cannon, Rob and Cindy from Greenleaf press, and a few others. The conferences were small and intimate and the vendor booths were few. But again I have to stress that the word patriarchy was never used and there was never an attitude of things revolving around the father or that girls only had one calling, etc. Never did we hear that the father was an intermediary for the rest of the family. The Teaching Home magazine and Mary Pride’s Practical Homeschooling were the standard bearers for Christian homeschoolers but there were lots of other publications for homeschoolers from a secular perspective.

    We also heard Jonathan Lindvall one time and, frankly, he was the one guy who was way out there. As he admitted to all of us, he had taken some of Bill Gothard’s teachings and morphed them into what he was promoting which was total protection of girls and bethroyal, children not ever being alone with anyone but parents, etc. His views were so out there that he usually did his own conferences, though he did sometimes speak at conventions. But most of us thought he was out there.

    Sometime after this period, Phil Lancaster came along and introduced the word “patriarchy” into this mix. It was during this time that people began preparing for Y2K and the homeschooling community was targeted as the group who really needed to hear about the coming end of civilization as we know it. Lancaster started his commune idea and Gary North began “proving” that the world as we knew it would end. I could tell you stories about what we experienced, but that would take too long.

    The bottom line is this….after Y2K came and went with not so much as a burned out light bulb, I think there was a void just waiting to be filled by the likes of Doug Phillips et al. After all, most of these people were hoping that society would collapse because they could then take dominion….they had food, weapons, generators, and, of course, God would bless it. When it didn’t happen, and all these people were living in the void of no daily Gary North updates, something had to come along to get people back on track with taking over the world and so this was it….patriocentricity, a new, mutated form of family life that could guarantee God’s blessing because it is ”presuppositional, part of the grand sweep of revelation.”

    So by 2003 when Doug Phillips offered Lancaster’s original Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy (Cindy, could you please post those original ones here?) it became the new vision. Look at all the conventions who hosted Doug Phillips that year. Look at the others who are part of the team, how suddenly they were the new homeschooling leaders. Look at how many state organizations had battles within their own ranks over issues like girls going to college or betrothal, issues that weren’t even on the radar in the past decade but now were being promoted as the norm. Suddenly there was a shift away from ENCOURAGING families to take ownership of their homes and to chart their own course to TELLING families what their homes should be and giving them the vision they were to have. And they were able to promote it by absconding away with other people’s mailing lists, thus giving them a voice to LOTS of people overnight. (Did you ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?)

    You have to ask yourself how this change happened. I think there several reasons for it this morning is off the top of my head….I would like to flush it out in more detail later. But here are some of my thoughts…

    1. It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families. It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? The moms were all primed and ready to buy Desperate Housewives. Shame, shame, shame on Jennie and Stacy for abusing homemakers in that way to sell books!

    2. Many churches didn’t or don’t know what to do with homeschooling families. Sometimes the kids really know their stuff and it intimidates teachers and youth leaders. Or they are isolationists within the church, always judging the status quo. Sometimes homeschoolers are obnoxious and invite people to dislike them. Other times they are innocent and someone has an agenda to fix them. Either way, the NCFIC plan stepped in and offered a solution. I know this because I have been both obnoxious and innocent. 🙂

    3. Most of the leaders within this movement are charismatic and persuasive. Remember that story Mary told a few weeks ago about women gathering around Doug Phillips like he was some rock star. I have an entire blog entry I am working on about the cult of personality within homeschooling circles. Brother.

    4. Homeschoolers are just like everyone else and are becoming what they hate…..peer dependent. If the patriarchy train is leaving the station, you had better be on it or else…or else you are a white washed feminist? Brother again.

    5. Lots more another day followed by brother X 10.

    So now what?

    Well, this new Multi-Generational 200 year plan is nothing new either. Same old same old but this is the new twist. They are feeling the heat from those who disagree with them. Some convention planners are shying away from them. (I think it started with R. C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked. Parents started questioning whether or not they really wanted their children to be exposed to a teacher who was in blatant rebellion to his own denomination, who was stripped of his credentials and who abused alcohol himself and offered it to children as well AND was in your face if you questioned him. And that was on top of the spiritual abuse and tax fraud he admitted to as well.) I think that was the beginning of people really taking a good, long look at the guys who were telling all the rest of us how to live. I remember being so sick and tired of hearing “Doug Phillips said this” or “R. C. said that” at my church that I finally asked: “How many reformed Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb? Only one but you have to check R.C.’s blog first to see how you do it.”

    Then, Doug Phillips true colors started to show. And now there is all the deception with the McDonalds. And the connection to kinism and racism. And on and on the list goes. And those faithful people who questioned these aberrant teachings all along are finally being vindicated by the actions of the arrogant. Because these people have been so in your face in their behavior, so bound up in their persona, so unwilling to even discuss the fact that their detractors might be right about something, all their teachings are coming under intense scrutiny and are found wanting.

    So they are couching it all in the terms now that it will take a long time to accomplish their goals and they are asking for 200 years. The rest of us who are normal (thank you, Sarah!) have become the enemy because we are no longer silent about the misuse of Scripture or the abuse of women or the belittling of mothers and fathers who really love their children and want to do right by them but who don’t subscribe to the patriarchal weirdness.

    You know, what really bothered me so much about that comment, Anne, is that Stacy and her moderators sat there and allowed everyone to think that she was the one dreaming up this new way of life, these teachings, etc. Nothing, and I mean nothing, I have read that she has written is new. It is a feminized, mean-spirited version of Jonathan Lindvall and Bill Gothard all dolled up with Victorian charm and decorum and passed off to unsuspecting moms who would do a better job of blessing their husbands by spending his hard-earned paycheck on a Bible concordance and an online class on hermeneutics!

  69. RichardD Says:

    Corrie said: Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!

    Okay … I couldn’t resist. Click here

  70. RichardD Says:

    ThatMom – I’m glad you mentioned Michael Farris. I’ve been wondering where he stood in the whole mix of this. My wife and I met him at a conference in the early 90s and were quite impressed with him.

    it says somewhere, I think in Leviticus – that men who had one testicle crushed, (ouch – makes my eyes water just thinking about it, and I’m female

    Me too. I mean, makes my eyes water, not the part about being a female.

    Oh, stop crying you big baby! Eat some hot peppers…it will put hair on your face!

    I couldn’t help it. Your suggestion gave me a sudden inspiration. So, I made a sidebar banner for Vision Forum. I tried to post the link but for some reason the comment didn’t show up. I’m not sure if it’s in moderation. If anyone is interested in the banner, it’s on my blog posted on April 1, 2008.

  71. thatmom Says:

    Michael Farris appears to have embraced patriocentricity to some extent as he and his wife are promoting Passionate Housewives and Vision Forum. Remember, too, that Phillips got his start and his mentoring from Farris.

  72. WWF Cindy Says:

    Trish,

    You commented and said that nothing on this blog is written in the Bible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are passages referenced all the time, and most of the discussion involves discernment which is certainly written in the Bible. Are you concerned and are suggesting that we need to include more chapter and verse references? They do pop up, usually on a daily basis. Perhaps there were none today or yesterday, but I’ve seen many this past week and on this very thread. There are also many passages discussed that may not be directly referenced as well.

    The other problem with all of this is involves the fact that patriarchy is primarily a cultural issue, and I’m sure that they would argue that they apply the full counsel of the Word (and their interpretation of it) to our contemporary culture. Therein lies the problem.

    You may also see that we are not discussing doctrine but behavior. I’ve posted this a couple of times recently but will risk posting it here again:

    Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:

    99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
    66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
    24 verses (13%) concern Motives
    21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine

    Very little of the patriarchy movement discusses doctrine and most of this discussion, the PMM included, discusses behavior and behavioral standards. Most people expect to discuss doctrine when they are talking about false teaching, but from this analysis of the numbers of verses alone, it seems that behavior is the primary issue.

  73. Peaches Says:

    Been a lurker for about 3 weeks now, reading through all the eye opening patriarchy stuff. Even though I’ve been homeschooling for a couple of years, I was not familiar with the patriarchy movement until recently. Since we attend a PCA church that is theologically conservative but contemporary in worship style, I haven’t personally encountered any folks in the patriarchy camp.

    This comment brought me out of lurk-dom:
    “I would really appreciate a thread devoted to the Pearls and a thread devoted to the Maxwells because I was so heavily into them for years, much to my sadness. 😦 Processing it with others who have been there would aid my healing although I’ve come a long ways!”

    If you do start a thread on the Pearls, I would have something to add to that as some people introduced us to their newsletter in 1999 and we were into their materials for awhile. After awhile, enough red flags went up that we wrote and asked them to remove us from their mailing list. Debi’s helpmeet book certainly raised our eyebrows. (I’ve never heard of the Maxwells mentioned, though)

    thatmom – I enjoyed your post #69 explaining the history of the homeschool/patriarchy movement. I especially had to laugh when you said, “Ever wonder how your name got on the Vision Forum mailing list?” YES. I had wondered. Other than seeing their booths at our homeschool convention, I had never bought any of their materials or signed up on their list.

    I live in NC and our homeschool convention is huge, but fairly tame from what I’ve noticed. (as far as not promoting prairie muffin, patriarchy, Gothard or Pearl-esque teaching) I mean, there is “some” of it there (I do remember Doug Phillips and Voddie Bauchum have spoken in the past) but with such a wide variety of speakers and workshops at our convention, I’ve never felt like any “one” agenda was being pushed. We first attended about 4 years ago when we were in the stages of looking into whether or not to homeschool. I remembered having an idea of what the “attendees” would look like. I was expecting to see all the women in denim jumpers, etc. Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.

    I enjoy reading the comments of all you smart, thinking women. I may not have time to post much, but just wanted to come out of lurk-dom and say “HI”.

  74. thatmom Says:

    “Much to my surprise, out of thousands of attendees, I could count the number of denim jumpers I saw on one hand. No lie. I was relieved to say the least.”

    Peachses, welcome and thanks for that laugh this morning! Corrie and I had just been talking about pulling out some of our pictures from our early days of homeschooling and posting them. Denim jumpers, hairbows, it all seems so funny now!

  75. WWF Cindy Says:

    What about the big hair?

  76. Kim Says:

    I remember being so excited to wear a maternity denim jumper to my first homeschooling convention in 1991 in Peoria, (with Karen, remember?)Yikes!…..these posts are so much fun, as I have been reliving the past years of homeschooling and thinking about all the influences and stages I have come through! God has been so faithful to us, to keep us from serious error! Thank you everyone, I too have been so edified by everyone who comments on this blog. Very thought provoking and helpful!

  77. thatmom Says:

    Kim, weren’t we so cute?

    One of the reasons I loved that style back then was because you could be in any stage of pregnancy or no pregnancy and look…well, pregnant! I still love the old Laura Ashley look. Alas, my children have told me I needed to get with the times.

    Oh,Cindy, yes the big 80’s hair WITH a hairbow!

  78. sarah Says:

    In terms of polygamy, while I am glad that the children are removed from that situation for the time being, I feel this raid was probably an over-reach of government power. Honestly, can you imagine the government raiding a trailer park in your community, or a gated neighborhood, and taking all the kids on one anonymous tip, albeit one that indicates terrible abuse?

    I think of all the FLDS kids in other communities who are now locked in basements because their parents are terrified. These FLDS kids will now be even more afraid to approach authorities.

  79. Abby Says:

    Karen,
    Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?

    We go to a lot of church conventions with my in-laws being “missionaries,” and I would think it is HIGHLY unethical to steal names of people who signed up for specific mailing lists just so that you could promote your OWN “ministry.”

    Yuck.

  80. JohannaS Says:

    Karen, thank you so much for your insightful comments!

    “It sounds really good to have someone give you a vision and then offer you all the “tools” a la their booth or catalog to fulfill that vision. Add hot water, stir, voila, multi-generational families.”

    This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.

    “It is even MORE effective when you create the problem first and then offer to sell someone a solution for it. Remember how we kept hearing about all those people out there, all those books and articles and websites that belittle homemakers? ”

    You know, being a SAHW w/o children right now, I’ve gotten my share of “oh…ok…” when I say that I’m a homemaker but I have never been ridiculed or abused in any way. I’m sure people wonder about it but they have never said anything hurtful, that I can recall. Although homemaking is not the fully “respected” profession it should be, I think the outcry against them has lessened some, simply because more moms are choosing to stay at home, at least for the first few of their child’s life. So, while I have had to endure the dreaded “What do you DO all day?” question, I wouldn’t call it abuse and often wondered where all this supposed abuse was taking place.

    I went to the VF blog and read about the 200 year plan. You know, every time I see Doug Philips’ face, I get this eerie feeling that just runs through me. I always have; even when I was interested in the lifestyle and was ordering from them! Some of those pictures were downright creepy!

  81. WWF Cindy Says:

    About the original “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy”….

    I have them buried away in a bunch of other documentation right now, and I’m not sure where my floppy drive is…

    I never had a copy of the very original version of the tenets, but I only had the 2003 version. They look like the current ones with a couple of exceptions.

    The 2003 version stated that only homeschooling was valid and that any alternative was an outright sin.

    It also stated that the training and working of women outside the home was sin because the roles were not normative.

    What the original version looked like, I don’t know. I also have a huge file of discussions about the 2003 revision of the tenets as well, discussing women working outside the home as sin. These discussions prompted me to look at the Vision Forum website for the first time. (I had enough contact with the teachings through the discussions with homeschooling moms at our church in San Antonio…)

  82. WWF Cindy Says:

    Abby wrote: Karen,
    Are you saying they copied other people’s mailing lists in order to promote their agenda?

    I think that the sharing (or possible selling) of mailing lists among these ministries goes without saying. I’ve been getting VF catalogs for years, and I’ve never had any correspondence with them or any homeschooling organizations. Why do I get a copy?

    In the past, however, I supported American Vision, Chalcedon and several creation science ministries. I assume that I am on the VF mailing lists because of my past support of these organizations.

    Vision Forum is touted to have obtained their original list from the HSDLA where Doug Phillips was employed just prior to the founding of Vision Forum. I’ve seen this dicussed on line before in more than one venue. So it was not only Family Reformation Ministries that had a running start getting their ministry started.

    Whether groups sell this information or not is a mystery to me. Ministries might be willing to share these mailing lists with one another. I don’t know what their policies are, and I don’t recall ever reading any offline information on this.

  83. Corrie Says:

    JohannaS,

    “This is what initially “attracted” me to this movement. Holiness in a can. Open it up, pour it in a pot, and stir. I was all for a list telling me what I should/shouldn’t do. How lazy of me. The Christian life is based on grace and liberty. It is NOT easy; following God never is.”

    Amen! Exactly!

    Abby,

    I have seen the coverage on the situation where the 16 year old girl was beaten to a pulp by about 6 other girls while 2 boys stood guard outside the door and would occasionally pop their heads in and tell them to keep it down.

    It was disgusting and horrifying to watch and that was after the video that these girls made just for Youtube was cleaned up and sanitized. The police officers said that the girls in jail had absolutely no remorse for what they had done.

    The grandmother of the one main ring leader was the one who took the video tape when she learned of it and turned it into the police, basically turning in her own granddaughter, which was the right thing to do.

    If the patriarchalists use this event to promote their lifestyles and as another hammer to bludgeon the feminists with, then I will use the Warren Jeff’s/Jessop compound and sexual slavery and usery of young children as proof that the patriarchal lifestyle is wrong.

    Same reasoning.

    Really, CCC-Forum is probably already talking about this and how this has something to do with feminism. As if we couldn’t just call it what it is- violence and sin! What they don’t talk about is all the male violence in society since the beginning of time.

    Violence begets violence.

  84. Kelli Says:

    Hi,
    I am a lurker and have tried to keep up with the discussion. I have learned quite a bit from everyone here.

    I live in TX and the polygamist compund has just made me sick to my stomach. I feel so sad for those children and everytime I see them on tv boarding those busses, my heart just breaks. I’m just wondering about the men. Are they still at the compound?

    I went to that homeschoolalumni site that someone posted. I can’t believe there are people that were against the raid to get those children out of there. I mean, the media is reporting they were malnourished and some of them were locked in closets. Just UGHHHHHHHHH.

  85. Corrie Says:

    KES,

    Very interesting link! Thank you! I am reading through the thread on polygamy right now.

  86. Corrie Says:

    Hi Kelli,

    I am with you. Ughh! My heart breaks for those children, too. But, I am also glad that they might have a fighting chance now they are away from the Satanic grip of their false religious authorities.

    These girls are not choosing these child molesters for husbands. They are forced into it by their fathers and the “prophet” of that sect. They have no choice in the matter. I was just watching an interview of a woman who was married at the age of 15 to an older man and she spoke of how disgusting and terrifying the wedding night was. She had 8 children with him and then when her oldest (daughter) turned 14, her eyes were suddenly opened with the fact that some old pervert would be coming for her daughter next. That is when she fled the compound with her 8 children in tow.

    Tell me, how many teenage girls are pining away for men who are of retirement age? Most teenage girls would think that was downright icky. This is not normal. Especially knowing that you are like the 7th “wife” (aka sex slave)? Yuck! It would be a horrifying and completely disgusting experience. Imagine having to endure this sort of thing as often as he wants it because your life and salvation depends upon it? Ick! What a nifty self-serving system they have set up there. A fresh crop of females every year just for their pickings!

    Warren Jeffs had a LOT of wives. Like 50 or more. He also had sex with his sisters and his nephews. It seems that a never-ending supply of sex is NOT the cure for sexual perversion after all. As Romans 1 says, they were given over to a debased mind.

    My girls are horrified whenever we watch Fiddler on the Roof and the one daughter is supposed to get hitched up with the butcher. I always threaten them that I know a nice old, fat butcher they WILL marry if they don’t shape up! 😉

    I wonder why our young girls put up posters of Orlando Bloom and not Walter Matthau on their walls? Could it be that they have sexual desires, too? Could it be that it is just not men who were given certain desires and that their desires are not dependent upon some man to unlock them for them?

    I am glad they raided that ranch. This is clear-cut abuse from all that I have read. Anywhere else and these men would be locked up as sexual predators. But, they hide behind their “faith” to sanction their perversion and that is just not protected by the Law. And, if the stories of beatings of both women and children are true, that is more reason to get them out of there. The 50 year old husband of this 16 year old was already listed as a sexual predator or some such label.

    I don’t think that the government has overstepped their boundaries in this. Sexual slavery and physical abuse and neglect and child molestation are still considered illegal in the U.S. And if their own mothers who should know better are too brainwashed and beaten down to do something in order to protect these children, then someone has to rescue the oppressed.

    If it were Bible believing Christians, I don’t think they would have allowed it to go on as long as they have.

  87. Lori Says:

    I just finished reading Shattered Dreams by Irene Spencer. It’s her account of life in fundamentalist Mormon polygamy, as the 2nd wife of 10. (She’s now out of the situation and a Christian). As I read the book, I was reminded many times of some of the patriarchal framing of things.

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if we’re just a few steps away from polygamy being legalized. The current cultural attitudes of entitlement to whatever you desire regardless of how it affects others could easily be taken to this extreme, and all it would really take is a court decision or two.

  88. Abby Says:

    Amen, Corrie!

    Religious group or not, it’s disgusting. I think of what people would say if it was just a child sex ring without all the religious beliefs attached. Everyone would say the government did the right thing to step in. Religious beliefs should not have a bearing on whether or not the police come in to protect children from this.

    If this were a Christian group and not the LDS or FLDS, I would be downright angry at the name they put on us. I would also be horrified.

    I don’t know if anyone has studied this, but the Mormon church and Islam have a LOT of similar practices–polygamy and child brides included. It’s actually a little scary the similarities.

  89. Corrie Says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348148,00.html

    Here is one news article detailing what goes on in these polygamous compounds.

  90. Corrie Says:

    I have to wonder if these men at that YFZ Ranch are a bit scared and shaken now that their drug of choice has been taken from them? What will they do? They had a pretty good set-up but now where will they get their steady supply of young, nubile, virgin, brainwashed victims? When people are withdrawing from their addictions, especially ones as strong as sexually perverse addictions, they get pretty antsy. Some are claiming that this all about “religious persecution”. Sure it is! No, it really is a matter of those who are used to being entitled to anything they want getting their hands slapped by someone bigger than they are.

    I have read that many of the women have decided to stay with their children and not return to the Ranch for the time being. I am praying that they will stay as long as it takes for their eyes to be opened to the truth and that they will not want to return to this corrupt system of religion.

    Lori,

    I don’t think what you have suggested to be that far out of the ballpark. HBO has a show called “Big Love” and it is all about polygamy. Kind of like the “Desperate Housewives” of polygamy.

    Why not polygamy? Like I said, I could biblically defend it in the same way that others biblically defend the system of patriarchy.

  91. Cally Tyrol Says:

    I finished reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop last weekend… right before the raids started, actually. She was the fourth wife of Merrill Jessop, one of the higher-ups at the Texas compound. The FLDS is one screwed-up cult and I say its about darn time someone went in there to rescue those children. I wish the same thing would happen in Colorado City, the main residence of this branch of the FLDS.

    What I found the most disturbing in reading Jessop’s book was how similar a lot of their practices are to hyper-patriarchy… refusing to have sex with your husband or using birth control is akin to committing adultery… betrothals… not educating the women so they won’t ask questions… not allowing them to drive or leave the city without their husband’s permission…absolute father-rule… its very disturbing.

    As for “Big Love”… well, I love that show. Its a bit racy for my taste, but the stories and characters are interesting and its very well acted. But Big Lover certainly shows the nicer side of polygamy… the non-threatening side. Its very thought-provoking to say the least.

  92. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Regarding polygamy, and patriarchy, my comment and links are awaiting moderation…..

  93. Psalmist Says:

    On the subject of a woman’s consent in the wedding, this verbiage at the Bayly Blog, by a fairly recently ordained Anglican (small off-shoot denomination) priest in Texas, posted at their blog, clarified for me just how dominated some of these patriarchalists believe women ought to be:

    “One significant addition, however, has always served to redeem the custom of the father “giving away” the bride. For over 30 years now, the service proper has begun (after the procession) with the bride, groom, and bride’s father standing before the officiant, whereupon:

    “1. The officient [sic] reads Numbers 30:3-4: ‘. . . if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand.’

    “2. Next, addressing the father, the officient [sic] says, ‘As the father of N___, do you affirm that the vows she shall make to G___ this day shall stand?’

    “3. The father says, ‘I do.’ and takes the bride’s and groom’s hands and joins them together, before repairing to his place in the pews.”

    The entire comment can be read (the commenter goes by the moniker “Fr. Bill”) here:

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/04/the-westminster.html

  94. Beatrice Says:

    OK, I suspect I am really naive about this, but I never quite understood why I read people saying over and over that wide age differences in marriage and romance are creepy. When I was a little girl, I remember watching this King Arthur movie (I think it was First Knight but I’m not sure) and thinking that the relationship between Guinivere and King Arthur (Julia Ormond and a white haired Sean Connery) was very poignant and beautiful. I did not root for the young, sexy Lancelot at all. (I still don’t.)

    But I’ve been thinking, and it seems to me that God meant sexual union to be between likeminded beings who want to grow ever closer. With this in mind, I can see why it seems healthier for a middle aged man to be interested in women his own age than young girls. The former hopefully means an interest in conpanionship and love, the latter sounds like he just wants mere sex. Have I understood why you ladies are getting creeped out? (I mean about the mere age difference issue. Those cult anecdotes and forced marriages are APPALLING and ABOMINABLE. I have NO problem understand why you are horrified at those at all.)

  95. Corrie Says:

    Hi Beatrice,

    I don’t think anyone is saying that an age difference is creepy.

    I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.

    Julia Ormond was not 15 but a full-grown woman who was mature and knew her own passions. If I remember right, she was to be married to Sean Connery but she did not love him. She did care for him, very deeply, but as a daughter cares for a father. You could tell that she was pained by the fact that she did not have those feelings for Connery and it was distressing for her because she did care for him. The kind of love that a marriage requires is not a father/daughter sort of love unless one thinks that the father-daughter couple in Australia is alright (blech!).

    Julia Ormond loved Richard Gere’s character as a wife should love a husband. It was apparent in their body language and their eye contact and everything. That is the way it should be.

    Who wants to be forced into a marriage where they do not have “those” sorts of feelings for the other person? But, there would be nothing wrong with a grown, adult, mature woman who CHOSE to marry a Sean Connery over a Richard Gere even if she was closer to Gere’s age (in the movie). I don’t think you could go wrong with either of those two! 😉

    Forcing young girls to marry old men and to be their 7th, 8th or whatever wife is really very yucky.

    The reason why I am creeped out is because these polygamous men have older wives, middle-aged wives and very young wives. It is not that they fall in love with a younger woman and she with him. It is that they collect young women like they were objects created to fulfill their lustful desires. I am creeped out by the penchant for young flesh that these polygamists seem to have and they are breeding their own home-grown stock of young flesh for their future lusts.

    I am creeped out that 15 year old girls are forced into marriage by perverted Patriarch Prophets and their patriarchal fathers all the while never having a word to say about it because if they protest, they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting into the kingdom. That is the threat that keeps them in line. Because, in their perverted system, only men get to go to the kingdom and women go only if the men think they are worthy.

    I once dated a man 13 years older. I was 23 and he was 36. I chose to date him, I wasn’t forced into it. It wasn’t creepy. I was attracted to him and he was attracted to me. It was mutual.

    It would have been creepy if my parents made me marry Elmer with 6 wives from down the street when I was a freshman in high school and Elmer was collecting social security, had a big gut, creepy eyes and had lost most of his hair. That is fine for Elmer’s first wife because they aged together as it should be but it is not fine for a young girl who finds having sex with “grandpa” very revolting.

    This is the problem in patriarchy. They are so out of touch with what women actually desire. They think they are the only ones who desire attractive, young mates.

    Now, turn it around. If a 58 year old woman had 7 husbands and was marrying a 15 year old boy, what would be the reaction?

    Why is the 30 year old sexy-teacher in trouble for sleeping with her 13 year old student? Because, it is perverted. And she should be in trouble. She should be locked up because she can’t help herself because she has been given over to a debased mind. Her relationship can’t be consensual.

    The same goes for a 50 some year old man who forces himself on a 15 year old girl. That is called rape. There is no way that these polygamous “marriages” are consensual when there is brainwashing and “grooming” involved. What they do to these young girls is no different than what child molesters do to their intended targets. They groom them, get their guard down, and scare them so that they have no way out.

  96. Beatrice Says:

    OK, you explained that well, Corrie. I see what you all are really and only objecting to perfectly clearly now.

    So these are Mormons that we are talking about? They really do believe that women can’t go to heaven on their own, right?

  97. Corrie Says:

    Beatrice,

    I wished you lived near me. I would invite you over for a girls’ movie night with me and my older daughters. We could watch “First Knight” and have some popcorn! 🙂

  98. Beatrice Says:

    Oh! That is so sweet! Me too. 🙂

  99. Corrie Says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347368,00.html

    Here is the story of the father/daughter couple who just had their second child together. Their first child died from a congenital defect which is not surprising at all considering that he is her biological father. It was completely nauseating watching the news cast of them together. Talk about creepy.

    All they are asking for is some “respect and understanding”.

    Really? I have neither to give and I am quite sure that I will never be able to muster up any respect or understanding, either. But, there is a ranch in Texas where many men might respect and understand what is going on with these two.

    I think, again, Romans 1 tells us why these things happen. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the created instead of the Creator.

    It sure is like Old Testament times on the news right now!

  100. Cynthia Gee Says:

    NOt all of the folks who are doing this stuff are Mormons. The people who own the Joshuah’s House site I linked to, are not Mormons. And there are several other polygamous groups operating in the Eastern half of the US that are not Mormons.

  101. Cynthia Gee Says:

    As far as May-December romances go, I wouldn’t choose that for myself, but if both parties have reached age of consent, then I say, they should “go for it”. My younger brother married a lady 18 years his senior, and they are still married today, almost 30 years later, so it CAN work, and very well.
    And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!

  102. WWF Cindy Says:

    Does anyone remember that spoof website from a few months ago where you could arrange to marry 14 year olds?

    Again, I don’t find age discrepancies a problem, it’s the marketing and sale of young women. There is physical growth that occurs in the body of a woman that is not complete until about age 20 (bone fusion and growth within the pelvis). If you use that as any kind of gauge, a young woman ought to wait until after that growth is completed in order to bear a child.

    Our society has accepted age 18 to 21 as a standard, and that seems pretty reasonable. Prior to age 17 to 18, there is also rewiring in the reasoning center (prefrontal cortex) that takes place which is why teenagers seem like they’ve had a lobotomy. There is a lot of growth and laying down of new connections in the critical thought area of the brain. (When this does not function, you see symptoms of ADD/ADHD.)

    Seems like good reasoning to postpone marriage until after this work is complete.

  103. WWF Cindy Says:

    BTW,

    There was such a response to the video that I posted on line (a large file), it overloaded my bandwidth, even though I upgraded it. It looks like I had over 100 attempts to view it in only a few hours, so my site will be down for a day or so. In that time, I’m going to try to post the video in 10 minute bites on youtube as soon as I figure out how to use editing software.

    Yeah! This means that people are interested in the subject, anyway.

    I also got some feedback on some of the commentary concerning the Trinity which I may write about in a blog post. Of all the things about the movement, the militant fecundity (preferred that the church growth through birth and not evangelism of the lost) and some of the L&D practices, this Trinity business is deeply disturbing.

  104. Light Says:

    I love “First Knight”. It is one of my very favorite of movies.
    It’s one of my favorites, too, but IMHO, Richard Gere was all wrong for that part. Now, Val Kilmer would have been perfect for the role.

  105. Sandy Says:

    Light,
    ” Now, Val Kilmer would have been perfect for the role.”

    Preach it, sister! 🙂

  106. Light Says:

    … with long dark hair, like he had in “Willow” …

  107. Sandy Says:

    Ok…Willow is one of MY all time favorite movies, probably because I thought val Kilmer was perfect for that part.

  108. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Val Kilmer… I can see it. But I think Lorne Greene would have made a great Arthur…. 😀

  109. Cindy K Says:

    Alright,

    The videos are now online on my YouTube channel that I named “Patriocentricity.”

    http://www.youtube.com/user/patriocentricity

    I also have the videos (all seven of them) featured on my blog with clarifications listed below each entry.

    My website (www.UnderMuchGrace.com) is offline until further notice.

  110. thatmom Says:

    This reminds me of the Little Women debate my daughter and I have always had….she preferred Lorie and i preferred the professor!


  111. Been gone to my 2 week part time job and haven’t had time to jump in.

    Trish in response to my comment WAY above I meant exactly what I said. There are some Christians out there, like me, who do not believe in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible. Some of it I think (and this is just me personally) is imagery and parables and not the literal Word of God. I know that offends some of you, but I don’t believe we’re supposed to stone adulterers and follow many of the laws to the letter in the OT.

    So that is what I meant. When you said “most of what is written on this blog is not biblical” it hit a nerve, because we all have such different definitions of what “biblcal” means…

    Ask some of the reformed fundie crowd, and they’ll tell you I’m not even a Christian because I don’t believe in things the exact way they do. I am a BIG TENT homeschooler (and soon to be homeschool drop out) afterall.

  112. thatmom Says:

    28) Prairie Muffins mind their own business. While that business may include encouraging other women “to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored,” it most emphatically excludes encouraging other women to run ahead of or resist the authority of their husbands or elders in pursuit of any PM distinctive.

    29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.


  113. Peaches, I am in NC too…but I would disagree with you that our conference is mild.

    NCHE is one of the biggest vision forum supporters I see. Doug, Voddie and their ilk have been in and out of the conference in the last 6 years. Each quarter when I get my greenhouse report, there is usually a FULL PAGE ad for whatever is Vision Forum’s conference of the moment (Father/Daughter, Family Integrated Church, Jamestown, 200 Year Vision, whatever the current flavor of the kool aid is)

    I have contacted NCHE to complain of their overwhelming support of ultra conservatives like VF and Doug Phillips. I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention. But—NCHE will never walk away from the $$$ that Vision Forum throws their way.

    Expect to see the men in the monkey suits and hats peddling their wares in May. VF wouldn’t miss an opportunity to sell 4 CD’s for $40! 🙂

  114. thatmom Says:

    Lindsey, I am glad you mentioned the price of CD’s. I had not idea what it cost to make CD’s and mail them until I started getting requests for the set of patriarchy podcasts. My husband put together a set….all 7 podcasts…..and it cost about $1.30. Then we added shipping costs and that was around $2.00 or $2.50. So I charged $4.00 a set. Then I had some other people ask about CD’s of other podcasts. So Clay experimented and was able to put the entire first year’s podcasts on one CD…..50 of them. So, I guess you might be able to say that I can offer a $500.00 package for $4.00…postage paid. Kind of blows your mind doesn’t it?

  115. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I have been told by powers that be, that they will not be asked to be keynotes again due to the flak that resulted after Doug made some really anti-semite and anti-Catholic comments at the NCHE convention.”

    Interesting, that.
    You can always tell whether a group is serving Good or Evil, because sooner or later, the bad guys will always start denigrating and persecuting Catholics and Jews.

  116. Light Says:

    Cindy, THANK YOU for putting your patriocentricity workshop videos up on youtube. I would have had to download a plugin to view them on your site. I saw the first two, and your work, and your presentation, are outstanding. Thank you for doing all the hard work necessary to bring this crucial information to the Christian community. Plus, it was an absolute delight to see your face and hear your voice after just “knowing” you online.

    On another note, do you have a sister named Ann in the greater Baltimore area? You are a dead ringer for her.

  117. Corrie Says:

    Someone just sent me the “Sin of Bathsheba” written by the “Anonymous Brother”. Does anyone remember that ditty that was first published in the Patriarch Magazine (Phil Lancaster) in the mid to late 90’s? I have always hoped that our anonymous “brother” would come forward and take ownership of what goes on in his mind on a Sunday morning.

    Here is a quote from it:

    “Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
    loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
    and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
    and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
    man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
    and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
    concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
    skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
    conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
    knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
    therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
    little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
    legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
    And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
    be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
    women wear.”

    I sure he keeps HIS crotch carefully concealed, too. A woman’s thighs, crotch and buttocks are a “snare”? Well, there is a slang term that the world uses to describe a woman’s “crotch” that starts out like snare and means the same thing.

    This was passed around all over for many years as the definitive proof for dresses-only.

    Not only is the guy biblically wrong- Bathsheba didn’t sin by taking her mikvah bath on her roof because that is customary to have the bath there but he has a serious lust issue that he wants to pass off on women.

  118. Corrie Says:

    http://blogmuse.blogspot.com/2006/02/logic-modesty-and-sin.html

    Rebecca Prewitt wrote a bit about it. She also did a spoof entitled “Sins of our Dining Brothers” which really drives home why this “Sin of Bathsheba” is off the mark.

  119. Corrie Says:

    “And, regarding First Knight, I say that Connery is more attractive than Gere, hands down….. but then, MY guilty little Hollywood crush has always been Lorne Greene! Whatta man!”

    ROFLOL!!!!!

  120. Corrie Says:

    http://www.momof9splace.com/sinof.html

    Here is a link for the full article- Sin of Bathsheba.

    You will be happy to know that this man knows so much about women’s clothing that he highly recommends “culottes” for the more masculine activities that a woman might partake in.

    “But, “any man who views women so must be perverted” Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially to the sin of lust. Sin easily besets us. (Heb.12:1) But understand, though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the passions of all men, (except those perverted in a worse way), are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men are alike, or with the feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there will be great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men. Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts”, (Gal.5:24), and have renounced the unlawfulindulgence of those desires —yet the desires themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”. (vs.17) Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact, attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. The most of men, even the best of men, are likely to be overcome by those passions. (Job. 1:8, Job.31:1) It was a man of God who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. ”

    and

    “he battle is a hard one, and a man who is very strong spiritually, but who lacks this fulfillment, may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man desires. David, we know, was a man of God, and through out the Old Testament histories he is held up as a standard of godliness by which all of his successors are judged. But the fact that he took many wives is a pretty sure indication that he had never found that complete satisfaction in ONE, which every man desires, and which is the strength of every man who possesses it. For this cause David was weak.”

    So, David had to take a lot of wives because he couldn’t find complete satisfaction in one woman? Wow! Are we even supposed to find complete satisfaction in one person? Every man desires complete satisfaction in one woman and it is the strength of every man who “possesses it”? And wouldn’t every woman love to have complete satisfaction in one man?

    But, alas that is not what we are supposed to be finding our “complete satisfaction” in. It is supposed to be God that we go to for that.

  121. Corrie Says:

    I am going to be posting the whole article so that it is here in one piece. The original link to the Patriarch Magazine is gone and now it is only found on various blogs. This is how it appeared in the Patriarch Magazine in 1996.

    joshuashouse.com

    “The Sin of Bath-sheba
    Author: Anonymous
    This anonymously published “Address to Christian Women” is included in this men’s
    magazine for obvious reasons. Men need to instruct their wives and daughters concerning
    modesty in dress and the effects their dress has upon men. Read it carefully and be honest
    with yourself. Is not 90% (at least) of what this brother writes right on target? If so, we
    Christian husbands and fathers have a big job to do in correcting the dress of our women.
    Most of us will find some things in what follows to quibble over. (I don’t enforce
    everything he suggests with my wife and girls-though I’ll think about it more carefully now!)
    Let’s listen to this appeal not in order to find points of disagreement or to practice self-
    justification. Let’s discuss these things with our wives and daughters. Let’s all ask the Lord
    to help us learn what honors him in the area of clothing. (This article may be freely
    distributed and reprinted.)

    We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention the sin of
    Bath-sheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great, and Bath-sheba’s very
    small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous, Bath-sheba’s only a sin of ignorance.
    David committed deliberate adultery and murder; Bath-sheba only carelessly and
    undesignedly exposed herself before David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was
    great, and Bath-sheba’s small. Yet it remains a fact that Bath-sheba’s little sin was the cause
    of David’s great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless exposure
    of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. “Behold how great a forest is
    set aflame by such a small fire!” On the one side, only a little carelessness-only a little
    thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other
    side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death
    in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme;
    the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and the
    death of Absalom; the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel; the sword never
    departing from David’s house (2 Sam. 12:11-18). Again I say, “Behold how great a forest is
    set aflame by such a small fire!” None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-
    sheba had only been careful to not display her body in the sight of a man. Observe: she
    neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion of it all. She did not
    display herself purposely or wantonly: she only did it ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the
    results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful
    wantonness. Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many
    Christian women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bath-sheba was. Godly
    women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their
    bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually, by the
    manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional wantonness. I
    believe they are as innocent of that as Bath-sheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse
    them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of
    feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man-and are
    Christian women alone altogether naive and ignorant? This can hardly be; and yet I do not
    write to blame you, but to instruct you-to provoke you to love and good works, to make
    you thoughtful where you have been thoughtless before, to make you careful for the
    spiritual welfare of the weakest of your brethren, where you were careless about it before,
    to make you wise where before you were simple.
    Nakedness Before Others Is Wrong
    The first thing which must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is
    wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, God
    made “coats of skins, and clothed them.” The sole reason for his clothing them was to
    cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with
    coats. They were already wearing aprons, which probably covered as much as, or more
    than, much of the clothing which is worn today, yet in spite of their aprons they were still
    naked in their own eyes and in God’s. And God did not clothe them with shorts, or
    swimming suits, or tank tops, or halter tops, or anything of the sort-nor with jackets, either,
    but with coats, long coats, or robes as the word might properly be translated. Observe
    further, he clothed them with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a
    pair of shorts. He clothed them both with coats-whence we may assuredly gather that
    nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman. But if it is equally wrong for a man
    to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of
    women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-and many
    women affirm, that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man therefore may (though he
    ought not to) go three fourths naked, and not do much damage by it. But when a woman
    exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who
    sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty
    to dress any way you please. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
    Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you
    have been bought with a price: Therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). But if
    you dress in such a way as to expose your body, and if you fear God and love your
    neighbor, your dare not use the temple of the Holy Spirit as an instrument of
    unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men.
    Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it.
    They have “eyes full of adultery and that never cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14). Should you
    therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God
    excuse you if you do? Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not
    wicked. He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman,
    he was weak-and it would be a rare man who was not. Your brethren in Christ are not
    wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further.
    They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which
    are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of
    heart. And must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make
    themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the Congregation of God? Oh, that you
    could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you
    arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear
    their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations.
    Oh, that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has
    overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would
    you plead for your right to dress as you please. The fact is, you have no such right. You
    have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died. You are
    bought with a price and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your
    body, to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little real love for the
    souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to dress as you
    please. “Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength
    and not just please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his
    edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, ‘The reproaches of
    those who reproached Thee fell upon Me.'” (Rom. 15:1-3). Christ was willing to deny
    himself all of the glories of heaven, and bear the reproaches of the ungodly for your sake, in
    order to save your soul, and will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress?
    Can you not deny yourself a little comfort to save another man’s soul? Can you not bear a
    little reproach for being “old-fashioned” or “out of style,” in order to help your brother in
    his battle against sin?
    Take a Man’s Word for It
    You may think I’m making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so
    serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
    the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
    They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
    inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s. If you would
    understand the workings of a man’s passions towards a woman, you must take a man’s
    word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man’s passions are
    easily excited by the sight of a woman’s body, as was plainly the case with David and Bath-
    sheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, it is true, will be better able to resist
    your allurement than David did Bath-sheba’s. They will not go so far as to seduce or rape
    you. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you
    know that they do not sin with their eyes and heart and imagination? There is great pleasure
    to a man in merely looking and lusting, even though he goes no further. You know very
    well that the Bible says, “… everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed
    adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), and will you say that this is not a serious
    matter? It is serious, for it is sin and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and
    destroys and damns. And if you would know just how serious a matter this is, you need
    only read the very next verse, which says, “And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it
    out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish,
    than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Here is probably the most solemn
    statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to
    the very sin which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress.
    This is not a light matter, and you dare not treat it lightly. At this point you may say,
    “Amen: all true; but I do not need to hear it, for I dress modestly.” Are you quite sure of it?
    If you follow the fashions and practices of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly,
    for modesty is ignored by many of them, and purposely thrown to the winds by many
    others. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a
    man’s eye, are unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your
    own dress. God would have you to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matt.
    10:16). But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither
    wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are
    following a system of fashion which is designed by wicked men and devils to break down
    and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend it, you
    make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you.
    You will pardon my plain speaking, then, if I give you some specific instructions in order to
    make you wise. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart
    will make you harmless. As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothing for
    Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot
    be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong-wrong in the sight of
    that God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter
    tops, swimming suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leave you
    partially nude, have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness. Whatever the
    rest of the world may do, you are bond to do right. And whatever the rest of the church
    may do, you are bound to do right. And the things which I have just mentioned are so
    obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purpose of God in clothing you, that there ought
    not to be a moments question as to what is right. But (alas) the standards of the church are
    sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such
    things. They will actually defend what they call “mixed bathing”-that is, men and women
    freely mixing together in a state of almost nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no
    sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment
    seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile we need
    say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purpose of God. Let us
    turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident
    purpose of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant,
    nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.
    Short Dresses
    You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows that they are
    provocative to a man’s eyes. But women who profess godliness, women who ought to
    know better, will simply follow the current fashions of the world, whether long or short,
    without any reference to what is right. Others will quibble about how short is too short.
    Rather than making very sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as
    they dare, while still persuading themselves that they are long enough. You may stand at
    attention in front of your mirror, and persuade yourself that your too-short dress reveals
    nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let you get in or out of a
    car, and what a spectacle of nudity you present. And whether you design it or not, and
    whether you like it or not, those nude legs and thighs of yours are provocation to lust in the
    eyes of men. For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which
    are slit half-way up the sides. Who cannot see that the design of such a fashion is to expose
    your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk? So much the worse if it is. If your skirt
    is so tight that you cannot walk without cutting the sides, by all means throw it away, and
    get something with a little more material. We shall have more to say about tight clothing
    further along. Do you ask how long your dresses ought to be? See that your legs are well
    covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over or sitting down, and
    you will be safe enough. But be careful here: it is not enough that your legs should be
    covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs. When you bend over or sit
    down, the front of your dress will naturally hang lower, so as to cover more of your legs,
    but the back will be drawn up so as to expose more of your legs. If you would be safe, your
    dresses should cover you well below the knee in all postures.
    Low Necklines
    Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the eyes of a
    man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream of purposely
    wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless, through thoughtlessness
    or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend, but also large or loose ones. You
    may stand erect in front of your mirror wearing a large or loose neckline, and think it
    perfectly modest. But only bend over a little, so that the material of your blouse falls away
    from your body, and immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy
    is exposed to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you. The same is
    true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three buttons of your blouse
    unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. It looks
    seductive. It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his
    passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two of three
    buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear
    a tight choking collar? I believe you could learn to bear it, as the men of the world do in
    order to display their stylish neckties. But waive that. It may be legitimate to leave your
    blouse open at the neck for comfort’s sake, and it may even be modest (depending upon
    the garment), provided you unbutton one button only. There can be no possible reason of
    excuse for leaving two or three buttons open. It will add nothing to your comfort. It is
    simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked world. Your collar will no more choke you
    with one button open than it will with three. One button open will always be a great plenty
    for comfort’s sake, and with some blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top
    button open, yet not expose your breasts when you bend over and the material of your
    blouse falls away from your bosom, very well. This may depend upon the nature of the
    blouse, as well as the size of your bust. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you
    had better button all your buttons. You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part
    of a woman’s body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with
    the top two or three buttons of her blouse open, he will probably conclude that it is her
    intention to tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give? If not, button
    your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers. And if you happen to bend over a little
    in front of a man, and he sees your breasts actually exposed because of your large, loose,
    low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man, he will be tantalized by the sight,
    whatever you may think or intend. Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does.
    Let your neckline be high enough and small enough to be in fact a neckline, and not a chest
    or shoulder line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means that if the neck hole of your
    garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large.
    Sleeveless Blouses
    Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, you
    underarms, and the parts of your chest and of your back which immediately adjoin them,
    are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You
    must also bear in mind that others will see you from all angles and in all positions, and the
    armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside the blouse, especially
    when your arms are uplifted or outstretched, thus displaying part of your chest, and
    probably some of your breast. The same is true of a short-sleeved blouse which has very
    large or loose sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows at
    your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms you create an opening through which a man
    may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare to his heart. Remember you are a
    woman, and cannot see yourself as a man sees you. I am a man, and know what it is to be
    tempted by such sights. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted by your
    sleeveless or loose-sleeve blouses, ought you not to deny yourself a little comfort or
    fashion, and conceal your body a little better for his good?
    Sheer Clothing
    It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing which is so light or so sheer that a
    man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable design of such clothing is to thwart
    the purpose of clothing, and expose your body rather than covering it. This you cannot help
    but realize. Everyone else knows it also, and when a man sees you thus attired, what can he
    think but that it is your intention to display your body to his sight? And yet so low are the
    standards in the church today that it is not uncommon to see Christian women wearing see-
    through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business is to repent, to reject at
    once everything which is obviously and purposely sheer. You ought to be careful also not
    to wear any material which is so light or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in
    direct light, such as in front of a window. Finally, reject any material of a very coarse weave:
    wear clothing not netting.
    Tight Clothing
    Dress which explicitly reveals your form is as bad as that which reveals your nakedness. The
    whole world knows that such dress is provocative-notoriously and proverbially so-and
    when a man sees a woman dressed in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of
    her form, his passions will certainly be excited by the sight-perhaps not so quickly or so
    strongly as they would be by the sight of your naked form, but excited nonetheless. The
    world calls tight clothing “revealing”, which is exactly what it is, and as such it is an obvious
    violation of the purpose of God in clothing you. Every women who professes godliness,
    therefore, ought religiously to refuse every form of dress which reveals and displays her
    figure. Specifically, you must be cautious when wearing sweaters, sweat shirts, tee shirts, and
    anything made of knit, stretchy, or soft, clinging material. It may be revealing unless
    perhaps it is very loose. Woven material, with some stiffness and body to it, will conceal
    your form much better. This is of the utmost importance, especially for a woman who is
    large in the bust. There is no sight on earth which will surely attract a man’s eyes, and so
    quickly inflame his passions, as the sight of a woman’s breasts-whether they are actually
    exposed, or their form displayed by tight or clinging clothing. This is a fact which the world
    knows very well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the
    pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt. The natures of man and woman
    have not changed in twenty-five years. When a man looks at you he should see your
    clothing, and not the shape and form of everything which is inside it. Sweaters, tee shirts,
    and knit blouses in their very nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and
    form of it. And you must take a man’s word for it that the shape and form of a woman’s
    body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or
    arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin. I do
    not say that it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit top which is not too
    revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American women usually
    wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they would wear their sweater
    several sizes larger than they usually do. A women who is very small in the bust may fairly
    easily wear sweaters which are loose enough to conceal her form, but the larger her breasts
    are, the more difficult this will become. A woman who is large in the bust had best avoid
    knit clothing altogether. She will have a hard enough time of it to conceal her form without
    wearing sweaters. I cannot emphasize this too much, or insist upon it too strongly. A
    woman-especially a woman who is large in the bust-must understand, must take a man’s
    word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man’s heart in a moment. If she
    wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton blouse over (not
    under) it, and be warmer yet. True this will not be stylish, but no matter about that. I am
    writing for godly women, who would rather please God than the world. Understand also
    that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for tight blouses. A blouse of
    woven material in its very nature will conceal your form better than a sweater, but it may
    still be provocative enough if it is too tight. You ladies who are overweight often offend in
    this, by wearing the same clothes you would if you were twenty or thirty pounds lighter.
    And it is nothing but foolish pride which keeps you from wearing a larger size. Your blouse
    should never be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have slack enough in the fit
    that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse, and not the form of what is inside of it.
    For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I
    mean any position which makes your bust prominent, or stretches your clothing tight over
    it-such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning
    and stretching with your back arched. You should likewise refuse dresses with what is called
    an empress waistline-which girds the garment around your body immediately below the
    bust, instead of at the waist. The unavoidable effect of this is to prominently display your
    bust. Again I tell you, I am a man, and know very well what it is to be tempted by such
    sights-and it may take only a moment’s involuntary sight to turn a man’s heart or
    imagination into the wrong channels.
    Slacks
    Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends.
    The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants, and the
    women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression
    that a wife who runs the house “wears the pants in the family.” The feminist movement,
    which is more than a century old, has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively
    speaking. It has sought to “liberate” the woman from her God-anointed place of subjection
    to the man, and to give her “equal rights” to do whatever the man may do. The spirit of this
    movement has also put upon the woman’s body the man’s clothing-namely, slacks. And the
    church has followed the world in so doing. Many of the older and stricter men of God, less
    influenced by the world themselves, take a strong stand against women wearing pants.
    Slacks, they say, are men’s clothing, and (on the basis of Deut. 22:5) it is an abomination for
    a women to wear them. The younger set, most of whom have grown up with women
    wearing slacks, and who probably know nothing of the historical background of the
    question, can see no point in the stand which their elders take, and so regard it as narrow-
    minded and petty. “The slacks which women wear,” they say, “were made for women and
    are not men’s clothing.” On the one side it may be argued that God made neither slacks for
    Adam nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deut. 22:5 certainly assumes
    that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men women, and it is also certain that
    historically in our country the slacks have been the men’s clothing. It may be argued that
    the culture has changed, so that slacks are now acceptable clothing for women also. Yet
    when we consider the sinister forces which have wrought to change our culture, we may
    plead that the change is no way recognized by God, but is an abomination to him. I say no
    more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle this controversy. I do not
    ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God for a woman to wear slacks? I ask, What effect are
    her slacks likely to have on the eyes of men? And first, by their very nature slacks are apt to
    reveal and display your form. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears them? In
    the very nature of the case, it is difficult to make a pair of modest slacks (especially for a
    woman who has a full figure), and as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a
    woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit
    loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their legs and thighs and hips
    and buttocks and crotch? Truly because it is the god of this world who inspires these styles,
    and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a
    man’s heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s thighs and buttocks
    and crotch. Your crotch-your “private part’s”-you ought by all means to keep carefully
    concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
    skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is also the best possible clothing with which to
    conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your
    knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
    therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a
    little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your
    legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
    And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will
    be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other
    women wear. So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man,
    or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and you are no competent judge of this), you
    had best leave slacks alone. Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a
    man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the sight of the form which will
    arouse a man’s passions. What a man’s touch is to a woman, the sight of a woman is to a
    man. This is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bath-sheba, and every honest
    man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it on the word of a man, though you
    may not be able to understand it. The sight of the form of your thighs and buttocks and
    crotch will tempt the heart of a man, and it is the nature of slacks to display the form of
    those parts. Some, who believe it is wrong for a woman to wear slacks, but who wish to
    accommodate their ladies for engagement in the more masculine type of activities,
    recommend the wearing of culottes, which are sort of a cross between a skirt and slacks.
    Our only question concerning them is, are they modest or immodest? They may be either,
    depending upon several things. If they are fashioned so as to look like a loose-fitting skirt,
    and are long enough, they may be as modest as a skirt. Unfortunately, many of them more
    nearly resemble slacks, or even shorts, than a skirt. If yours are long enough and loose
    enough to keep you well covered and concealed in all postures, they may be as acceptable as
    a modest skirt.
    Enough of specific instructions. We must next answer some objections.
    Objections
    (1) “WHAT RIGHT HAS THIS FELLOW TO PRESCRIBE ALL OF THESE
    LEGALISTIC RULES FOR WOMEN?”
    I answer, if we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress just as you please,
    or not dress at all, and hurt no one by it. But in this world you cannot, and if you do you
    will only be helping to swell the tide of sin. I write for godly women, who want to do what
    is right, but who are not likely to know how to do right without some instruction from a
    man. I seek only to give you some instruction, which only a man can give, concerning the
    effects your dress will have an the men who see you. And I suppose that truly godly women
    will be happy to receive such instruction. It is usually the worldly, who are not willing to do
    right at any cost, who raise the cry of legalism.
    (2) “THIS IS A SMALL MATTER, AND NOT WORTHY OF SO MUCH ADO.”
    We ought to be occupied with the weightier matters of the law, the matters of the heart,
    and not make such a fuss over little outward things. This may be an outward thing, but it is
    not a little one. Can you read Matthew 5:28-29 and yet contend that this is a little matter?
    But suppose it is a little matter: can you therefore lightly pass over it, or ignore it? Not so,
    for “he who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is
    unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). The Lord does
    not rebuke the Jews for attending to the small matters, but only because they did so to the
    neglect of the weightier matters. “These [the weightier matters] are the things you should
    have done without neglecting the others [the small matters]” (Luke 11:42).
    (3) “ANY MAN WHO VIEWS WOMEN SO MUST BE PERVERTED.”
    Yes: be it known unto you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine
    purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially the sin of
    lust. Sin easily besets us (Heb. 12:1). But understand, though all men are perverted from
    their original purity, and though the passions of all men (except those who are perverted in
    a worse way) are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that
    the practices of all men are alike, or with feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If
    you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind
    of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there
    will great plenty of occasion for you to be careful, even in the presence of the best men.
    Why? Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”
    (Gal. 5:24), and have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires, yet the desires
    themselves remain. It is in the godly that “the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit” (v.17).
    Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact,
    attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent human
    endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. It was a man of God
    who was overcome by the allurement of Bath-sheba. To return to the original question:
    whether men are “perverted” or not is really beside the point. To what extent his desires are
    normal and right, or to what extent they are the result of his sinfulness, may be difficult to
    determine. But what difference does it make? You must deal with the facts as they are, not
    as you wish they were. The real fact is: many men are weak, and easily tempted by the sight
    of the feminine form. Suppose that some men are so strong, that you could not tempt them
    if you would-what then? The fact remains that many men are weak. With the strong you
    need not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty (as you ought to be moved by love)
    to “bear the weaknesses of the weak”-yes, even of the weakest-and not to put stumbling
    blocks in their way (Rom.15:1; 14:13).
    (4) “IF A MAN LOOKS UPON ME TO LUST, THAT IS HIS SIN NOT MINE.”
    No-“you are no longer walking according to love. … It is good not to eat meat or to drink
    wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles” (Rom. 14:15,21). David was made
    weak, David was made to stumble, by Bath-sheba’s careless exposure of herself; and your
    display of your feminine beauty will have the same effect upon your brethren. After reading
    this article, you can hardly plead that you do not know this, and “to one who knows the
    right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). If you were completely
    ignorant of the effects undress might have upon a man, you might dress as you please
    without sin, but not otherwise. Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, but you will
    certainly be held in some sense responsible for another man’s sin, if you provoke him to it.
    To Ezekiel God said, “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and
    you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
    but his blood I will require from your hand” (Ezek. 33:8). The wicked is fully responsible
    for his own sin, and shall surely die for it. But the watchman is held accountable also,
    merely because he failed to do what he could have done to turn the other man from his sin.
    How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks in another man’s
    way, and actually provoke him to sin?
    (5) “IF I WERE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS I WOULD HAVE
    TO BUY A WHOLE NEW WARDROBE, AND THAT I CANNOT AFFORD.”
    My sister, you cannot afford to sin. If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving
    to forsake every sin, and do the whole will of God, at any cost. If you have a will to do
    right, you will find a way-or cry to God to provide one. You can afford to change the way
    you dress. You cannot afford to sin, or to provoke others to sin.
    (6) “I AM NOT ATTRACTIVE OR SHAPELY. NO MAN IS LIKELY TO BE
    TEMPTED BY A SIGHT OF ME. THEREFORE I MAY DRESS AS I PLEASE.”
    In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of course true
    that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation to a man than a plain
    woman, but it is also true that a woman who is not attractive to one man probably will be
    to another, and even the homeliest will be attractive to somebody. But just suppose that
    you are actually so ugly that no man would ever look twice at you. What about your
    example to other women? What about your example to babes in Christ, who have dressed
    improperly through all their ungodly life, and who may now be looking to you to teach
    them and lead them in the right way? Do you want them to look at you, and excuse their
    own improper dress on the basis of your example? Finally, some women are so naive, so
    ignorant of the nature of men, that they suppose that because no men are actually making
    advances or propositions to them, they must be no temptation to any man. Let them
    understand that a man derives great pleasure-sinful pleasure-from looking at women, from
    looking at any and every attractive woman. Why do you suppose that men spend millions of
    dollars every year for pornographic pictures? Let the pictures be left out of pornographic
    magazines, and see how many copies they would sell! What pleasure is it which men
    continually purchase at so great an expense? What pleasure can pictures afford them, except
    the pleasure of looking? It is looking at a woman’s body which inflames a man’s passions
    and regales his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking. Most men will freely
    indulge in that pleasure, with little or no restraint. They will feast their eyes upon the
    feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your form if you
    dress so as to expose and display it. Godly men will recognize that pleasure as sinful except
    when it is confined to their own wife, and they will fight hard to resist the temptation and
    conquer the sin. But because of the extreme strength and intensity of the male passions
    they find this to be a very hard fight. The spirit is willing but, in the face of strong
    temptations, the flesh is weak. To will is present with them, but sometimes how to perform
    they find not. In spite of all their determination and praying and striving, they may find
    their eye seemingly involuntarily drawn to the sight of a beautiful and shapely woman, and a
    moment’s involuntary sight may be enough to take the heart away. A man who has gained
    some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily resist the initial onslaught, but
    constant exposure to such allurement may weaken even the strongest. Therefore we are
    told to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22)-to flee from the very presence of such
    temptations. But whither shall we flee in this wicked world? Must we flee from the very
    congregation of God in order to keep our hearts pure? Shame! Shame! If we cannot find a
    safe asylum there!
    To conclude: There is nothing at all wrong or evil about your physical beauty. It is the
    creation of God, and is, like all that God created, “very good.” It was designed by God for a
    specific purpose: the woman was made “for the man” (1 Cor. 11:9). The perfectly obvious
    design of your beauty is to ravish and satisfy the heart of a man-but a man, not of every
    man. If God has joined you to that one man, then by all means, give that beauty to him
    with all your heart, and say to him, “Hurry, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag
    on the mountains of spices” (Song of Solomon 8:14). Let him be, as God commands him,
    satisfied with your breasts at all times, and always ravished with your love (Prov. 5:19). Thus
    satisfied, he will be less susceptible to the beauty and charms of other women. Thus used,
    the beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you, and serve the man for
    whom it was given. But if you put it on display, and prostitute it to the gaze of the whole
    world, you only glorify yourself and serve the devil.
    Postscript
    If you are as most women are, much of the material in this article may be new and strange
    to you. You may not be able to understand it, and may be reluctant to believe it. Some of
    the women who have read the manuscript can scarcely be persuaded to believe that the
    male passions are as I represented them, but the men to whom I have submitted it have
    fully endorsed it. One of them (a godly man and a preacher) said, “I wish I had about two
    million copies.” I beg you therefore to believe these things, though you may not he able to
    understand them. Secondly, I beg you to not be content with a single reading of this paper,
    but rather to study it thoroughly several times through, so that you may fully grasp and
    remember all that it says. Then, by all means, act upon what it teaches you. And finally, do
    everything in your power to teach these things to your sisters in Christ.
    In so doing you will very much oblige,
    Your Brother in Christ”

  122. Corrie Says:

    That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.

    Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.

  123. Abby Says:

    Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.

    Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!

  124. Abby Says:

    This whole Joshuah’s House thing creeps me out, because in our church, the young adult service is called Joshua House. The two are NOT related, but it’s amazing how people can twist something to their own whims.

  125. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin-tight, they are
    therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin. Still they basically display the form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
    And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit or squat, those “modest slacks” of yours will be stretched just as tightly, over parts of your form, as the skin-tight slacks which other women wear.”

    And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?
    The dresses-only crowd is quick to point oput that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man, but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?

  126. anonymous Says:

    “That should be “Joshuahshouse.com” . And it looks like it is a polygamous site, too.
    Wow, polygamists have more in common with patriarchalists than I thought. I am truly amazed. Even the articles are the same. The teachings are almost identical and so are the buzzwords they use.”

    They had a yahoo group as wel, that they used to recruit like-minded people to their group, and another website as well, that was taken down after being infiltrated. They are quite fond of VisionForum, to say the least.

  127. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Ah, the Sin of Bathsheba… a true classic among the dresses-only articles out there. My best friend wrote a FANTASTIC response to this article:

    http://ourhomeschoolfaith.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/the-sin-of-bathsheba/

    The comments that follow are interesting as well…

  128. JohannaS Says:

    One thing they leave out of the “Bathseba sinned” argument (of which I disagree) is that if David had been where he was supposed to be–with his army–the sin would not have happened in the first place. He would not have on his roof walking around, only to look down and see Bathseba. I would imagine, since kings went off to battle with their armies, that she assumed that is where David was and felt comfortable taking a bath on top of her own home. This is in line with the modern day thought of “well, she asked for it” when a woman in a short skirt is raped.

  129. Corrie Says:

    “29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.”

    And then the PM’s “spiritual head” can deem her pure of heart and motives and that will be the end of it.

    Where is this train of correction in Scripture? Shouldn’t we all be open to receive correction from each other? Where does Scripture say that we have to take a rebuke from another sister or brother to our “authorities”? Matthew 18 doesn’t seem to indicate this at all.

    Up until now, I wasn’t aware that now there is some heirarchal chain of command in order for a female to receive correction or rebuke from another brother or sister in Christ.

    What she should do is consider it and listen to what the person is saying to her and if they are right, she should apologize and repent for her offense. There is no middle-man in the process unless the rebuke is groundless and she is unable to show that to the person rebuking her. Even then, she doesn’t necessarily have to bring in some male authority. She could bring in someone else who knows much more about the situation to help her resolve it.

  130. Psalmist Says:

    I think it’s kind of sad that people just seem to miss the obvious: IF David had merely SEEN Bathsheba, we wouldn’t even have the story in the Bible, most likely. She was fulfilling a commandment, and he was idly up on the roof when he was supposed to have been with the army. Be that as it may, he saw her. So what? He’s the one that pushed things. He was the king, whose word was law, who demanded to lie with another man’s wife, then even had the husband killed in war so that he could marry his wife…he who already had many wives! “Bathsheba could have refused.” Theoretically. But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.

    So really, the seeing of a naked woman was not the point. The point was that this man, who already had his predecessor’s harem and more power than any other person in the entire kingdom, decided to sin based on a sight that he wouldn’t have seen but for his own neglect of his responsibilities.

    And as usual, the blame is pawned off on the woman. But notice who the BIBLE blames…

  131. Abby Says:

    The other thing about the Bathsheba incident is that not only did God punish them by taking their first baby, he took 3 more of David’s sons by other women. If Bathsheba was entirely at fault, then there’s no reason God would punish David for it. As it were, DAVID bears the punishment, NOT Bathsheba (except for the first baby). And isn’t it interesting that Solomon was ALSO a son of Bathsheba???

    Do people even BOTHER to read their Bibles anymore, or do they just make it up to fulfill their own crazy fantasies about how the world ought to be?

  132. Beatrice Says:

    Oh, WOW. MEMORIES. DE JA VU.

    I read The Sin of Bathsheba several times when I was in my early teens. 😦 I had NO discernment whatsoever.

    And that statement “the passions of
    women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man’s body-” and also “But consider: you are a woman and cannot experience
    the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s.
    They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or
    inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s.”

    Right. Ha. Seriously, that must have been one of the most harmful things I read as a young girl. I don’t know lots, but I think I can say this is NOT something to tell a young girl who is starting to mature. It does not prepare for her for growing up and dealing with her own unique body and emotions, and also it gives a somewhat simplistic view of men in general. Don’t get me started on the assumptions that there are certain things that MUST arouse, either. We already talked about the legalistic rule things actually creating lust, and the points you ladies made were very good. Also, this man just cannot speak for every man in the authoritive way he presumes to.


  133. Okay y’all, but forgive me a bit.

    Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?

    I mean come on. I see attractive men every day and I do not have an “urge” to think about them in that way. My husband works with several beautiful women, and he does not have the “urge” to think about them in that way all the time

    Maybe it is just us latent feminist types and big tent-ers that don’t struggle with sexual issues all the time. In their imaginary-like little world, there are boobs and butts everywhere, I guess. Maybe I’m jaded but I don’t LOOK at this stuff half the time. I don’t go around examining other people’s clothing options and choices to see what kind of thrill it rises in me or not.

    That article Corrie posted about the sin of Bath-sheba is annoying to me. It is so backwards, it is not even funny! They really teach these things to their daughters?

    How about teaching MEN and BOYS a little self-discipline of thoughts and actions?

  134. sarah Says:

    I know a couple girls with eating disorders, and I think the attitude that women’s bodies are a source of sin contributes big time. When you are constantly told to cover up your body, or your body is made a focal point as you mature, you are ashamed of it. You may wish to retain as child-like a figure as possible. Further, for some girls in very bad patriarchal situations, their weight is the only thing they can control.


  135. Sarah, you make a good point. I had a very hard time learning to like and enjoy “married relations” with my husband. For 6 years before we were married we were told how bad, naughty, wrong, etc it was.

    I had to really shift my thinking to go from “no-no” to “oh you should really enjoy this.”

    I could see how eating disorders would play in with this sin-stained women’s bodies teaching.

    Gotta go to work! 🙂

  136. Cynthia Gee Says:

    This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.

    And, if it’s true that “you are a woman and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man’s. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man’s. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man’s”, then doesn’t that make MAN the “weaker vessel”???
    If men are so easily led astray by their brute passions, why are they deemed more fit to be in positions of authority? (For that matter, why are they even allowed to run around LOOSE?)

    Talk about trying to have your patrio-cake and eat it too….

  137. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I meant, “This article makes our husbands and fathers and sons and brothers out to be little better than…” sheesh…

  138. Cindy K Says:

    Abby wrote: Is it just me or are there a lot of men out there who are just bitter with women because Eve gave the fruit to Adam? I mean, they definitely take Adam’s side when it comes to the whole “blameshifting” game.

    Or maybe I’m just a horrible person because God saw it fit to create me as a woman. This really grinds my nerves!

    This is really hard for me to read. When I was preparing for that “YouTube thing, I worked through a bunch of material from both John MacArthur and Bruce Ware who teach (contrary to what Paul says explicitly) that sin actually entered the world through Eve and not Adam. I have NEVER heard anything like this except from a faction of Catholics. The other thing that cut through me like a knife was the statements of many of the pagan-minded, new age (many of them very Catholic and mystical) people I trained with when I learned hypnotherapy. They were ALL very feminist, and this is all that they said about men — and they sounded just like Abby’s statement here. To hear this coming from a minister and a former Dean at a seminary that I once fantasized about attending for medical ethics just sickens me deeper than you can know. THEY ARE MAKING FEMINISTS’ ARGUMEMNTS FOR THEM, and I can’t say that I can blame these new age feminists. How can I dare tell them that this is not so, when MacAruthur and Ware (with their titles and stature) provide such blatant evidence that proves their case?

    I believe that when you go to the Word without any preconceived notions about what it means (perhaps one of the greatest challenge of good Christian scholarship), it means that Eve didn’t have full understanding of what she was doing… She was so guileless that she was decieved and she was held accountable for her disobedience, but Adam knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway. This is why I was taught that Adam had to be circumstised, to trim away the sign of sin and why Jesus could not come through Adam. A woman experiences something similar when she is first initmate, but her “circumcision” is one of purity. It’s interesting too, because there is nothing in the account prior to the fall that states that Adam and Eve were sexually intimate. It’s funny because many people in Covenant Theology labor over the children Adam and Eve had if they hadn’t run over to the Tree of Knowledge so quickly to partake. Well, we don’t have any idea how long they were in the garden — it could have been years — and we are not told whether they are intimate. These are all arguments from silence and ignorance and mere “speculation.”

  139. Rebecca Says:

    “Sins of our Dining Brothers”

    Unfortunately, I can’t take credit for that hilarious spoof. Wish I still had a copy of it!

  140. Cindy K Says:

    Cynthia Gee wrote: This article makes our out husbands and fathers and sons and brothers to be little better than a troop of hormone-crazed chimpanzees, and frankly I feel insulted on their behalf.

    Cynthia, this is a major point that people gloss right over. In their seeking to be so pious, they actually fall right into Social Darwinism. This happens with all these issues of lust and it happens with their evil, karmic twist on election (survival of the fittest). There’s not a bit of Jesus in there and not a bit of grace for anyone, really.

  141. Cindy K Says:

    Oh, and I think these articles are disgusting and suggestive. If men all men are so given over to lust, why on earth is it appropriate to write this kind of thing for mixed company. It’s as foul as the immodesty that they claim is offensive.

  142. Cindy K Says:

    Light,

    This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.

    I wish I had known how easy it was to just used YouTube to start with, but the whole things was so packed with info, I figured that I would need to do it in one big file. But Raphael who did the video did such an awesome job on capturing the powerpoint on the film, it is easy to follow, even on a small screen playback. (I never, even a week ago, would have dreamed that I would end up on YouTube and I am mortified!) But the topic is not about me at all, and the fact that they demean the Lord Jesus so much (and only 5 or so Christian ministries or persons seem disturbed about this), I’m willing to do it. I’m mortified, but this is what I signed up for, right?

    God bless Raphael of http://www.spiritwatch.org who did all this fine work producing the whole video as a labor of love.

  143. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Another thing these dresses-only folks never want to talk about is the fact that most dirty old men who like to bother young girls, prefer them in DRESSES.

    When I was about 14, there was a certain school administrator that the girls knew to stay away from. If you got into trouble and were called into his office for any reason, he would come across as very kind and sympathetic, ask about your home situation and your relationship with your father, etc, etc. He would tell you how pretty you were, and how much prettier you would look in skirts, instead of the jeans that most of us girls wore, and he would say that he wanted to see you in a nice skirt the next time you visited his office. Then he would suggest that all you needed was more affection, and give you a big hug and send you ion your way. If you were dumb enough to wear a skirt to school after that, he would call you into his office for another little talk, still very proper and fatherly, except that the hug would last longer, and be less platonic, and of course, you would leave with an appointment to see him again for personal counselling, and you would be asked to wear a nice, feminine skirt on that day…
    Many young women were molested by that old goat, before someone blew the whistle on him…

  144. Beatrice Says:

    Oh, creepy … he sounds almost unreal. Yeah, some people like skirts on women for OBVIOUS reasons.

  145. Cynthia Gee Says:

    He was real alright.

  146. Abby Says:

    Cindy, I’m not sure if I understood what you were saying about my earlier comment, but I wasn’t referring to all men in general, just the patriocentric attitude. And I was being a bit sarcastic, because the whole “sin of Bathsheba” thing just seemed so ridiculous.

    Other than that, I don’t think it’s all that important to make a distinction between who sinned first, it happened practically at the same time (he was WITH her–he LET it happen and didn’t say a word), so are people really going to get all theological over a few seconds? The fact that they both sinned is what’s important, not who sinned first or who gave whom the fruit!

    And you’re so right, the Bible does clearly place the blame for sin entering the world on Adam, yet men throughout the ages have made a case for Adam being an innocent bystander. The David/Bathsheba thing is just another example of people intentionally misinterpreting the Bible, placing blame on the woman.

    I find it really strange that the whole “Harlot in the streets” thing (Proverbs) keeps coming up, because if I recall correctly, Wisdom–also personified as a woman–ALSO went up and down the streets calling to men. Is Wisdom a harlot, too? And the patriocentric men need to really consider the fact that throughout the Bible almost everything is personified as a WOMAN–including the church, Israel, etc.

  147. Beatrice Says:

    Cindy, about Adam and Eve not having relations pre-Fall … that reminds me a little of Augustine’s contention that sex is a result of the Fall, and never would have existed in a sinless world. Which is a disturbing thought, but anyway … doesn’t God tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful before the Fall … they’d have to do certain things to obey that command!

    So glad you’ve got your lectures up!

  148. Cynthia Gee Says:

    And don’t forget the girl in the Song of Songs:
    Sgs 5:6 ¶ I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, [and] was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
    Sgs 5:7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
    Sgs 5:8 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I [am] sick of love.

  149. Light Says:

    This is really sweet of you to say. And it’s a good thing that your sister didn’t have any major health problems like open heart surgery, or I might have met up with her in the ICU at U of M! Moonlighted at Hopkins, too, just for kicks and extra money with which to start a home business and break the monotony. I lived not to far from BWI for five years, and I loved it there.

    Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister. 🙂 You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area. (I’m about 30 minutes away from BWI, by the way.) Having Johns Hopkins and U of M so close to us is a tremendous blessing – so many people I know have been blessed by their skills!

  150. Beatrice Says:

    Of course, I know you only said that we don’t KNOW for sure … but Augustine kind of went crazy with some of that line of thought … and the “be fruitful” command does seem to indicate otherwise to me … though again, the Bible doesn’t say Adam knew Eve until after the Fall.

  151. Cindy K Says:

    Light: Actually, Cindy, I was asking if YOU had a sister. You look and sound just like someone else I know in this area.

    This is what I get for getting so little sleep! I have two friends here who both have sisters in Baltimore… Weird, sleepy wires crossed…

    I have no sibilings (gasp!). (Does that make me a multi-generational faithful, white washed feminist, I wonder?) I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax! [Every now and then, I hear a little Baltimore “Hon” in their, too.]

    Abby,

    I was trying to point out that your partially sarcastic comment is actually very similar for what passes for Christian doctrine… who actually give the feminists a lot of good material.

  152. Light Says:

    I just have that East Coast, touch of Appalachia/PA Dutch, grew up an hour away from Philadelphia syntax!
    Cindy, are we twins separated at birth? I lived all my teen years in Berks County, PA, and my family is still there. How ’bout you? What part of PA Dutch country?

  153. Cindy K Says:

    Light,

    Oooh, Oooh! I was closer to Rodale Press… I grew up on top of South Mountain in Allentown. I went to church in Emmaus, where there are still some people that are so Dutchified that even I can barely understand their English. I can even make bubashenckel (an Amish dish)! I went to Gwynedd Mercy College in Montgomery County and did most all my nursing clinical in Philadelphia.

    I have a TON of friends in Kutztown and used to sing in a group with friends there. We did some regular gigs at a coffee house there back in the early eighties. I went to church there for awhile, too. (But I no longer say “say” soliciting an affirmative response after rhetorical questions. That went over like a lead balloon when I lived Louisiana.) It’s almost like the Canadian “ehay” with a Yiddish flare.

    How much Baltimore Yiddish can you pick up on? Some of it is identical to Dutch.

    Now, we have to figure out how I can be your twin separated at birth and how I can also be Corrie’s who came from Wisconsin? There are lots of Germans out there in Wisconsin! Maybe it’s the sausage that does something to the brain?

  154. Abby Says:

    Cindy, I got it now! I do agree with you there, as my atheist/feminist friend uses every argument from patriocentric attitudes against me. The sad thing is that I can’t convince her that this is a warped view, and that it isn’t in fact biblical. I realized after several months of email discussion that I was probably using the wrong tactics with her, and just pray for her on a daily basis now that she will at some point go back to the Bible and read it without such biases. I still believe in miracles!

  155. Abby Says:

    29) Prairie Muffins are open to correction from proper authorities. They are responsible to submit to their own husbands, to their elders, and ultimately to God. If rebuked by these authorites a PM should receive such correction gracefully and gratefully. If rebuked by others, she should take the concern to her proper authorities.

    This whole statement really bugs me. Who in the Bible ever mentioned “proper authorities” being the only ones who can rebuke you?

    I think about how Paul rebuked Peter–Paul had no earthly authority over Peter, one could make a case for the opposite being true since Paul was not an original apostle.

    This is so anti-Matthew 18, it shocks me. And the other part that I think bothers me is what was mentioned a while back about how Carmon often talks down to women who comment on her blog, as if she has authority over them simply because they come and read her “thoughts.” Having a blog that people come and ask you questions on doesn’t give you authority over them any more than having a Bible study group and being teacher for the day does.

    Frightening thought–It really does seem like they have created their own “Western” religion, straight from the annals of history, rather than looking at what the Bible says. I don’t really know how you can call yourself a Bible-believing Christian if you so oppose what Scripture ACTUALLY says. (Whether you interpret it literally or figuratively or both)

    It’s a wonder to me how a patriocentric person could get away with going against scripture, while at the same time saying that WE are doing it. The scriptures violated there are far more critical than the ones we might or might not be violating–is the man/woman/husband/wife relationship really the *center* of our faith? Why make it such, when we have more important things to be doing with our God-given time?

  156. Sandy Says:

    Psalmist,
    “But a king who was so determined to sin with a woman not his wife, would have engineered things so that no one could have intervened. He did things secretly, on purpose. “She wouldn’t have taken her bath on the roof.” She wasn’t necessarily ON the roof. She was someplace where the king on HIS roof, looking down, could see her. That’s all we know. And he demanded sexual relations with her, his subject.”

    The sin of David also contained the sin of the abuse of power/authority. Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power? I believe it was a desire for authority/power which comes from pride which caused satan to fall, was it not?

  157. Cindy K Says:

    Sandy wrote: Another inconsistency I see in the patriarchal view point is that we women should consider our “weaker” brothers and dress accordingly so as not to tempt them into sin, yet help foster a system which leads to temptation for abuse of power/authority. Why is one temptation worse than others? Is sex more tempting than power?

    Is sex more tempting than power?

    Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.

    But they are certainly preoccupied with issues of sex, just in the form of this gender debate. It’s just a different way of entertaining the topic. And then we have the voyuer factor to consider, too.

  158. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Is sex more tempting than power?
    Maybe, but abuse of power is harder to pin down and easier to justify than sexual sin. Scripture about power is easy to exploit, but you cant very well do that with sexual sin.”

    Hyperpatriarchy is ALL ABOUT abuse of power, using sex as the vehicle for that abuse.

  159. Psalmist Says:

    Yes, the scrambling for and the abuse of power is one major–perhaps THE major–category of sin. I think that’s one reason that women can stomach patriarchy; the guys get the REAL power, but there’s signifcant power for the women to jockey for, as well. Women can then smugly claim that power is nothing to them; why, it’s their MEN who have the power, and the women find their identity in submitting to that power. (Never mind that SCRIPTURALLY, we’re to submit TO ONE ANOTHER, not to whatever power or position or authority the other supposedly has — that’s another subject for another time!) But then look at the shrill finger-pointing and rule-making, all under the auspices of “Titus 2” and “Proverbs 31” tutelage, by those self-appointed women who would presume to tell all others what their “sacred calling” must and must not entail.

    Sorry. It’s ALL about power-mongering. I refuse to play that game. Fortunately, as a single woman, it’s easy to opt out of it. To most of the power-women, I don’t exist anyway. Single, Christian, egalitarian…they don’t even consider me a part of the body of Christ, so to h*ll with me. I’m glad, actually. It frees me up a whole lot to please God, rather than play games with them.

  160. RichardD Says:

    Do these fundies really think all men and women ever think about is sex?

    NormalMiddle: Could I ask you to stop using the perjorative “fundies.” I’d be one of those, and I think we agree on just about everything we’ve posted in here (except for our view of scripture–I would hold to verbal, plenary inspiration). I’m not upset with you, just a little tired of being grouped with the wacko fringe.

  161. Cindy K Says:

    Theoretically, we are all fundamentalists if we agree upon the fundamentals of the faith and do not fall for the pejorative/connotative use of the term. It’s sad that fringe groups have redefined it all.

  162. RichardD Says:

    That’s right, Cindy. Although I think I would define fundamentalism more by the Evangelical Fundamentalist Movement’s self-definition, which included a little bit more, including the sufficiency and verban, plenary inspiration of scripture, as well as the commitment to standing up outspokenly against those who would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    I have at times rejected the label, but in the context of the current discussion about Patriocentricity and McDonaldland, I feel inclined to claim the name of Fundamentalist. And in all actuality, I am a historic Fundamentalist, although I would not fit in with most Fundamental Baptists or Presbyterians these days.


  163. Richard, if you offend that easily, I’ll just go back to my old moniker: fundie frootloops, and drop the fundie part alone so you don’t feel singled out. I’m really only talking about the ultra-conservative-my-way-or-the-highway-you-are-always-wrong-fundamentalists.

    I’m not a fundamentalist, so I will have to disagree on that level. But hey, we don’t all have to agree on everything.

  164. RichardD Says:

    Yes, Normal – it’s okay to disagree. I don’t really offend easily, I just think the way you were using the term was somewhat distracting to the discussion. I don’t view Phillips, the McDonalds, Carmon, the Botkin twins, Gothard, or any of those in that camp Fundamentalists. They are a breed apart. And traditional (historic) Fundamentalists would stand strongly against them due to some serious heresy they are proclaiming.

    And to address something you said earlier that probably contributed to my not wanting to be tainted by the perjorative was that some fundies would consider you to be non-Christian (context indicating that they would reject your Christianity because of your view of scripture). I certainly would not consider your view of scripture to be indicative of your standing with God. From my Fundamentalist paradigm (all dogma must spring from scripture and nothing else), the only thing necessary to salvation is belief in Jesus Christ. And from your comments here, I believe that you fall into the saved camp. When we get to heaven, you and I can ask Jesus about it (although in heaven I’m sure you’ll realize that I’m right).

    😉


  165. Richard, you use too many big words for me to understand well 🙂

    I’m sorry I contributed to making the discussion unclear. I’ll head back to my rock and stay there.


  166. Excuse me, make that I’m sorry for making the discussion “distracted.”

    Sheesh.

  167. RichardD Says:

    LOL – Normal, don’t hide on account of me. I’m a Teddy Bear. I just roar a bit too loud at times. I think it’s the ADD.

  168. thatmom Says:

    Here are a couple more sites if you are still interested in the polygamy topic. It seems like everyone is talking about this right now and this was posted in a homeschooling group where I read…defending it!

    http://www.truthbearer.org/

    http://www.lovenotforce.com/

  169. thatmom Says:

    Here is what they call their “spiritual exegesis”

    This is just quick run-down of Scriptural PROOFs of the truth of Christian Polygamy (polygyny-only).
    This page here is provided in short, “sound-bite” format.

    * Malachi 3:6a-b and Hebrews 13:8 — God does not change (nor would He, therefore, “tolerate” sin, as some mistakenly assert).

    * Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 — “One wife” — mia is the Greek word (for the word, one, in those passages) may also be translated as first, as it is, for example so translated in the phrases, “first day of the week” in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7. Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow’s “one man” is not mia but the Greek word “heis”, meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of “first”. (There is so much more to this particular matter here than that which this “sound-bite” here can address, but is addressed throughout various places throughout this web-site. The fact is, no one can INSIST that these three “one wife” verses can NOT be instead translated as “first wife”, which makes more sense to translate those verses as “first wife” anyway.)

    * Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment against Adultery in Exodus 20:14.

    * Malachi 2:14-15 — “wife of thy youth” is a man’s first wife, the wife with whom he grew and learned how to so love, bless, and edify any wife.

    * 1 Corinthians 7:27-28d is ONLY about married men (whether or not a previous wife has departed). If a man marries another wife, he and the new wife have not sinned.

    * 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 is a Commandment of God that, when a previously-departed wife returns, her husband and his new wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

    * 1_Kings 11:3-4: Solomon multiplied wives (up to 1,000!) which was prohibited and prophesied that a king would do in Deuteronomy 17:17. But that passage in 1_Kings 11:3-4 says his father David’s heart was “perfect”. Indeed, where Solomon had multiplied (i.e., stored-up, hoarded), David had only added his 18+ wives. (In Genesis 25:1, “Then AGAIN Abraham took a wife… Keturah”. The word,”AGAIN”, there translates to add –or “augment”– in the Hebrew. And, indeed, Abraham was adding his third wife Keturah to himself.) So, Solomon’s sin was multiplying wives while his father David had simply added wives.

    * Deuteronomy 21:15-17: this is a specific instruction in the Law Itself to any man with “two wives”.

    * 1_Corinthians 5:1: A son had fornicated with his “father’s wife”. This does NOT refer to the man’s mother. Indeed, the term, “father’s wife”, is a very specific term. Leviticus 18:8 refers to “father’s wife” as specifically separate from “mother” in the previous verse of Leviticus 18:7. Note that the “nakedness” of a “mother” is referred to as her own “nakedness” while the “nakedness” of a “father’s wife” is referred to as the FATHER’s “nakedness”. This same differentiation is observed again in Deuteronomy 27:20,16. In fact, what the fornicator had done as per 1_Corinthians 5:1 was the same sin as that of Jacob/Israel’s firstborn son. Reuben had committed the identical sin with Jacob/Israel’s wife, Bilhah, in Genesis 35:22. (Yes, Bilhah was Jacob’s wife ; see Genesis 37:2.) And for Reuben’s act of “uncovering his father’s nakedness” by fornicating with his “father’s wife”, Bilhah, Reuben lost his birthright as firstborn. 1_Chronicles 5:1 reveals that this was because Reuben had “defiled his father’s bed”. Indeed, the reference to “father’s wife” in 1_Corinthians 5:1 does reveal an actual polygamist identified in the New Testament, i.e., the father of the mentioned fornicator.

    * Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy 24:1 “as it had been in the beginning” when it was written. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about “every” reason for divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman’s “fornication/uncleanness”), as per Deuteronomy 24:1.

    * “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. This applies to that same (as just above) Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in that verse) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, see above, in putting her away so as to “replace her”) that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. And of course, that first wife for “breaking her wedlock contract” with her first husband, and the “second husband” for particiapting in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to “break her wedlock contract”. Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”.

    * “ONE FLESH” — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24, referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31. A man is “one flesh” with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already “one flesh” with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being “one flesh” with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be “one flesh” even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become “one flesh” with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be “one flesh” with more than one woman, without negating his being “one flesh” with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being “one flesh” with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” As EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as “one spirit” with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as “one flesh” with one man. Lastly, when the Lord Jesus, in Matthew 19:5,6 and Mark 10:8, was re-quoting that original “one flesh” verse of Genesis 2:24, He was only dealing with the issue of divorce, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6c-d.) That was opposing divorce of God-joined marriages, of what God Himself had joined together as “one flesh”. For context, it is exegetically important to note that the “one flesh” verse itself of Genesis 2:24, which the Lord Jesus was re-quoting, was written by Moses. And Moses married (was “one flesh” with) two wives: Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21 and 18:1-6) and the Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1). The term, “one flesh”, could not otherwise allegedly mean that a man could not be “one flesh” with more than one woman because three things did indeed happen. 1) Moses did marry two wives. 2) Moses did author such other verses as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. 3) Jesus Christ did not speak against Moses’ being “one flesh” with two wives. Hence, the Scriptures reveal that Jesus and Moses knew what “one flesh” meant when Moses authored Genesis 2:24: a man may be “one flesh” with more than one woman.

    * 1_Timothy 4:1-3a: the “Spirit speaketh expressly” and prophesied of the time of “forbidding to marry”. Today’s churches, (some unwittingly) “speaking lies in hypocrisy”, would forbid the marriages of Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Gideon, and David —not to mention forbidding how God described Himself in Polygamist terms in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, and how Christ the perfect Saviour did likewise when He referred to Himself as the Polygamist Bridegoom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13). Indeed, such churches would not even allow such holy ones in the Scriptures to bring their families into their churches. And yet, clearly, the Spirit expressly foretold of this in 1_Timothy 4:1-3a.

  170. Sandy Says:

    Karen,
    “* “ADULTERY” — na`aph (pronounced: naw-af’) in the Hebrew means, “WOMAN that breaketh wedlock”. ”

    Don’t you just love it that for the pro-polygamists, it’s always polygany never polyandry? Not to say I espouse that either. It’s just another problem I have with the whole thing. Only women can commit adultery. So… even if a man visits a prostitute, I guess that would be okay in these men’s eyes.

  171. Abby Says:

    Karen, thanks for putting all those here! I will have to refer back to it at some point.

    I would have to say that it could really contribute to a very convincing argument that polygamy is “okay” but the difference between something being “okay” and “the norm” is not something those polygamous cultic groups seem to understand.

    It is sad to me that people can so easily use these as proof-text, but the Pharisees and Sadducees basically did the same thing to Jesus when they asked him about Moses and the certificate of divorce. They ignored the prophet who stated clearly that “God HATES divorce” and Jesus turned the law against them, pointing all the way back to Genesis and adding “and what God has joined together…”

    I don’t have a Bible in front of me, but from what I can remember (from this incident with Jesus), just because the law had “provision” for something doesn’t mean that it was acceptable to God for us to do those things. Is it acceptable to God to kill another human–even if that human is your slave?

  172. Corrie Says:

    I have heard patriocentrists teach that only women can commit adultery, too. The only time that these patriocentrists said that a man can commit adultery is when he has sex with someone else’s wife. IOW, adultery is predicated on the woman’s marital status not the man’s marital status. I remember this being discussed on a couple of lists I used to be on.

    It sure is a convenient system, isn’t it?

  173. Corrie Says:

    “And men’s pants do the very same thing when THEY bend over. What none of these dresses-only folks are ever willing to explain is, if pants are immodest for women for this reason, why are they not also immodest for men?”

    Cynthia,

    For this very reason, pants would also be immodest for men.

    “The dresses-only crowd is quick to point out that the sight of a man’s form does not inflame the passions of a woman as the sight of a woman does a man,”

    I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.

    ” but what about men inflaming the passions of other men? There are a LOT of men out there who are straight in practice, but who struggle with homosexual thoughts. If the mere outline of a derriere is such a temptation to a male, shouldn’t they all wear robes so as to avoid tempting weaker brothers to perversion, or don’t the souls of those weaker brothers matter?”

    Exactly! Funny how all these rules only apply to women but they would never think of applying them to their own persons.

    I also wonder how they can explain the Song of Solomon and the Bride’s total enthrallment with her Lover’s body? Maybe she was just a lusty anomoly?

  174. Corrie Says:

    Karen,

    This is from the “Love Not Force” site:

    “Accordingly, the teachings of “love-not-force” answer the commonly asked question, “How does one help a ‘first wife’ willingly embrace the idea of polygamy?”

    Very carefully? What a patronizing and ridiculous question!

    A man helps his wife “willingly embrace” the idea of another woman sharing their bed in the same manner that she would help him “willingly embrace” the idea of another man sharing their bed.

    Basically, how does a man brainwash his wife into thinking that he “needs” another wife by twisting the Bible to suit his own carnal desires?

  175. thatmom Says:

    So, Corrie, were you able to place that Sin of Bathsheba article, where it has been published before, and who wrote it? It sounds so familiar to me that I am sure that I have read it before.


  176. It is okay Richard. I just find it odd that out of the MONTHS I’ve spent on this discussion, over many different threads and literally THOUSANDS of comments, and the MANY rabbit trails this discussion has taken at various times—-that you would pick my use of the word “fundie” as distracting.

    Just kind of funny that you would even take the time to point out something like that makes me chuckle, after everywhere we’ve been and all we’ve tackled here.

    So forgive my shock. It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.

    So basically I am sorry that my personal experience offended you? I get so tired of the easily-bruised, easily-offended stuff. It makes discussion moot, in my opinion.

  177. thatmom Says:

    “So what can a Christian lady do ? Leave college ? Well, certainly you planned on doing that anyway at some point, with a degree, though it might be worth considering if you really need that degree. Did you ever think about the fact that a career is nothing but indentured servitude, nothing but selling yourself to someone and “slaving away” for them, instead of giving your energy and creativity to your own family ? Will your degree help your family grow into a strong godly family, lead by a responsible and godly husband ? Will your degree help you be a good help meet to your husband, a good mother to your children, a good home schooler for them ? Just some thoughts to consider while sitting there in class.

    So when you are ready finally to leave college, one way or the other, where are you going to live ?

    We at Joshuah’s House think that the countryside is certainly the best place to live for a multi-generational, plural marriage family with many children, preferably mountainous and far off from “civilization”, i.e., the filth of modern day society. Self sufficiency is an important factor here, starting with simplicity of housing, life style and clothing, and growing your own food to a large degree – your experiences with growing tomatoes and peppers will come in handy. ”

    Looks like this polygamist is looking for a college girl…

    http://www.joshuahshouse.com/simple-living-in-the-countryside.html

  178. Corrie Says:

    Karen,

    The “Sin of Bathsheba” was written by an “Anonymous Brother” and it was first published in “Patriarch Magazine” (Phil Lancaster, editor) in 1996. I do not know who the person is who wrote that article. I do understand why he didn’t use his real name and why he hid behind the “anonymous” term. 🙂

    A lot of people, at one time or another, have housed it on their site, including the McDonalds on their now defunct “Patriarch’s Path” site, if I remember correctly. I do know it is a favorite of the women on the patriarchal type lists.

  179. Cynthia Gee Says:

    That Bathsheba article is everywhere — you can find it on nearly every site that promotes the modesty meme (or sells modest clothing — funny how the two seem to coincide), and you can find it on Protestant, Anabaptist, Apostolic Pentecostal and even on a few Catholic sites.
    In every instance the author is listed as anonymous, except here, where David Huston claims authorship; however if you follow the link to the article the author is agan listed as “anonymous”:

    http://www.gloriouschurch.com/Apostolic-Free-Library.asp

    The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:

    http://www.wendysmodestdress.com/id17.htm

    Let Her Be Covered
    By Bro. Merle Ruth

    ——————————————————————————–

    Several weeks ago, while shopping in a grocery store, my wife was approached by a woman who appeared to be very refined — very courteous manner. She indicated that she had a question that possibly she could answer. She and her husband had observed that some women wear coverings similar to the one that my wife was wearing. Why are they worn? Her husband’s opinion was that it signifies marriage. She herself did not concur with that opinion. But why DO you wear it? That was her question. In response, my companion assured her that the wearing of the headcovering is a Biblical teaching recorded in 1 Corinthians 11. To her that was news. She seemingly was not aware that this was a Bible teaching, and with gratitude in her voice, she promised to go home and read for herself from 1 Corinthians 11.

    A hundred years ago, an occurrence like that here in Lebanon county would have been unlikely. Why? Because a hundred years ago, this practice was still being observed in numerous non-Mennonite circles. The widespread loss of this practice demonstrates what can happen in no more than a hundred years. Whether that woman was a church member or not, I don’t know. I do know that today, in many church circles, this teaching is either omitted, or explained away, or twisted so as to make the hair the only needed covering.

    But, it’s not my primary calling to condemn other church groups. Right within our own circles we have a big enough job to keep this practice alive and to keep it moving in the right direction. In order to get that job done requires giving periodic attention to this teaching. That’s why I’ve chosen to dwell on that subject this morning. My record shows that it’s been a little over 5 years ago that I devoted an entire message to this subject. That’s a pretty long interval – maybe too long.
    I’ve already named the Bible passage in which this teaching is found, so let’s turn in our Bibles to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. The content of this chapter revolves around 2 items: the headcovering, and the Lord’s supper. Because of their nature, we believe that they both fall in the category of an “ordinance”. This is in agreement with the language of verse 2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” The now-popular approach to this chapter throws away the first of these practices, the headcovering, but retains the second, the Lord’s supper. In my opinion, there is no valid ground for that kind of selectivity. Nonetheless, it’s being done. And that’s one reason why there are people around us like that lady who approached my wife.

    In a few moments, I’m going to be reading 1 Corinthians 11:4, 5 and 6. Those verses serve as home base for both the doctrine and the practice of the headcovering. But all of the first 16 verses relate to the subject in one way or another. All right, let’s listen now to verses 4-6:

    “(4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

    Those last four words in verse 6 are my text: “Let her be covered.”

    That is a straightforward command. It’s comparable to other commands that are stated in a similar way. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.” “Let no man deceive you.” “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” “Let your light so shine.” Now the command in view here is no less binding than these other commands.

    The framework for the message this morning will consist of a series of questions revolving around this command: “Let her be covered.”

    The first of these questions is: “To whom is this command addressed?”

    Now that’s a very simple question. In your opinion, perhaps, it’s too elementary to even raise. Your answer might be, “Why, it’s addressed, of course, to the Corinthians!” and that’s right. They were the initial recipients of it. Does that mean, then, that it was exclusively for them? Does that mean that what was enjoined upon them is not binding upon us? Have the teachings of the epistles been generally understood in that way? Among Christian people, is the Bible usually viewed as “out of date”? No! The Bible has been studied and applied because it is believed to be relevant for today.
    If 1 Corinthians was intended only for the Corinthians, then we might as well close our doors and go out of business. A very few would take so radical a stand as that. The continued observance of the communion ordinance is evidence of the widespread conviction that not the Corinthians only, but we, too, are being addressed in this epistle. But, as was pointed out earlier, it’s unfortunate that, in that larger group, there are those who, at certain points, draw back from that position in order to escape the reproach of Christ. And so you have this practice of teaching one part of the chapter, but not the part of the chapter that might make you unpopular.

    In answer to this question, there are yet other lines of evidence that ought to be looked at. The book of Revelation, in chapters 2 and 3, records individual messages sent by the ascended Christ to seven churches. At the conclusion of each of those letters, this familiar refrain is repeated: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches” – plural. Each of those letters, in addition to being for one particular church, was to be heeded also by all the churches. “Let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches”. And so it is, too, with the Corinthian epistle. It’s for us, too, even though it was for them initially.

    To further reinforce this fact, let’s go to the very beginning of this epistle, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, and listen to verses 1 and 2 for a possible clue to this answer, for a possible answer to the question: “ (1) Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (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.” There you have it again. The writer, God’s chosen servant, declares himself that he’s addressing not only the Corinthians, but also ALL that in EVERY place call upon the Lord.

    There is, however, still more that ought to be added to this answer. Remember the question is: “To whom is this command addressed?”

    Was this portion of the letter for sisters only? They very much are in focus here. It surely relates to them. But, are they being addressed directly, or indirectly? Well, back again in chapter 11, I find in verses 2 and 3 a clue to that answer. “Now I praise you, BRETHREN, that YE remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to YOU. But I would have YOU know that the head of every man is Christ” and so on. Let’s not overlook this! Obviously, brethren are to be in charge – both in the church and in the home. It’s their responsibility to teach God’s headship order, and to see that that order is maintained. Even though it may have been the Corinthian women who were pushing at the fence, God viewed it as a problem that rested on the shoulders of the brethren — fathers, husbands, church leaders. I, myself, very much need to face up to this fact. And so do you, brethren. When wrong trends appear in covering styles or covering sizes, brethren, let’s not blame one another. Let’s work TOGETHER at correcting the problem, for this is addressed to US. Let’s be willing to admit that an irregularity in relation to the headcovering is seldom a sister’s problem only. It usually involves more than just the sister. I think we’re ready now to move to another question.

    That question, number 2, is this: “With what is this practice associated?”

    Some persons make much of the fact that, among the women of that day, this was the then-existing practice. And they immediately jump to the conclusion that on that basis it’s not obligatory today. But that line of reasoning ignores completely verse 3 and the obvious link between verse 3 and all that follows, for I am of the opinion that verse 3 is the KEY to the whole passage. Notice now again how verse 3 brings into focus something far more authoritative than a local practice: “I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” God wants it to be known that there is a divinely established arrangement for working relations within the divine human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s headship order. Better than anyone else, God knows that in every sphere of life there needs to be leadership and respect for leadership. God wants this fact known. He wants it known that on the human level God has assigned that leadership to the man. “I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man.” God wants that fact KNOWN. Wherever a church or a family departs from this arrangement, it steps outside of the will of God, and it exchanges the best arrangement for an inferior arrangement. which will inevitably lead to confusion.

    We have now our answer to question number 2: “With what is this practice associated?” It’s associated with God’s permanently existing headship order. Those verses that I read, verses 4-6, follow immediately upon the disclosure of this headship arrangement. Those verses 4-6 outline the God-prescribed way of preserving an awareness of this God-established headship order. The fact that the women of that day and place veiled their heads is to their credit, but it’s simply an incidental factor. It’s by no means the foundation on which this teaching is built. Incidentally, for the Jewish men of that day, the embracing of Christianity did require breaking their custom. It may not have required a breaking of their custom on the part of the women, but on the part of the Jewish men they had to discontinue what they had been doing. So, please don’t allow anyone to ever convince you that this passage is merely a call to fit in with their culture.

    I’m moving now to question number 3: “But doesn’t this practice destroy the woman’s equality with man in Christ? Doesn’t it do that?”

    It is true that, more than anything else, Christianity elevated the status of womanhood. In Christ, the Christian woman stands before God on a footing equal to that of man. That is the input of a verse like Galatians 3:28, in which it is declared that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” In relation to salvation, man and woman are equal. It may be, however, that in Corinth especially, this newfound liberty may have been interpreted too broadly. So broadly as to obliterate the headship order. Perhaps it’s in order to correct any such thinking that Paul is led to include in this passage evidence of the fact that the headship arrangement dates back, not only to the fall, but beyond the fall. It dates back to the time of the creation. That shows that it was meant to be a permanently existing thing in the earthly order.

    Verses 8 and 9 speak to that point. Let’s listen now to verse 8: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That speaks of man’s priority in the sequence of creation. The fact that man was created first was not simply incidental, that was by divine design. Now verse 9: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” This brings into focus the Creator’s purpose. Eve was created for the purpose of being Adam’s helper.
    Now, the evident purpose for the inclusion of these facts is to emphasize that redemption does not cancel out headship. Headship remains intact in the reckoning of God. And so, the answer to our question is “NO”, this practice does NOT destroy woman’s equality with man in Christ. In the reckoning of God, man’s continuing to function as the administrative head of the race is altogether compatible with woman’s spiritual equality with the man in matters pertaining to Christian experience. Both concepts need to be promoted. There is no conflict between them. The man and the woman are equal in spiritual privilege, but they are not equal in authority.

    Now, let’s recall again the text: “Let her be covered.” That is God’s decree.
    All right, let who be covered?

    That is question number 4. “Who is to be covered?”

    If this is for Mennonites only, as some wrongly suppose, then it ought to read “let every Mennonite sister be covered.” But the text has in it no such limitation. This is not a denominational teaching. This is a Bible teaching.

    Already in verse 3 we are being prepared to think in a much broader scope, for there, where the principle is in focus, it is stated that the head of EVERY man is Christ. No exception is made. Christ is the authority figure for every man, whether or not he obeys Him, Christ is his head. And, by the same token, man remains woman’s God-appointed head, whether or not she submits. And then when we come to the application, verses 4-6, again it’s EVERY woman and EVERY man, indicating the widest possible application, conveying the idea that this practice is intended to be universal. There’s also no reference here to marriage, which eliminates the idea that this is applicable only to women who are married. You may sometime be confronted with that idea. Really, the headship of man over woman is an aspect of God’s government in this world. And, as such, it is not limited only to life in the Kingdom of God. But, since judgment begins at the house of God, Paul is here singling out an instance that would constitute a violation in the context of church life.

    I’m driven to the conclusion that EVERY woman who wants to take her God-assigned place under man is duty-bound to signify that purpose of heart by being covered. “Who is to be covered?” SHE is to be covered — the woman who recognizes and submits to her God-ordained place in God’s arrangement.

    Growing out of this is a fifth question: “With what shall she be covered?”

    An increasing number of voices are responding to this question with this easy answer: “With her hair. Let her be covered with her hair.” But this answer simply cannot survive close scrutiny. To begin with, at the time of this writing [of 1 Corinthians 11] there was practically no need in Christian circles for a plea to retain the hair covering. Long hair had been the long-accepted practice, and to my knowledge was not even being challenged.

    Furthermore, those who claim that this passage has in view no other covering but the hair are knowingly discrediting about 1900 years of Christian practice and Biblical scholarship. For that long of time, the wearing of an additional covering was taught and practiced on a very wide scope. Those who argue for the hair only are thereby implying that in respect to this issue the Christian church started out wrong and has been wrong for most of her history. I’m not ready to believe that.
    Verse 15 does speak of long hair as “A” covering, nature’s covering, but it’s not “THE” covering called for in verses 5-6. And that conclusion is substantiated by the fact that, in the Greek, the word for covering in verses 5-6 is not the same word as is used in verse 15. And this difference comes to light in a number of the more reliable modern versions. They actually use the term “veil” in verses 5-6. But a careful reading of verse 6, even in the King James Version, should convince anyone that another covering beside the hair is in view. Let’s right now take a moment to look at that verse. Verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered”. Let’s stop right there. If, as some claim, the hair is the only covering in view, than this clause would envision a woman whose hair has been removed, right? “For if the woman be not covered.” That envisions a case where the hair has been removed, if the hair is the covering called for. Now, look at the next clause: “Let her also be shorn.” Now you have a problem on your hands, for how can you remove something that has already been removed? How can there be two successive removals of the same thing? What the statement really means is this: a woman ought to wear both the hair covering and the sign covering, or none at all. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace: that of being shorn.
    And here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s will.

    Now remember the question was “With what shall she be covered?” Here are possible ways of stating the simple answer. She is to voluntarily cover her head with a material covering. It ought to be distinguishable from protection coverings. It ought to be identifiable as one that carries religious significance. To think of it only as a symbol allows for it to become too small. The terminology employed here requires that it be also a covering, that which “covers”. Although it is a symbol, it must be a symbol that covers.

    And now I raise question number 6: “When is she to be covered?”

    And in response to this, I can imagine someone saying, “Well that’s an easy one, your answer’s right there in the text. ‘Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head’. There’s your answer – she’s to be covered when she prays or prophesies.” As far as it goes that’s an acceptable answer, but I don’t think the evidence is conclusive that this practice is to be limited to such times. That would reduce it to a “devotional covering” or a “worship covering”, when actually the larger context supports the view that it’s primarily a “headship covering”. And, since the headship of man extends to all of life, and since the world so much needs the awareness that the covering creates, isn’t it logical to conclude that the wearing of the covering should be constant?
    But why does Paul single out times of praying and prophesying? That is a valid question. Although we can’t know for sure, it may be that those were the occasions when the Corinthian women were beginning to think that they would be justified in throwing off their veil in the name of their newfound Christian liberty. I’m simply suggesting that Paul might have received reports of violations occurring at such times. If so, that would explain why he would name these specific times.
    Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the words of my text, “Let her be covered,” are in the present active imperative form, so that, by grammatical structure, it really means “let her continue to be covered.”
    In relation to this question, I would conclude with these remarks. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that “here is a soul that is presently praying or prophesying.” Rather, it signifies that “here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life.” So, it’s not really a prayer veiling, but a woman’s veiling, worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. Let’s think of it in those terms. Not a “devotional covering”. Not a “worship covering”. But a “woman’s covering”. A “headship covering”. That, I think, is the main thrust of the passage as a whole.
    Again, let’s call attention to our text: “Let her be covered.”

    One more question: “Why?”

    Well, I hope that some answers have already gotten through to you. To all that, I would add this: Wear the headcovering because you know God wants you to! I cannot supply you with a more valid reason for the performance of any deed than simply to know that God wants you to do it. Can you? Can you think of a more valid reason to motivate any action? For every pliable saint, what God has written right here should be enough to settle the matter.
    It is here made apparent that God wants to preserve an awareness of His divinely established order. That is urgently needed in today’s society. Furthermore, he wants YOU to have a part in that, not only the sisters, but also the brethren. He wants both Christian men and Christian women to give visible evidence of their pledge to abide by that order. For the man, that visible witness is given by the non-wearing of a religiously significant covering. For the woman that witness is given by the wearing of a religiously significant covering. The God-supplied long hair will not suffice for this because it is not a personally supplied witness. It doesn’t necessarily reflect a personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. It doesn’t convey the clear signal that “I’m voluntarily submitting to man’s leadership.” The humanly supplied covering should be worn to convey that signal. To all who see it, it proclaims this message: “I will not attempt to dominate, I will not attempt to manipulate my head. I submit to God’s plan.”

    Now, to all of this, the response of the critic might be: “So what? There is no salvation in it!” That is as much beside the point as to say that there’s no salvation in baptism or in any other of the ordinances. We don’t keep the ordinances to become saved, rather being saved we gladly keep those commandments. “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.”

    It’s very obvious that some portions of this passage have not been touched on in this message. Perhaps they can be touched on some other occasion.

    Before I close, I wish to add some remarks bearing on the more practical side of this practice. We as church leaders try to monitor changes in covering styles and covering sizes, but changes can be made so gradually that we may not always be abreast of what is happening. Little by little, you can make your covering smaller and smaller, and you may suppose that no one else notices it, but God knows it, and you know it, and very likely more people take notice of that than you realize. You may never know. If you take that course, you may never know how many other sisters are influenced to do likewise. Now you may take that course if you choose, but that will not build the kind of church life that I think you want. It will not build the kind of church life that you want for your children.

    I’m glad for the healthy signs among us. It’s a healthy sign when daughters appear with coverings as large as their mother’s. That’s something to rejoice over and thank God for. Really, anything less than that will lead in the wrong direction. If, in successive generations, the daughter’s covering every time is just a little smaller than the mother’s, it will only be a few generations until the covering is lost. I don’t think you want that to happen here, so I plead with you to help to keep it from happening.
    Shall we come before the Lord in prayer?

    ——————————————–
    http://www.angelfire.com/ny/japostle/veiling.html

    The Significance of the
    Christian Woman’s Veiling
    by Merle Ruth
    This article revolves around an ordinance that many segments of the professing church have lost. This state of affairs has given to the practice, in the eves of some, the appearance of a peculiar denominational tradition. That is a misconception that we unitedly ought to challenge and correct.

    Most of you know that a keystone is the wedge-shaped stone that is put in the top center of the arch and thus gives strength and solidarity to the whole structure. The practice we are about to examine has about it something that makes it a keystone in the whole structure of Christian nonconformity. A study of the history of church groups would reflect the fact that when once this practice falls by the way, it is only a matter of time until every other mark of Christian nonconformity becomes extinct. Let us therefore never become apologetic about teaching and practicing the Christian Woman’s Head Veiling.

    We ought to appreciate this title: “The Significance of the Christian Woman’s Veiling.” The significance of anything is its meaning. God is concerned that we keep alive the meaning behind His ordinances. In connection with the first Passover, God said, “When your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, “thus and thus. When a Bible-taught practice is continued, after its meaning has been largely lost, it becomes subject to all kinds of abuse. At that point someone is likely to suggest it be discontinued–“Why continue a meaningless practice?” But that is walking right into the devil’s trap. It is surely better to continue the practice and try in every way possible to revive its meaning so it becomes again the meaningful expression God meant it to be. That is reason number one for frequent teaching on this subject. We face the challenge of keeping alive, from generation to generation, not only the practice but also its meaning.

    Another reason for teaching repeatedly on this subject lies in the circumstances alluded to at the beginning. This once widespread practice is, in many groups, now viewed as nonessential. Even among those who still retain the Mennonite label, there are many who have lost all appreciation for this practice. It has been said that the most important bolt on a train is the one that is loose; for that reason it needs immediate attention. That has its parallel in the life of the church. The church at Sardis received from heaven this mandate: “Strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die.” That means that a practice once it becomes neglected, ought to receive more attention than it otherwise would, and this is obviously a neglected practice.

    In the nonprofessing world there are likewise circumstances that make this form of witness an urgently needed witness. There is wholesale disregard for God’s headship arrangement. Sex distinction is becoming blurred, almost to the point of extinction. If we who claim to be the church do not give a clear witness concerning God’s order, where else will this bewildered world find it!

    To find the reasons for this practice, we do not go to some source book on proper etiquette. Neither do we go to a denominational handbook. Rather, we go to man’s highest court of appeal, that supremely authoritative Book of books, that Word by which all men shall be judged in the last day. We turn now, in that Book, to I Corinthians 11:1-16.

    The first verse is in the form of a plea. “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, the writer of this passage, was a divinely chosen vessel. He was on intimate terms with Christ. The instructions that come to us through him have their source in heaven. The Anointed of God, when He walked among men, had said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” When He came back to earth on the Day of Pentecost in the Person of the Holy Spirit, He began to impart to men those things. Under His direction the New Testament came into being, and that is now our rule for faith and life. Thus it was that this man Paul could rightfully say in this same Corinthian letter, “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

    In the second verse Paul commends the Corinthians for the recognition and respect they have shown him and for their observance of the ordinances. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

    I would now like to call attention to the beginning of the next verse, verse 3. It begins, as you see, with the word but, a word that usually serves to introduce a contrasting condition. Evidently, on this one point Paul was led to depart from his commending them and seek instead to clarify and possibly correct. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” This might be termed the theological premise underlying the practice that is to be outlined in the following verses. We are here being introduced to God’s arrangement for working relations within the divine-human economy. This is otherwise known as God’s order of headship. It is a God designated line of responsibility. Furthermore, it is a permanently existing arrangement.

    This verse names three relationships in which the principle of headship is in effect by divine decree: (1) the head of Christ is God, (2) the head of man is Christ, and (3) the head of woman is man. The meaning of headship for the man-woman relationship can be arrived at by examining the God-Christ relationship. Jesus once said: “I and my Father are one,” That speaks of equality, On another occasion, He said this, at least, in substance: “I am not alone in what I am doing.” That speaks of cooperation. On a third occasion, Jesus said, “I do always those things that please him [the Father],” That speaks of the Father’s leadership. By way of summary, one could then say that in the Father-Son relationship there is a blending of equality and cooperation along with a mutual awareness that ultimate authority resides with the Father. Or, stated otherwise, functional priority belongs to the Father. If then, in a relationship that is wholly divine, headship or leadership is needful and good, how much more so in the human, man-woman relationship. Both men and women need to recognize, therefore, that there is for each of them a God-appointed place and function and that they make their greatest contribution and reach their highest glory when cheerfully serving in that capacity.

    Suppose a railroad locomotive could speak. It might say, “I’m tired of following the same old tracks and going through the same old towns.” And suppose the locomotive would then leave its tracks and start across the open fields. Would it improve its lot? Would it find greater liberty? Would it increase its usefulness? Of course not. In one way or another, it would eventually get stuck. The locomotive is most useful when it follows the tracks for which it was designed. In this day of supposed liberation for women, that lesson is urgently needed. We make our greatest contribution when we function in our God-designated sphere.

    God has chosen to employ visible means to preserve awareness of this divinely conceived arrangement whereby both the man and the woman have their own sphere of operation. It is this employment of a visible sign that puts the practice into the category of an ordinance. Both the Christian man and Christian woman are involved in giving this visible witness. And, it is a two-fold witness from yet another standpoint, for it involves the giving of both a divinely supplied witness and a humanly supplied witness. The divinely supplied witness is the witness of nature. At a later point in this discussion, Paul indicates that the endowments and dictates of nature bear witness to a God-planned distinction between the sexes. Accordingly, woman’s long hair is nature’s covering, supplied by God. The humanly supplied witness is the one whereby the individual gives his or her personal endorsement of God’s arrangement. God wants both Christian men and women to give visible evidence of their acceptance of His arrangement and their pledge to harmonize their lives with that order. In verses 4 and 5, the God-prescribed form for this humanly supplied witness comes into view. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

    It is obvious that these two verses take the negative approach; that is, they visualize a violation rather than a compliance. Nevertheless, what God expects is here clearly implied. The only possible correct deduction one can make is this: For men, the divinely prescribed headship sign is given by the man having his head uncovered; that is free of any covering having a religious connotation, such as is worn by Jewish men and certain of the Catholic clergy. Our wearing of the hat is not a violation of this Scripture, for the hat is primarily a protectional covering. For women, the God-called-for witness is given by having the head covered. The word cover, as employed in verses 4-7, is derived from the Greek Katakalupto and means “veil.” Consequently, some Bible versions properly use here the terms veiled and unveiled. The expression, “Woman’s Veiling” is therefore altogether proper. The disregard of this practice is said to dishonor one’s head. Which head? The head here in view is most likely one’s spiritual head, which in the case of the man is Christ and in the case of the woman is man. The woman who refuses to wear the veil, by that act, projects herself into man’s position, usurping authority over him and, at the same time, repudiating that divine authority under which he stands. It would take a great deal of audacity to say, “God, don’t mind my disobedience; just answer my prayer.” But really, if you knowingly disregard this regulation, that is what your actions say.

    In the remaining verses a number of related factors are brought forward to further substantiate both the principle of headship and the practice by which it is kept alive.

    Let us look now at verse 6. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This further explains the concluding portion of verse 5. By going unveiled, a woman brings upon herself the same measure of shame that would accompany the shaving of her head. The divine verdict is that if her head is uncovered, that is even all one as if she were shorn or shaven, and it is strongly implied that no one should challenge the fact that it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. The grammatical construction in the Greek would permit this rendering: “Since it is a shame.” Incidently, in that time and place, for a woman to cut her hair was regarded as a shame. That can be said to their credit and to the discredit of today’s society. Shorn hair, that is cut hair, obviously is longer than hair that has been shaven, but it is here represented as equally shameful. Notice the expression “shorn or shaven.” Both are put into the same package; both are put into the category of the shameful. On top of that is this fact: The nonwearing of the covering is equally as shameful. Here is a divine verdict that no amount of human defiance can reverse.

    Let us move now to verses 7 through 9. Here attention is called to the fact that this headship arrangement dates back all the way to the time of the Creation. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (verse 7). This seems to imply that God created man to be His visible representative here on earth. Since there is no head above God, man, His representative, is to be uncovered in order to reflect God’s supreme headship.

    The next two verses focus on two more factors related to the Creation, which indicate that man’s headship over woman was in the mind of God from the very beginning. Verse 8 speaks of man’s priority in the process of creation. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” That should be self-explanatory: Eve was created from Adam. Verse 9 speaks of God’s purpose in creation. “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Eve was meant to be Adam’s helper. Thus the designs of the Creator have been shown to substantiate what has been said about the man-woman relationship.

    In the ancient world the status of womanhood was very low. This had its reflections even in Jewish circles. It is claimed that by the time of Christ, in the Jewish morning prayer, a man thanked God for not making him “a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” Christianity, more than anything else, has corrected that view. Paul taught that in Christ a woman has spiritual privileges equal to a man. It may be that at Corinth this new-found liberty was on the verge of being interpreted so broadly as to cancel the headship order. It seems as though the emphasis given here was aimed at correcting that kind of false conclusion. These verses reaffirm that the creation order remains intact. In the reckoning of God, man continues to be the administrative head.

    Another support for this practice is brought forward in verse 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” The good angels are always represented as being in full subjection to God. In Isaiah 6:2, the seraphim are said to cover their faces in the presence of God. In numerous other places in the Scriptures, angels are represented as constant observers of the human scene and as helpers of the saints. This verse seems to imply that the presence of these unseen heavenly observers constitutes another reason that the woman wants to manifest submission to spiritual leadership. Her covered head is a sign even to the angels that she is qualified to pray and eligible for their ministry and protection.

    Let us move now to verses 11 and 12. “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” These verses speak of the need that men and women have for each other and of their mutual dependence on the Lord. Very likely, this note was injected to keep the man from becoming a proud, arrogant head. Headship ought to be viewed not as something to be proud of but worthy of.

    Now an appeal is made to human judgment. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (verse 13). Evidently, the predominating opinion with regard to this matter was then still in alignment with God’s will. The very fact that today this appeal might meet with a weak response in many circles should open our eyes to the decline in moral judgment that has occurred since that day.

    Next, attention is focused on the fact that God teaches through nature the same truth He here teaches by revelation. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (verses 14 and 15). God put into the human makeup a built-in sense of propriety that opposes long hair for men and endorses long hair for women. The fact that today many women cut their hair betrays the character of our time. We must conclude that they are doing it contrary to nature as God made it. It is a perversion similar to perversions that characterize our time. When obedient to the dictates of nature, the man with his short hair appears uncovered; the woman with her long hair appears covered. By this arrangement, God has shown what He expects. He expects the man to be unveiled, the woman veiled. Please note that her hair is said to be given her for a covering. But while it is a covering, it is not the covering called for in the preceding verses. Those who claim that the hair is the only covering in view ignore the fact that in this instance the word covering comes from a different Greek word. The word translated covering in verse 15 is not Katakalupto, as in the earlier verses, but Peribolaion. If in God’s reckoning the hair is the veiling, we could rightfully expect this statement to read thus: “Her hair is given her for a Katakalupto” (veil). That it does not say this is consistent with everything else in the passage. Likewise, a careful reading of verse 6 will confirm the fact that two coverings are in view. We find there this statement: “If the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” If one maintains the hair is the covering, then he is faced with an impossibility, namely, two successive removals of the hair. If the hair is the covering and she is uncovered, then the hair has already been removed. Why then add, “Let her also be shorn?” What would be left to cut off? What the statement really means is this: A woman ought to wear both (the hair covering and the sign covering) or none. If she refuses to be veiled, she deserves a second mark of disgrace. Here is a still further consideration: If the only covering in view is the hair, the Christian man would need to remove his hair in order to comply with God’s stated will.

    There remains yet one verse, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16). In effect, Paul is saying, “It would be strange indeed for anyone to challenge a practice that is being observed universally.” The fact that this practice is not mentioned in letters to other churches is very understandable in the light of this verse. Apparently, it was faithfully being observed as verse 16 would suggest. The exception was here at Corinth, where possibly there was the threat of a departure. Whatever the situation, it called forth this teaching.

    Is it not significant that Paul says, “If any man . . . be contentious?” And did you notice in verse 2 the “brethren” are specifically named. The preservation or loss of this practice hinges largely upon the brethren. Our sisters need the support that comes from fathers and brothers who likewise readily show their colors. Daughters who have covering problems and hair problems need fathers and church leaders who are gracefully insistent.

    Let us turn now to some remaining loose ends. No precise specifications are given for the veiling. Some allowance can therefore be made relative to the details of its construction. But there are limits beyond which variation cannot properly go. Obviously, it must be of such a nature that it conveys a religious connotation; that means it must be distinguishable from any form of protecting headgear. In view of the comparison drawn in this passage between the hair and the veil, it seems obvious that the veil ought to cover the larger part of the head. The God-required sign is not the veil alone, but the veil-covered head. Consequently, when the veil becomes too small, the practice loses its significance.

    Again, this passage does not state precisely how the hair is to be arranged under the covering. But, obviously, the Lord’s covering will not fit properly on the devil’s hairdo. Any “fixing” of the hair that is born of pride militates against the meaning of the veil. Some sisters wear their hair too far down on the neck; consequently, only the back of the head is covered by the veil. Others wear their hair too far down on the forehead. Why not keep the hair within the natural hairline?

    A thoughtful person will recognize that the policy of having the church recommend a uniform-type covering has definite advantages over the policy of leaving the matter to the judgment of the individual. The latter policy results in such a variation of practice that soon there is little resemblance of unity in this area of witness and great difficulty in distinguishing between the headgear that was intended to serve as a sign covering and headgear that was not so intended.

    When, or how constantly shall the covering be worn? In some circles,the covering has become, by default, merely a worship veil. The attempt is then made to show that this passage has in view only times of public worship. That is a very poorly substantiated conclusion. Please note that in verse 18, where Paul is entering into another matter, he indicates that now he has in view an abuse that manifested itself when they came together in the church. Would this not suggest that he had in view a broader that point?

    To speak of the covering as a “prayer veiling” is incorrect. Even the term “devotional covering” has likely militated against God’s intention by restricting the wearing of it to one phase of life’s activities, whereas God’s plan for the man-woman relationship is as broad as life itself. The veiled head does not necessarily signify that here is a soul at prayer. Rather, it signifies that here is a woman who seeks to honor God in all of life. So it is not really a prayer veiling but a woman’s veiling worn to show that the wearer is in God’s order. A sister ought to know she wears the veiling primarily because she is a woman, not simply because she periodically prays and teaches. It is true that verses 4 and 5 speak of the practice in relation to times of praying and prophesying. But it is highly probable that those were the occasions when possibly the Corinthians had begun to feel this practice might be context prior to it omitted in the name of Christian liberty. It is only natural that the correction would first be applied to the point of violation. Students of the Greek language have pointed out that the clause, “let her be covered,” is the present, active, imperative form, so that by its grammatical structure it means, “let her continue to be veiled.”

    Again and again we have been told that the value of Bible study lies in making present-day applications, and that is right. But many, who supposedly are Biblical experts, change their tune when they come to this passage. This supposedly does not apply today. But as many of you know, the latter part of this chapter has Paul correcting abuses relating to another ordinance Communion. When these supposed experts move from the first part of the chapter to the latter part, they betray their inconsistency. They would not think of arguing that Communion was meant to be observed only by the Corinthian Christians of that day. But how can one generalize the latter part of the chapter, giving it universal application for all churches of all times and then limit the first part to a particular church for a particular period? It simply cannot honestly be done. This epistle is not addressed to the Corinthians exclusively. The salutation indicates that this letter is meant for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”

    Those who want to belittle this practice have given it derogatory labels such as “a purely cultural practice,” and “an ancient oriental custom.” An oft-heard argument runs like this: Since in Corinth the local sign of a harlot was the uncovered head, Paul is asking the Corinthian women to avoid all appearance of evil by covering their heads: and since a woman’s uncovered head no longer necessarily signifies what it once did, the practice is no longer relevant. But that is misrepresenting the thrust of this passage, Nowhere in this chapter are women told to wear the veiling in order to distinguish themselves from harlots. True, it does that, but that is a result of the practice and not the basic reason underlying the practice.

    Again, in review, let us recognize that this practice is rooted deeply in God’s unchanging headship order. Sister, your veiled head is the sign of a spiritual relationship that remains totally unaffected by the changing customs of society.

    Can God use us to keep alive this neglected, belittled, yet vitally important practice? That is the challenge we face. That also may be a part of the unique mission of the truly Mennonite brotherhood.

    –Annville, Pa.

  180. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Big fat comment with three links and two articles, stuck in moderation.

  181. RichardD Says:

    I am not a man, so I can only speak for myself but they shouldn’t be so quick to say such things. There are plenty of women who find the male form very attractive and enticing, especially when the jeans fit right in all of the right places and the shirt is tight in all of the right places. I was once told on a patriarchal list that women who say that they are turned on by the sight of a nice looking man comes from being influenced by the feminists. I was told that feminists put those thoughts into our heads making us believe that women actually have lustful thoughts, too.

    I am a man and I can predict with reasonable accuracy that no one would be enflamed with passion if they say my 47-year-old figure pressing against a tight shirt or pants in any of the right or wrong places.

    😦

  182. RichardD Says:

    the word “say” in the above comment should have been “saw” — further evidence of a passionless existence.

  183. RichardD Says:

    The writing style and level of “scholarship” found in the article is similar to what is found here, in these articles by an Anabaptist author, Brother Merle Ruth:

    Okay – Now I understand the problems with “men this…” and “women that…” in that article. “Brother Ruth” – it seems there may be some gender uncertainty there. Perhaps Brother Ruth is trying to hide his own psychological self-flaggelation under a smoke-n-mirrors modesty tirade.

  184. RichardD Says:

    It totally took me aback to see you criticize my use of the word fundie. And just for the record, most of the church abuses of power I’ve suffered personally HAVE come from died in the wool fundamentalists, not exactly patriarchalists. I went to a fellowship that was filled with more fundies than the likes of Doug Phillips.

    Me too, Normal, me too.

  185. Joanna-from England Says:

    Here, with apologies in advance for the length seems to me what has to be the answer to both the author of the Bathsheba article and ‘Brother Ruth’: two passages from Matthew with a commentary by Matthew Henry.

    The Bathsheba article is pure prurience, a lip-smacking pornographic reverie. I read in some articles that the VF types have a major problem with the men viewing internet pornography – guess this is the same sort of thing really.

    Matthew, Chapter 23

    Pharisaism Exposed

    1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

    Eight Woes

    13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 [“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]
    15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
    16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
    23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
    25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
    27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
    29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 “Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
    34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

    Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

    23:13-33 The scribes and Pharisees were enemies to the gospel of Christ, and therefore to the salvation of the souls of men. It is bad to keep away from Christ ourselves, but worse also to keep others from him. Yet it is no new thing for the show and form of godliness to be made a cloak to the greatest enormities. But dissembled piety will be reckoned double iniquity. They were very busy to turn souls to be of their party. Not for the glory of God and the good of souls, but that they might have the credit and advantage of making converts. Gain being their godliness, by a thousand devices they made religion give way to their worldly interests. They were very strict and precise in smaller matters of the law, but careless and loose in weightier matters. It is not the scrupling a little sin that Christ here reproves; if it be a sin, though but a gnat, it must be strained out; but the doing that, and then swallowing a camel, or, committing a greater sin. While they would seem to be godly, they were neither sober nor righteous. We are really, what we are inwardly. Outward motives may keep the outside clean, while the inside is filthy; but if the heart and spirit be made new, there will be newness of life; here we must begin with ourselves. The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was like the ornaments of a grave, or dressing up a dead body, only for show. The deceitfulness of sinners’ hearts appears in that they go down the streams of the sins of their own day, while they fancy that they should have opposed the sins of former days. We sometimes think, if we had lived when Christ was upon earth, that we should not have despised and rejected him, as men then did; yet Christ in his Spirit, in his word, in his ministers, is still no better treated. And it is just with God to give those up to their hearts’ lusts, who obstinately persist in gratifying them. Christ gives men their true characters.

    Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 7:

    Judging Others
    1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

    Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

    7:1-6 We must judge ourselves, and judge of our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody. We must not judge rashly, nor pass judgment upon our brother without any ground. We must not make the worst of people. Here is a just reproof to those who quarrel with their brethren for small faults, while they allow themselves in greater ones. Some sins are as motes, while others are as beams; some as a gnat, others as a camel. Not that there is any sin little; if it be a mote, or splinter, it is in the eye; if a gnat, it is in the throat; both are painful and dangerous, and we cannot be easy or well till they are got out. That which charity teaches us to call but a splinter in our brother’s eye, true repentance and godly sorrow will teach us to call a beam in our own. It is as strange that a man can be in a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world blinds their minds. Here is a good rule for reprovers; first reform thyself.

    Says it all really – first reform thyself, and judge not.

  186. Joanna-from England Says:

    Sorry, I know this is terribly nit-picky and very English but it’s ‘dyed-in-the-wool’. Fine cloth was dyed as spun woollen thread and then woven, not dyed as woven cloth. Woven cloth shed dye more easily than cloth that was dyed as woollen thread . . .

    Please forgive the pedantry.

  187. Beatrice Says:

    Thanks for reminding us of those verses, Joanna. I just don’t see how I couldn’t see the problems with that Sin of Bathsheba book when I was younger. Why didn’t I get it? Why didn’t I listen to that sinking feeling of anguish that screamed “No! Following God is something so much different than all of this!”? Also, the book was published by a man who also published other books, and some of the other books said things like if churches allow women to not wear head coverings or to wear pants, and if they allow anyone to watch tv or go to the movies, they are disobedient, and there’s no room for disagreement on this stuff PERIOD. He had written some of this stuff, and he wrote it in a very caustic, and I must say, a spiritually abusive manner. Reading his stuff really, really scarred my faith. 😦

    But … Christ hates us to bear heavy, useless burdens. He wants us to care about HIM. That’s all we need to do, and that fufills the heart of the Law. As Calamity Jean has said, it’s just so simple. Christ’s way is really, simply, and only love.

  188. Lynn Says:

    Corrie, just go to your WomensIssues list, search “Phil Lancaster,” and you will find the article. I think it is post number 215, but I’ll recheck.

  189. Lynn Says:

    Yep, it’s post #215, Corrie. Here is a brief quote from the opening (the article is fairly lengthy):

    “We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention
    the sin of Bathsheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great,
    and Bathsheba’s very small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous,
    Bathsheba’s only a sin of ignorance. David committed deliberate adultery and
    murder; Bathsheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself before
    David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was great, and Bathsheba’s
    small.

    Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
    great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless
    exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame.”

  190. Light Says:

    Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
    great sin.

    Some things never change. “It was that woman you gave me …”

  191. Mary Says:

    They are overlooking or ignoring several things. According to 2 Samuel 11:1. In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

    In the spring when kings went off to war, where was David? He stayed home. It seems that his first sin was not being where he was supposed to be. Would he have seen Bathsheba bathing on the roof had he not stayed home?

    His other sins followed. He saw, thought, lusted, persued, acted, and covered up the deed by murder.

    Perhaps Bathsheba was intimadated by his position as king, perhaps she was being submissive because that is what she thought she was supposed to do. Or perhaps not. Those who lay the bulk of the sin at her feet are reading into scripture.

  192. Cynthia Gee Says:

    You know, Bathsheba was bathing as part of a ritual purification, as required by the Law. She uncovered herself in the service of the Lord.
    So I wonder… was David also sinning when he danced befor the Lord, and “uncovered himself in front of the servant girls”, in this story, below?

    2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all [his] might; and David [was] girded with a linen ephod.
    2Sa 6:15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2Sa 6:16 ¶ And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

    2Sa 6:17 And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. 2Sa 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts. 2Sa 6:19 And he dealt among all the people, [even] among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece [of flesh], and a flagon [of wine]. So all the people departed every one to his house.

    2Sa 6:20 ¶ Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

    2Sa 6:21 And David said unto Michal, [It was] before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. 2Sa 6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

    2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

  193. Lynn Says:

    Oops, sorry CJ, you did give a link to that article — the first link in your comment — and I mistook what you did copy in (the second link) to be what you meant by giving the first link.

    If everybody wants to read that “anonymous brother’s” article — it may be freely copied and pasted here, but I don’t recommend it.

    Personally, I think the whole problem with that article is in the opening, and the rest of that article gets so detailed about what turns a man on, there is an “ick” factor in reading it.

  194. Andrea Says:

    Cynthia, I read both those articles, but it wasn’t until I read Mr Ruth’s that I really got a chuckle out of it. It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed 😛 (actually, traditional Japanese brides would wear a wedding covering to hide their “horns of jealousy” from their future mothers-in-law . . . but somehow I doubt Mr Ruth was thinking along those lines).

    I was also very sad, however, at his treatment of the “does not nature teach” bit. I know it’s been mentioned here before but I do have to bring it up again– nature teaches us that, in fact, men’s hair and women’s grow in exactly the same fashion. One young man I went to University with grew his hair out for Locks of Love, an organisation that accepts donations of hair to fashion wigs for children who have suffered medically-related hair loss and cannot afford a hairpiece. In the four years I knew this man, I watched his hair grow from his collar down to his waist, and it was not only some of the loveliest, healthiest hair I’ve ever seen (more than one girl certainly envied him it!) but it was also one of the most gracious and selfless everyday acts I’ve ever witnessed. I don’t know how much teasing he put up with for his choice, since his hair in the end was much longer than that of many girls, but there was nothing unnatural or unseemly about it. Nature not only teaches us that a man’s hair may grow at the same speed and with the same beauty as a woman’s hair, it also teaches us that people, in their arrogance, will look for anything to mock.

    I wonder if Mr Ruth knows that Paul himself would have had long hair . . ?

    Finally, Joanna, thank you for posting that commentary. It deals perfectly with this sort of “holier than thou” attitude, and on top of that your remark on the Bathsheba article’s being a “lip-smacking pornographic reverie” is not only poetic but terribly apt! I was very uncomfortable reading the detailed prose examinations of the various “tempting” parts of a woman’s body . . . it felt (to me) as though the author had spent a little too much time doing his “research.”

  195. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “It was the “Lord’s covering won’t fit over the devil’s hairdo” bit that got me, I’m afraid . . . first it was the idea that the devil has a signature style, and then I just kept envisioning people trying to fashion a scarf to hide an ungainly pair of horns, and the hilarity flowed..”

    ROFLOL…. The Devil wears Prada, donchaknow…. 😀

  196. Claire Says:

    There is a post up a ‘Families Against Feminism’ (a site linked to by LAF) about the duties of a virtuous wife.

    It’s here: http://heartsforfamily.blogspot.com/2008/04/she-seeks-wool-and-flax-and-works.html

    It begins with some of the Proverbs 31 verses, and then says this:
    “It’s impossible to talk about the virtuous wife without talking some about her duties at home. Notice that the bulk of Proverbs 31 involves decribing those duties.”

    Now, this contention is something I’ve been thinking about a lot. James McDonald made it recently too, in that ‘pink link’ article that was discussed here a while back. Lots of good criticisms were made of it, but I don’t think there was much talk about this:
    “[S]he [the Proverbs 31 Woman] is first a wife and a mother—a faithful keeper of her home”

    http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/searching-for-the-missing-pink-link/

    Now, this got me thinking. The idea both posts are promoting is that the 21st century lives they lead, are the ones that most closely resemble that of the Proverbs 31 women. But I’m just not seeing it. In fact, I think that saying that the Proverbs 31 woman’s life revolves around her home is just not true.

    Here are the relevant verses (not necessary to remind you all I’m sure, but it’s handy to refer to and it’s one of my favourite passages, so I will anyway!)

    Proverbs 31:10-31

    10 A wife of noble character who can find?
    She is worth far more than rubies.

    11 Her husband has full confidence in her
    and lacks nothing of value.

    12 She brings him good, not harm,
    all the days of her life.

    13 She selects wool and flax
    and works with eager hands.

    14 She is like the merchant ships,
    bringing her food from afar.

    15 She gets up while it is still dark;
    she provides food for her family
    and portions for her servant girls.

    16 She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

    17 She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.

    18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
    and her lamp does not go out at night.

    19 In her hand she holds the distaff
    and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

    20 She opens her arms to the poor
    and extends her hands to the needy.

    21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
    for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

    22 She makes coverings for her bed;
    she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

    23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
    where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

    24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
    and supplies the merchants with sashes.

    25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
    she can laugh at the days to come.

    26 She speaks with wisdom,
    and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

    27 She watches over the affairs of her household
    and does not eat the bread of idleness.

    28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
    her husband also, and he praises her:

    29 “Many women do noble things,
    but you surpass them all.”

    30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
    but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

    31 Give her the reward she has earned,
    and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

    Now, I am not seeing a Prairie Muffin here. Just consider how many verses deal directly with being:
    A wife – 6 (v.10,11,12,23,28,29)
    A mother – 1 (!) (v.28) Although we could take v.26 to refer to homeschooling (although this is a STRETCH – in biblical times this referred to wise management of her servants. Similarly v.21 and v.27 – this is about being a good, fair, and caring mistress to her servant girls. I spent part of my childhood in Africa, and have some thoughts on this to add to the GNAP thread when I get a chance!)
    Work which definitely takes her outside the home: 5 (v.14,16,18,24,31)
    Work which is definitely home-focussed: 2 (v.22,27)
    Work which could be at home, or outside the home: 5 (v.13,15,17,19,20)
    Total verses which refer to her work: 12

    I hope I haven’t miscounted or miscategorised anything here. But actually looking at what these verses are talking about – this is NOT a woman whose sole (or even primary) sphere is the home. She moves from managing her household to trading with the merchants seamlessly – in fact, isn’t it so interesting that there’s not even a mention of how these spheres are different? They blend together. So much for the biblicality of men outside, women inside.

    Rereading the quotes I posted at the top – I wonder how these writers can honestly contend that the Proverbs 31 woman was all about being a ‘keeper at home’. She kept her house (OF COURSE she did, all her work was for her household. But it doesn’t hold that any time a woman leaves the house she has to be beating herself up and wishing she was back home. Proverbs 31 Woman proactively looked for ways to be productive (v.16). I am struck by one very popular patriarchal blogger, who regularly condemns ‘me time’ and insists that her weekly trip to a coffee shop is ONLY made because it HELPS her family and she doesn’t enjoy being away from them at all. Proverbs 31 woman went in and out of her home without any sense that she should be guilty or that the outside/inside time was more or less valuable than the rest.)

    Anyway, I just wanted to show that when Families Against Feminism contends that “the bulk” of Proverbs 31 “describes her duties at home” – that is incorrect.

    It’s also wrong when she says, “Notice, though, that it is all done within the domain of her home and family life; she does not neglect home all day and report to another man for work.” References to a ‘domain’ of home vs. a ‘domain’ of outside are not in evidence anywhere in this passage. Are there verses elsewhere in the Bible that could support such a view? And again, we see the feting of self-employment (note: I am self-employed and work full-time in my home with my husband on our business, so obviously I think self-employment is great, but I’m not saying people who don’t do exactly as I do aren’t Biblical). And the idea that Proverbs 31 never worked with men is wrong. Many if not all of her vineyard workers would have been men. And while the merchants she supplied with sashes were not directly ‘bosses’, she certainly had to answer to them in doing business with them.

    How do they resolve verse 14 “She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar” and verse 31 “Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate” with the idea that Proverbs 31 is all about the home? Her house is never even mentioned – as I said, her ‘household’ is the people in the house who are dependent on her – her servants, their families, and her children.

    Anyway, lots of thoughts. Sorry for the super-long post AGAIN! I hope it’s not all horribly jumbled. There is more to dissect in the Families Against Feminism post as well, but it strays totally into opinion and I just wanted to correct the BIBLICAL inaccuracies.

  197. Anonymous Says:

    Well……….I think the correct definition of long hair means it blows in the wind (I think Gordon Clark did a good job defining this). Whoever thinks Paul had long hair should go to the Christian History site and read the firsthand account of someone who saw Paul as a Christian. He was fat, bald, and had a big nose. Sounds pretty typical of an aging man, but it doesn’t really matter what he looked like outwardly because that’s what man looks at. God sees the inner and left us His beautiful love story, and surely we can see that inside Paul was beautiful and it showed outwardly.

    Blessings!

  198. Andrea Says:

    Anonymous,

    the “Paul had long hair” remark that I made stems from an earlier discussion here concerning the vow mentioned in Acts 18 that Paul is to have taken, which is generally held to have been the Nazarite vow. This was a vow that bound those who took it against the consumption of wine, strong drink and grape products, close contact with dead bodies, and cutting their hair during the period encompassed by the vow. This certainly doesn’t mean Paul had long hair forever; I believe only a few people in the Bible are understood to have been Nazarites for life, John the Baptist among them. Paul wasn’t one for life; in fact, in Acts 18:18 we see that the period that particular vow encompassed seems to have ended, for he then cut his hair. It does mean, though, that for a period of time –the period of time for which his vow lasted– he did indeed let his hair grow.

    (I believe that there is also a mention of him having taken the vow later in Acts, around the time of the Pentecost; for all we know he had taken it many times throughout his life! Those are the only two mentioned in Scripture that I’m aware of, though)

  199. Abby Says:

    The nazirite vow can be taken for a long time, or a short time, if Paul was balding or bald, chances are, there wasn’t much “growth” going on, but I think we can safely say that the length of one’s hair is not a factor in your piousness.

    Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well. It goes along with every other situation that is out of our control. The rules in place in the OT just don’t “fit” Christian society. They were there for a reason, but that reason has been fulfilled, and we live under grace. I don’t care if a man has 12 feet of hair or a woman has a shaved head, because that is such a superficial thing (as are pants, skirts, etc.).

    It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.

  200. Claire Says:

    I have had a super-long comment in moderation since this morning, it would be lovely if it could be approved? Thanks! 🙂

  201. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “It is really sad to see that people can be so narrow-minded, especially when confronted with specific objections that literally collapse their argument in front of them, yet they choose to continue to focus on such unimportant things.”

    Carnal thinking is like that, unfortunately.

    Under the old Law of Moses, a man whose reproductive parts were missing could not be part of the Hebrew congregation, and yet under the New Covenant the Ethiopian eunuch was baptised into the body of Christ with ease.
    Under the New Law, a person whose hair is not the correct length (something which wasn’t an issue even under the Law of Moses) is liable to be judged unworthy of full membership in some congregations.

    …..why don’t they just write their own Bible and have done with it!


  202. […] of Tulip Girl’s observations [in the comments on this TW thread] gleaned from living abroad as missionaries,  “One of the things the the Lord did in my life […]

  203. RichardD Says:

    Whoever thinks Paul had long hair should go to the Christian History site and read the firsthand account of someone who saw Paul as a Christian.

    ? eh ?

    I understand the need for anonymity. The cognitive dissonance is ringing so loud I’m afraid it might wake up my family.

  204. thatmom Says:

    Claire, thanks for posting those links and commenting….I hadn’t read those for a while and was struck, once again, by the purposeful confusion. After reading the tenets Family Reformation, the only conclusion that can be made is that there is only one role for women, being keepers at home, wives, and mothers. Everything else is “non-normative” or “outside the prescriptive will of God.” Am I correct? If I missed the caveat, please point it out to me. But, repeatedly both James and Stacy back pedal in other places on their blog, in Stacy’s interviews, etc. Could some one please explain what I am missing?

  205. Lin Says:

    “Think about women who’ve lost hair to chemotherapy, are they sinning because their hair fell out without their control? Other women have very thin hair that falls out naturally, and some end up bald because of that as well.”

    This sort of thing will help some see 1 Corinthians 11 in a whole new light. This happened to a friend of mine undergoing chemo who lost all her hair. She finally saw that Paul was giving women a choice of covering or not and it was a passage that was actually freeing women. (Note in the passage Paul is ASSUMING women are praying and prophesying in the Body)

    This passage is not a legalistic command nor a passage to put women in a subordinate position in the Body of believers. I cannot tell you the tears that flowed from her when she read this in the light of the Holy Spirit who illuminated truth to her.

    She was astounded to realize that ‘symbol of’ (authority0 was NEVER in the original Greek. The authority on her head is Jesus Christ!

  206. KGCinDC Says:

    Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced. I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. Talk about another example of making something prescriptive that the Bible intends as descriptive!

  207. thatmom Says:

    30) “Home, Sweet Home” is more than just a sentimental saying for the Prairie Muffin. Her home is the center of the Prairie Muffin’s activities. Of course, she needs to occasionally go away from home to engage in various activities related to her calling, but her focus is on making home a haven for her husband and children and using it to glorify God in whatever ministry to others He may call her. She is content in her home and does not see it as a prison from which she constantly must escape. She wisely rules over her domain by keeping busy in her full-time calling as homekeeper. Chocolate bon-bons may be a rare indulgence, but Prairie Muffins don’t have the time or inclination to waste their lives on soap operas or other inane and inappropriate entertainment.

    31) While Prairie Muffins try to be women who make plans and stick with them, so that they use their time wisely and reach the goals they and their Prairie Dawgs have determined for their families, they also know they must be flexible and be prepared to meet whatever circumstances fall into their laps, sometimes at a moment’s notice, responding with grace and calm.

  208. Abby Says:

    “A woman’s place is in the home” would sum up #30 a lot better than that. I can guess why she didn’t put it that way, though.

    I read Carmon’s blog recently, and she made some snide comment about escaping her “domestic prison”–she was being sarcastic, but it drove me crazy. It was almost as if she was intentionally trying to annoy her opponents. That doesn’t seem very kind to me.

  209. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Just a quick comment about the long hair thing. This mandate is completely Caucasian-centric, as it excludes many women of color, whose natural hair texture precludes the “long hair” that is being referenced.”

    Yes, and this is one of the clearest indications I know of that that whole mindset IS NONSENSE. If something is so serious as to be a spiritual, sin/non-sin issue, it has to be something that can apply to all people everywhere.

    In the Old Testament, God dealt with humanity through one nation, Israel. After Jesus came and died and rose, He grafted ALL nations and cultures in the spiritual tree of Israel, and the Gentiles were not required to adopt the Jewish culture or keep the Law to be part of His family.

    These modernday Pharisees believe that western Anglo-Saxon culture is the acme of Christianity — they have said so again and again in their writings and sermons — and they teach that the norms of this culture determine what is normative in the Kingdom of God.
    This, at its heart, is the spiritual essence of British Israelitism and Christian Identity – not all of these cultural elitists believe that people of Saxon or Celtic extraction are the honest-to-goodness physical descendents of the Lost Tribes of Israel(though many DO), but they do believe and teach that the English-speaking nations and their culture are the truest expression, if not the only correct expression, of Christianity in the world today.

  210. Cynthia Gee Says:

    LOL!!!! I just noticed something else:

    “I have also read on several websites and blogs that to be truly godly, a woman’s hair must meet the standard of being long enough to “wipe the feet of Jesus,” like the repentant woman who bathed Christ’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.”

    Somebody ought to comment on those blogs, and remind whoever wrote that, that the repentant woman who wiped Jesus’s feet was considered to have been a woman of ill repute.
    Nothing against her, certainly, but the long-hair only crowd ought to remember that most hookers have long hair too.

  211. Claire Says:

    LOL, I should have held off on my super-long Proverbs 31 comment at #201 until I read PM Manifesto point 30!

    Here, again, another patriarchialist is talking about how “home is the center of the PM’s activities” and how it’s “her domain”.

    This might belong over on the GNAP thread, but as I said in #201, I just don’t see how a view of ‘separate domains’ – that is outside/inside the house – is scriptural.

    ‘Separate spheres’ is a nineteenth century concoction. Prior to industrialisation, the public and the private spheres weren’t clearly marked out. If you were poor, everybody in the family worked, either in the fields or in somebody else’s home. If you were wealthier, say a craftsman or a merchant, your business was run entirely from your home. Though usually the only way a woman could run a business herself was if her husband died and there was a shortage of that particular craft in the town (which was a reasonably frequent occurrence). The apprentices lived with the master in his house and the mistress of the house was in charge of them.

    But, with industrialisation, suddenly work is taken out of the home. And there’s lots of competition for work, because women can be paid less. In the social upheaval, there’s a great appetite for instruction – for manuals telling people how they should be behaving now. So works like Mrs Beeton get published and are extremely popular. And the notion of ‘separate spheres’ develops – that women should be inside the home, and men conducting business outside of it. This is also the time that the first feting of housewives begins, which I’m sure I don’t need to point out here because it was of course called the doctrine of true womanhood! And it promoted a Victorian ideal of quiet, pious, gentle, passive womanhood – a Victorian Prairie Muffin, if you will! And so the “angel in the house” was born.

    (My very dear friend at university wrote her undergraduate thesis on the ‘angel in the house’ idea, and I’m going off my memory of proofreading it for her now, but I can easily get more information and reading recommendations if anyone’s interested).

    It has NO biblical basis. Such a concept could never have even existed in pre-industrialised society, which didn’t have the luxury of separating home and work. But the Prairie Muffins are devoted to it. Does anyone know of any bible verses that could back it up?

  212. Daisy Says:

    Re: ThatMom’s question:We have discussed the Pearls’ teachings on and off throughout the Visionary Daughters thread and Spunky and I discussed Created to Be His Helpmeet on a couple podcasts but I am not really familiar with the Maxwells. Should we open a new thread just for this discussion?

    I haven’t read all the comments in this discussion…but I would certainly be interested in a thread discussing specifically the teaching of the Pearls.

  213. Irene Says:

    Consider the Internet….

    Just a thought I’ve had concerning the ‘a woman’s place is in the home and ONLY in the home’ teaching.

    To the best of my understanding, within hyper-Patriarchal circles, the teaching that is advocated is that it is not ‘normative’for a woman to work (or study) outside the home, at ANY time (while single, married, widowed etc).

    One of the reasons for the above view (again to the best of my understanding) is that women should not go out into the world, in order to BE PROTECTED FROM THE EVIL THAT IS IN THE WORLD and TO BE PROTECTED FROM FALLING INTO TEMPTATIONS ONCE THEY ARE IN A WORLDLY ENVIRONMENT(i.e. college or a workplace).

    As far as I understood, this was the premise underlying the Botkins’ sisters view that young women who moved out of their parents’ homes prior to marriage were displaying the same characteristics as the Proverbs harlot whose ‘feet did not REMAIN at home’.

    Much is made in the writings of some in hyper-patriarchal circles of the dangers and evils that attend college life, for eg. exposure to dangerous views and philosophies, the potential to ‘get into bad company’, in short, EXPOSURE TO A VARIETY OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND HARMFUL INFLUENCES.

    To get to the point I’m trying to make (sorry this is so long), I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.

    A VERY large amount of the ladies in hyper-P circles seem to be very much into electronic communication and other aspects of the Internet. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with this – obviously, I’m into the Internet myself.

    But I do think it’s ironic that they understand that it’s possible to use the Internet for the purpose of blogs, e-mail groups,promoting a home-business etc, WITHOUT getting involved in other aspects of ‘Internet life’ which definitely have the potential to be dangerous and harmful.

    Would it be reasonable to forbid Christian women access to the Internet because of the POTENTIAL that they might be tempted to become materialistic (online shopping?), be influenced by deviant teachings (the sites and blogs of cults?)or fall prey to the filth of pornography etc?

    We expect both men and women (I’m not referring to children here) to employ their wisdom and judgement when selecting WHAT to read online, how long to spend online etc.

    Similarly, I think it’s unreasonable to forbid adult Christian women access to college and the workplace on the grounds that they would come under bad influences. Obviously, discernment and sound judgement come into play here, as in all aspects of life.

    I think it’s so important to NOT treat adult women like children, or else we risk throwing out several very worthwhile ‘babies’ with the bathwater.

  214. Daisy Says:

    I am returned.

    abby:

    This article is about a sect of the LDS, but much of the dress, attitude, etc. is eerily similar to some of the patriarchal attitudes:
    http: //news.yahoo .com/s/ap/20080408/
    ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

    I hope I never see this in “normal” society.

    I recently found an article about a woman who escaped from a Mormon polygamist group. The pictures of the women of this group remind me so much of the what the modesty-was-only-ever-demonstrated-by -the-Victorians crowd promote as ideal.

    Forced to marry a 50 year old…

    It is quite terrifying really.

    Must dash…

  215. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Hmm… you know, most of the women who did anything worthwhile in the Bible had feet that did not remain at home. There’s Ruth, there’s Deborah, there’s the Queen of Sheba, there’s the girl in the Song of Songs, there’s Lydia ….. and especially “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.”
    Heaven knows what the HyperPharisees said about them….

  216. Cindy K Says:

    Irene wrote: I think it’s ironic that hyper-Patriarchy sees the potential for dangerous influences only OUTSIDE the home.

    Staying within the home is no guarantee of freedom from evil influence.

    II Tim 3:6 says that these evil influences creep inside of homes and entrap gullible women with load sins and lusts.

    Titus chapter 1 talks about the same types of influences that the Judaizers promoted that seriously disrupted family life through Jewish fables and the commandments of men.

  217. Cindy K Says:

    What’s a “load sin’? Is that like a Chris steak from Ruth’s Chris Steak House?

    There’s my brain thinking faster than I can type….

    These evil influences creep inside homes and entrap gullible women with sins and lusts, loading them down with them…

  218. mary Says:

    Revisiting the subject of polygamy for just a moment…Kevin Swanson’t broadcast this morning was critical to the state of Texas for rushing in to take those children out of the compound. He doesn’t really defend polygamy but obviously feels that the state had no business there.

  219. Mary Says:

    Well, it seems to me Laura Ingalls and Almanzo Wilder, being married sixty-four years– must have been doing something right! When I think of ‘helpmeet’, the real Laura is one of the first people who comes to mind. Feminine and tough– I’d love to hear what she’d have to say not only about the ‘PM Manifesto’, but about the fundamentalists who take her fictionalized world as biblical gospel.

  220. Rebecca Says:

    @ comment 183-I guess I was “sinning” when I shaved my head because the long locks were annoying and never stayed in my ponytail and it was just easier all around because I played sports …..

  221. Abby Says:

    Are there groups who believe that women should NEVER cut their hair? I have seen some women with very very long hair dressed very “modestly” in the past, and I am curious about this. I’ve never heard of a specific church that teaches this, maybe it’s certain congregations?

    I would be ashamed to keep my hair so very long and never cut it, because there are so many people who could benefit from my long locks. I’ve donated to Locks of Love, and plan on doing it again in the near future–I can’t imagine that women *need* such long hair, especially if they cover their heads, too.

  222. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Yes, many groups have this belief. Most of Conservative Mennonites believe this, the United Pentecostals teach it as well, as do various little independent Baptist churches.

    They get this idea from 1Cor 11:15, where Paul says “if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her”, and 1 Cor 11:6, which reads “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

    Paul says that a woman’s hair is her glory, and he says that IF being shaved is viewed with disfavor, she should cover her head in church, but NOWHERE does the Bible say that being shaven is wrong in God’s eyes, or that a woman must not cut her hair or that her hair must be of a certain length (and in fact, women in the OT who took the Nazirite vow were instructed to cut off their hair upon completion of their vow.)
    This is pure extrapolation — just something that certain people who like long hair on women read into 1 Corinthians 11:6.

    In my opinion, their extrapolation regarding hair is on a par with that of certain Southern churches who read Mark 16:18(“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”) and find in it a mandate for snakehandling as part of Divine Worship.

  223. Daisy Says:

    Cythia, I’d never noticed that ‘if’ before and had wondered about the true meaning of this scripture. What was the point Paul was making? I shall go investigate, thanks.

  224. Spunky Says:

    Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? Or were they simply “living together” from the state’s perspective because no marriage license was sought or issued? Or does Texas have a common law marriage? I understand the allegation of criminal activity surrounding the 15 year old girl which brought in the federal government, but that is one charge against one man. If these men weren’t legally married to these women and they were all over 18, what’s different about compound versus Hugh Hefner’s mansion? Except that these women chose to concieve a child?

    If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers? The daughter’s allegation was against one man, what grounds did the state have to take all of the children? (Note: please don’t think I approve of this compound’s arrangement. I don’t. But my disapproval stems from my biblical convictions.)

    I didn’t hear Kevin Swanson’s broadcast, but he might have a point on this one. If the state can raid a compound based on the allegation how far fetched is it for us to consider that they might move beyond just physical proximity in alleging criminal activity, to church affiliation or educational choice?

    I’m not saying there wasn’t justification for the raid because all the facts are not yet known, but there is also a reason to be a bit concerned about this situation on a multitude of levels.

    These are all questions I have because I just retold a story for the next issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine where a family was visited by CPS amid a trumped up charge based on a infant’s stool sample. When CPS visited the home the family was told by the social worker that they were there in part because they homeschooled and no one was keeping an eye on the children, which would be the case if they were in a traditional school situation.

    I’m not advocating a paranoia about this, but at the same time let’s not be too quick to dismiss the concerns that this situation brings to us simply because we reject the lifestyle of the people involved.

  225. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If these men were simply promiscuous and fathered many children as a result and all the women were in agreement that this arrangement was okay, what makes it appropriate for the state to come in and raid the compound and take the children from their mothers?”

    Because these girls were being forced to marry the men — they weren’t given a choice in the matter.

  226. Abby Says:

    Spunky, I think you are right about not knowing all the facts, and maybe the truth will come out. Sure, this one girl was being abused and called the police, but I guess from the original article I read, it sounded like they had been monitoring it for a while, and just needed someone to actually come out and say it. The girls weren’t the only subjects of abuse, either, from the article, but again, the facts and the fiction aren’t all clear to me.

    I think that Cynthia’s assessment about them being forced into these arrangements is really saying that the girls were being sexually abused at a rather young, and in our culture, inappropriate age–since they weren’t “technically” married–by much older men.

    Maybe the state just didn’t want another Koresh compound on their hands, and were trying to stop something worse from happening. Sadly, with children involved, the full extent of the story may never be known, mainly because children are so fearful to talk about it, rather than being able to tell their story. I read a statistic that said that only about 5% (or less) of sex abuse cases against children are ever even reported because children are so afraid of what might happen to them. It’s really sad.

  227. Sandy Says:

    Hi Spunky,
    I would normally agree with you if this really concerned only consenting adults BUT many of these young women were forced to marry, taught that they will go to hell if they do not, etc. Also, as I was researching the kids and the foster care crisis in TX, many of the articles said many of the teen girls are either pregnant or are expecting. These girls are under 18 so clearly are not adults, let alone able to consent. Many of these girls were forced to marry at 13 or 14.

    Link for this:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-compound9apr09,0,4429232.story

    I’ve been following this story for a couple of years and some of the men involved have prevously been charged with incest, rape, beatings of minors, etc. The “prophet” of this group, Warren Jeffs, is currently serving time as an accomplice to rape in regards to a 14 year old girl in order to force her to marry a 1st cousin. He’s also awaiting charges in AZ for incest and sexual molestation of a minor.

  228. Rachel Says:

    In regards to the raid in Texas, while we don’t yet have all the facts about the current situation, we do have witnesses that escaped from this group. Carolyn Jessop (linked in an article above) wrote a book about her experience. She was forced to marry a much older man who already had many wives and daughters her own age (even at the time that they were married).

    While many of these women probably would say they believe in the tenets of the faith, they also have very little choice in their living circumstances. Jessop was witness to child abuse (beatings) as well. While this doesn’t necessarily have anything (that we know of yet-just allegations) to do with this current situation, the state has been watching this group for awhile.

    I don’t have a problem with the raid, in so far as they did seem to have a reason (allegations of child abuse) to go in. I do not like this turn of events, of taking the children away from their mothers, although I’m not sure what the proper course of action should be. This would be traumatizing to anyone, but to take children from their mothers as well just doesn’t seem right.

    Another thing about the polygamy. While it’s true that in the eyes of the state, technically these men are married to one women and living with many more (the men in that sect would sometimes take the wives of a dead man-several at a time-like they were acquiring cattle at an auction), I don’t think it’s a small point that the women truly believe they are married to the men. Also, I could be mistaken, but I think Carolyn Jessop had to get a divorce from her husband and she was not the first wife. (it was in a different state though.)

    (I would recommend her book, Escape. And I’m glad she’s getting more media b/c of this raid. I hope her book continues to sell.)

    I feel sorry for the woman and especially the children involved in this. They all have a hard life ahead of them and I’m sure many of these women will eventually go back. There is so much brainwashing. But it breaks my heart that those kids can’t even be with their moms. Even if their Moms are messed up.

    Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.

  229. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Another disgusting point about Warren Jeffs (who’s currently serving time), he married his father’s wives. Think about that. Some of them were old and some very young (and his father was old when he died.) None of them had a choice in the matter.”

    Sort of like this situation…
    1Cr 5:1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

  230. Cindy K Says:

    Sandy,

    XXXOOO

    Glad you are here. (Not that I’m not glad everyone else is, too. And Spunky’s back — Hibernating thru the winter? It wasn’t all that cold this year, was it?)

  231. thatmom Says:

    Here are a couple things that occurred to me after looking at some of those Christian-polygamy sites:

    There may be no legally married women in that compound. These people may only recognize a “spiritual” marriage. On one of the sites I read, the author’s views were that it is the sexual union that makes a marriage and not the vows. He believed that men don’t actually commit adultery unless they have intercourse with a married woman.

    So a polygamist can have as many wives as he wishes as long as they were all virgins when he “married” them. This could explain some of the inter workings of the group in Texas.

    It is interesting to note that there are Christians who are also advocating the “no state marriage license” idea. Kent Hovind taught this at a homeschooling conference a few years ago. I remember being shocked when my very-impressionable 16 year old son came home and waxed eloquent about Hovind’s view on the subject. (Of course, look where those anti-government views have landed Mr. Hovind.)

    Also, I think I remember one article saying that the women had the option to stay with their children. Is that correct, Sandy? Instead they chose to remain at the compound while the children were taken. If that is the case, what does that say about the mind control over the women?

    I think this all brings up an interesting question….does the state have any compelling interest in children? Is it ever appropriate for them to investigate? Are parents sovereign over their children? Where is the line drawn?

  232. Spunky Says:

    Thanks Cindy, for the link. I agree that if the daughters were under age and forced to marry that some action needed to be taken.

    Rachel, It was the separating of their children from their mothers that was actually the most troubling aspect to me. For the state to come separate them without some sort of due process just doesn’t seem right. The state may have had probable cause to go into the compound but what is the point of separating them from their mother without some sort of futher investigative work. I’m sure I’m still missing facts that will be revealed over time, but it is so sad to see mothers who were once children themselves forced into marriage and then lose their own children on top of it.

  233. Claire Says:

    I think part of the issue with separating children from mothers was that, due to the unorthodox living arrangements on the compound, it wasn’t immediately clear who each child’s mother actually was.

    About twenty children could consider each other ‘brother and sister’, despite only sharing one parent, and the woman who was their primary caregiver wasn’t necessarily the woman who gave birth to them.

    So the separation must have been very different to manage. Keeping ‘family’ groups together would have meant keeping maybe as much as thirty or even forty people together. It’s unsurprising that the logistics of that took some time to work out, and that wherever the families were housed (was it a military base? I forget?) may not have been able to accommodate so many people.

    I am reminded of an excellent blog post you wrote a while ago ThatMom – about the importance of ‘policing our own’ and making sure that there are good safeguards in place to prevent such egregious child abuse. I think there is a danger of getting caught entirely up in the rights of parents to do as they wish with their children, forgetting that the children’s basic rights need protecting also. Though I’ve done a lot of charity work with abused children, and that may colour my perspective somewhat. I’m sure that my knowing of more children viciously abused (intentionally or misguidedly) by their own parents, than families persecuted by the state for ‘unconventional’ practices, skews my opinion here.

  234. Psalmist Says:

    This is a Texas Child Protective Services case, the largest in state history. CPS intervenes when there is a reasonable suspicion that children are being harmed, and they generally remove all children from that household and then sort out what happened. This is the general process for CPS. In this case, they found children locked in closets and children having food withheld from them, both obviously abusive treatment. They had reason to believe that there was sexual abuse occurring; the reported age of the girl who called was part of that evidence. Many details are not currently released, which is also typical for child abuse cases.

    IMO, CPS had more than sufficient cause to remove the children from that environment. Polygamy IS illegal, as is sexual activity with minors and child abuse. All these crimes were occurring at the “ranch” (one of the women I watched in a TV interview was incensed that people would call it a “compound”). The adult women were complicit in the crimes, though it’s quite likely many if not most were themselves married while they were still minors. By doing and saying nothing about it, they were condemning their daughters to the same fate. There are also very disturbing stories about what happens to boys as they approach adulthood in polygamous communities. Yes, I’m sure they’re very concerned about their children NOW, but seem very ostrich-like about their children’s future.

  235. Spunky Says:

    This is a terrible situation all the way around, with no easy answers. What is interesting is that two other states Utah and Arizona have known about this situation for some time but chose to look the other way. Children should be properly cared for by their parents, the challenge in a free society is to make sure that this occurs while at the same time not infringing upon the liberties provided by our Constitution. The parents who are charged and convicted of a crime, would obviously stand to be separated from their children. But what if no charges have been filed and no conviction gained? Are we a country where we are innocent until proven guilty or is that belief suspended when children are involved?

    Those are not easy questions and I don’t have the answers, but if all it takes is an allegation of abuse for a parent to be separated from their child, I think there is cause for some concern. Do we want to give the state that much power, where a allegation alone allows this type of action from the state? Then it moves to what constitutes abuse or neglect.

    Policing our own sounds nice but what does that look like? We get into the messy issues of devising a standard for what a Christian family should do and not do. And we all see that there is not a whole lot of agreement there! Should we go with the Doug Phillips standard, Spunky’s standard, or someone else’s? And if we do manage to agree upon a basic set of principles, then what do we do with families who don’t meet this standard but their behavior doesn’t rise to the level of “criminal” activity? Again, these are challenging questions with no easy answers.

  236. Abby Says:

    I think that calling the women “complicit in the crimes” doesn’t embrace the whole fact that they have been taught that this is acceptable behavior. I’m not justifying their complicity, rather, I fear that this makes the moms look just as guilty as the husbands, when in reality, they were victims themselves at some point.

    I think about “unintentional” sin and how it was dealt with in the OT, that people still had to make atonement for any accidental sin that they may not have been aware of. Well, obviously these women were unintentionally breaking the law by allowing this, but I do believe that the government would have leniency with them, because of their own status in this community.

    It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.

  237. Abby Says:

    Spunky, in the case of child abuse, even if we’re trying to follow “innocent until proven guilty,” Children’s Services has a duty to children to keep them safe. If there is suspected abuse, they will not leave a child with the suspected abuser until they can prove guilt or innocence. My aunt is a social worker, and with probable cause, HAS to remove a child until the situation can be investigated. I don’t think it’s about suspending proof, but I wouldn’t want a child to be left in a possibly (probably) abusive situation until I could prove the abuse, I would take them out immediately. Apologies can be made (obviously this would have a high price), but leaving a child in possible danger, I think, would be foolish. And it is really rare that a child would say there was abuse when there wasn’t.

    I’ll have to find the link to a site that shows sex abuse report stats.

  238. Spunky Says:

    If all CPS needs is “probable cause” to remove a child from a family, we ought to be removing children from quite a few public school in my area. There are enough cases of sexual abuse and misconduct to demonstrate that the children are in “possible danger” by both teachers and other students! We’ve had several cases in our local schools (both public and private) of sexual misconduct with adults and minor children. And a quick Google search shows that these are not exactly “rare” occurances. I’ve also known of young ladies who were in situations where the teacher had issues, but because of the teachers union they were able to move him to another school and never deal with the situation. So “probable cause” and “possible danger” seems insufficient to remove a child from a parent.

    Again, I don’t want to come across as defending what these families were doing, but at the same time I don’t want to just give the authorities a pass either and unwittingly hand them more authority than they rightly possess.

  239. thatmom Says:

    I know that different locales have varying standards and protocol for removing children from suspected abusive homes. In my town, only a few blocks from my house, a 5 year old little girl lived with her mother, 2 siblings, and her mom’s uncle. The uncle obviously has disabilities of some sort and the mother was determined to be emotionally 6 or 7 years of age.

    One evening, the uncle repeatedly tripped the little girl, causing her to fall head first into a wall. When she passed out, they call 911. The next morning she died from a fracture to the skull. Both the mom and uncle were charged with crimes, not sure exactly which ones, but the uncle was given life in prison. (The day of his sentence, he killed himself with anti-depressants he had been saving in his jail cell.)

    When the adults were taken into custody, there were TV cameras and protester all around the courthouse and it took several days for the DA to bring charges against the mother, which outraged everyone. But the public defender for this woman is a friend of mine and he made what I thought was an excellent point as we talked about it. He asked where all the protester were when this family was in danger. He also pointed out that repeatedly the teachers as her school had contacted DCFS and asked for someone who could legally intervene to do so.

    As Christians, are we our brother’s keepers? How far should/can we go in these sorts of matters? These ARE hard questions.

  240. Spunky Says:

    Here is an interesting video taped recently acquired by a local reporter in our area which reveals what went on in the interrogation of a 13 year boy in regards to an allegation of sexual misconduct by the father.

    The tapes are disturbing. The child has Aspergers Syndrome and the fact that he was there alone without legal counsel makes for a very intimidating situation. He was told by the questioner that his “body language” suggested that he was not being completely honest about what he knew. After that, they lie to him and tell him they have evidence which already suggests his father’s guilt and points to his own involvement in sexual abuse; evidence which does not exist. In the final segment, the boy says that he no longer sees his father as trustworthy.

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/NEWS03/80316001/0/COL04

    The father, it turns out was unjustly accused. This is a sad ordeal, and shows when state officials that the end result “protecting children” justifies any means necessary to do so. According to the reporter investigating the story, “The deceptive and coercive tactics on display in the video obtained by the Free Press are part of a well-established protocol for interviewing adults suspected of criminal activity.” The child was subjected to what is normally done to a accused criminal to illicit a confession. The police defended the interrogator,

    “”He didn’t mean to harm anyone,” Fuhs said. “The bottom line here is that the detective was trying to get to the truth. I don’t know whether he went over the line or not.”

    It makes one wonder what the children in Texas will be subjected to, since Texas CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around. But who is watching the state to make sure that possible abuse does not occur as it did with this young man. Had this not been on video tape, there would have been no record of the abuse. And in many cases, there is no such tape made during the questioning and the children do not have legal counsel present.


  241. […] 4th part Prairie Muffin Manifesto- most recent post for comments […]

  242. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “It does worry me to think that the women who stayed will just have more children, and this will all recur in 15-20 years. The devil really does have a foothold with them, and that saddens me as much as the behavior of the men who have put them in this place.”

    Well, there is one solution — ENFORCE the anti-polygamy laws and the child-molestation laws, and do not permit “religious” groups who believe in doing such things to form communes where they can indulge their taste for illegal activities “under the radar”.

    If these guys were practicing some sort of goofy pagan religion, and were practicing polyANDRY instead of polyGYNY, and were doing things like going naked and sacrificing animals in the town square instead of wearing ankle-length dresses and worshipping in a spiffy white temple, you can bet there would be a hue and cry raised until the government and local law enforcement came in and shut them down. But instead, bacause they look outwardly Christian, there are those who wonder whether we ought to give them some sort of a pass.

  243. Lin Says:

    “Since the Texas compound story was brought up; I’m curious, does anyone know why they are calling the men “polygamous”? Were they legally married in the state’s eyes? ”

    I have read a few books about this cult and other Mormon cults over the past few years that explained the complicated structure. One was “Under the Banner of Heaven” and the other was by a woman who escaped the Warren Jeff cult. I cannot remember the title of the book.

    They are not in civil marriages. Some fathers give their 14 year old daughters over to old men in marriage. It is all arranged. The woman, whose book I read, was even sent away by her husband to work in one of his businesses out of state away from her children. The other wives were raising them…so to speak and yes, there was abuse. There is constant jealousy among the wives and the kids seem to be much neglected and abused.

    The other book was about Park City, Utah and a murder in that cult. The reporter was stunned to find out the intricate structure of the whole cult coming from one patriarch. It seems the entire city was a part of it and those in the cult were part of the police force and other gov agencies. This made it impossible for anyone to escape or complain. the marriages were not civil so men with multiple wives had them apply for food stamps and other welfare as single moms. He found that city had the highest welfare numbers!

    This is NOT about religious freedom. They are breaking our civil laws which protect individuals. Polygamy is illegal. Many of the marriages could be defined as statutory rape. The fathers who give these daughter to marriage ought to be in prison!

    If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.

  244. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If we want to argue religious freedom here we best be prepared for Sharia law to be practiced here, too.”

    It IS quite a test case for that, isn’t it?
    And your mention of Sharia law brings to mind Gary North and his merriy band of crazies, who believe in public stoning for adultery and for “impurity before marriage” and whipping, indenturement, etc, for lesser offenses.
    I wonder if we might have started to see such “lesser” punishments meted out at certain patriarchal Y2K communes, had they not broken up after Y2K didn’t happen.

  245. Spunky Says:

    Lin, I have read reports of a defense based on religious freedom, but I haven’t said that here nor have I read anyone who is defending them based on religious freedom. What I was talking about is “due process.” Yes, the family clearly broke civil law, but does that mean that every child must be separated from every parent? Yes, we are to consider what laws are broken but we do should do so in a just and orderly way.

    I’d encourage everyone to read a pamphlet written in the 1800’s by Frederic Bastiat that speaks to the purpose of law. Here’s a relevant quote,

    “No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them. The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so.”

    Considering the situation with CPS, since the law says that the state can separate the children based on “possible danger” that somehow legitimizes the decision to remove ALL the children. But that doesn’t make their decision “just.” The law is then basically providing legal cover for an unjust action by the state. And sadly, to question the decision of CPS and say that are not acting justly often leads to the assertion that one is protecting parental rights over children’s rights. But the state is charged with protecting the rights of ALL its citizens not just the children. And one of our rights is that of due process and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The law is there to protect the innocent and convict the guilty. If I cannot take my neighbor’s child on solely on the basis of an allegation of wrong doing or possible danger, then neither should the state be able to take my child (or my neighbor’s) on that same allegation of possible danger. In our form of government, collective (state) rights are a derivative of individual rights and given by consent of the governed. It is cases like this that we unwittingly give our consent to the state to do more than they are Constutionally allowed to do because we are emotionally drawn into the sadness of the situation and the harm done to the children. Playing on our sympathy the state is given more power than they justly are entitled in a free society governed by the laws of nature and nature’s God.

    It is a philosophical debate about the role of the law, the state, and the individual.

  246. Sandy Says:

    Spunky,
    “It is a philosophical debate about the role of the law, the state, and the individual.”

    I agree with this statement. It is a philosophical debate but one with far reaching implications. Where DO we, as a nation, draw the line in order to protect our nation’s children but also the rights of parents. before I went into private practice, I was the primary therapist for an adolescent rehab. most of the clients were court ordered into treatment. I had three clients die last year – two of which were murdered. One who I felt should have been in state’s custody was murdered due to bad behavior on the adults in his life and the other was murdered by his foster dad.

    As a former home school mom (kids are grown now), I know what it was like to worry that the state might come and take my kids because I was choosing to home school before it was really considered legal in many states. I have been actively involved in many famiiies who have come to me for advice when the government has oversteped boundaries. BUT I have also seen many excesses in families that would qualify as abuse by most people’s definitions. What to do??? I don’t know but these are questions that I see becoming more and more relavent as society becomes less God-centered and more self-centered.


  247. I’ll be first to admit it really is a slippery slope and I’m not sure where I fall on it. The one thing that bothers me more than anything is that many of those FLDS women remind me of the patrio women in dress, hair, and even the ways they talk on camera about having a “wonderful, free, private life.” It makes me wonder if polygamy is the next step for the patriarchalist camp.

  248. sarah Says:

    Let’s not forget that the men involved in this case were all raised in it too. They don’t necessarily know better and are following what they believe to be God’s commands and necessary for salvation. Legally, it is abuse in our nation, but in their belief system it is not. This is a generations long practice – the men who are 50 are just as brainwashed as the young girls. Should they have an intuitive sense that it’s wrong to impregnate a 14 year old or hit a woman? Probably – but again, brainwashing changes your sense of right and wrong.

  249. Spunky Says:

    Sandy said, “I don’t know but these are questions that I see becoming more and more relavent as society becomes less God-centered and more self-centered.”

    G.K. Chesterton “”When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”

    We are becoming a nation of small laws.


  250. We are becoming a nation of small laws.

    Spunky—you hit the nail on the head there. Could not agree more. I remember we had this discussion on your blog many times.

    I’m against smoking around kids, driving with cell phones attached to your ear, I think the new lightbulbs are grand if you want to use them, and many other things, but I don’t think we need more laws telling us what we can and cannot do.

    One day I’m afraid we’re going to wake up from complacency and see that we’ve really gotten ourselves into a pickle—these small laws have eroded our BIG freedoms and we’re left in a Nanny state where the government tells us what we can and cannot do, even with the types of lightbulbs we’re allowed to use and whatnot!

  251. Sandy Says:

    Spunky,
    “G.K. Chesterton “”When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”

    We are becoming a nation of small laws.”

    Yes, it’s a problem. I can see our freedoms being eroded day after day but then, there are such excesses in some people who continually break the big laws. Like you said, it’s a big philosophical debate about the role of the law, the state, and the individual. I wish I had some answers but I don’t. Where should the line fall? Who decides that? Who enforces it? It’s actually kinda scary to me who believes very strongly in individual freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility.

    “The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.” – Abraham Lincoln

    hard to discern the line between freedom and public interest at times.

    Normal Middle,
    I’ve also wondered if polygamy is the next step for hard core patriarchalists. Who knows. It seems to be part of the same continuum.

  252. Corrie Says:

    “I’ve also wondered if polygamy is the next step for hard core patriarchalists. Who knows. It seems to be part of the same continuum.”

    Sandy,

    I was just thinking this same thing, too.

    The term “white-washed polygamist” comes to mind when I think about some of the similarities.

    Where is the line? What is holding some back from taking the next natural step?

  253. thatmom Says:

    “I’ve also wondered if polygamy is the next step for hard core patriarchalists. Who knows. It seems to be part of the same continuum.”

    I have thought this for a long time, too.

    So what do we think of the young women in the girls-stay-at-home camp who move into the homes of nonrelatives in order to be mother’s helpers? Is this something that ought to be recommended? Am I taking this a step too far? I just think that, given the depravity of man, this could be setting a family up for all sorts of temptations and problems…..patriocentric worldview, where everyone is there to fulfill the father’s calling, a young woman who desires to be married and have children, a command to take dominion through militant fecundity….I do not think these are wise lifestyles. When I read the Christian-polygamy site, the only thing I saw that differed from these groups is the number of wives. BTW, that same site offered recommendations on how to convince your wife that she should want you to add more wives to your household.

  254. Lin Says:

    “Yes, the family clearly broke civil law, but does that mean that every child must be separated from every parent? Yes, we are to consider what laws are broken but we do should do so in a just and orderly way. ”

    Sorry Spunky. I was not directing my comment to you personally just discussing other views.

    One of the problems in this situation is that the authorities are having a hard time matching the children to their parents. Think about that one for a moment. Whose kids are whose? What does that tell us about this whole situation? About this cult?

    One woman who escaped this cult a while back had been sent AWAY from her own children to work in one of her husbands businesses out of state. The ‘other’ mothers in the home raised her 6 kids during that time… if you call what they did ‘raising’ children. The descriptions in her book sounded more like the kids surviving and raising themselves sometimes without even enough food in the house.

    In this case in Tx, the breaking of civil and criminal law must not be overlooked. If any of these girls where given in what they call ‘spiritual’ marriage below the age of 16, the law was broken. I guess it all bears on what we call ‘abuse’. In my book, this has all the makings of not only spiritual abuse but physical (rape) and emotional abuse as well.

    But when the authorities cannot even get cooperation on whose children belong to whom, then I agree with NOT sending them back anytime soon.

    Keep in mind this started with a phone call from one of the members of this cult to the authorities about abuse. And we must also consider that these women know nothing else as a lifestyle and have no education or marketable skills to provide for themselves on the outside.

    I fear that we fear intrusion by the government so much that we are willing to overlook the abuse going on in cults. I think we need to make sure the public knows that this cult’s idea of ‘homeschooling’ and lifestyle is not the norm.

  255. Lin Says:

    “They don’t necessarily know better and are following what they believe to be God’s commands and necessary for salvation.”

    Sarah, they know it is against our civil and criminal laws what they are doing. Which is why they built the compound and why this cult left the last city they were in for this remote place.

  256. Spunky Says:

    “The one thing that bothers me more than anything is that many of those FLDS women remind me of the patrio women in dress, hair, and even the ways they talk on camera about having a “wonderful, free, private life.” It makes me wonder if polygamy is the next step for the patriarchalist camp.”

    This is a dangerous leap to make. The media and some officials in government are often guilty of painting all homeschoolers in a certain way because of their educational choice. But as most homeschoolers will attest, there are wide variations in the beliefs of homeschool families. And it would be wrong to assert that we are all headed down the path to abuse simply because some parents who homeshchool eventually neglect or abuse their kids.

    Simply because the women in this compound dress a certain way and so do women who are in no way affiliated with this sect, we should not make the leap that the women who have no affiliation are moving toward the beliefs of those in the sect.

    That’s the same sort of false logic that the some in patriarchy have used when they see a woman dressed a certain way and declare that she is a walking billboard for certain beliefs. Clothing speaks to a part of what the wearer may believe, but it certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. And we cannot draw the conclusion that two different women who wear the same type of clothing believe the same thing or are necessarily headed down the same path in regard to what they believe.

  257. Lin Says:

    “It is a philosophical debate about the role of the law, the state, and the individual.”

    Yes, and the question becomes what side do we err on? Protecting the rights of adults or protecting children against abuse such as 14-15 year olds being married to 50 year olds with multiple wives?

    Not everyone at CPS is the enemy. A dear friend of mine does training for them all over the place and is now in London training the British. She is a committed Christian. She knows this argument quite well and she has seen the strong arm of the government and that some of it is politically motivated. However, she knows all too well that much of it ignored, too. The state is not so quick to take children away from mothers as we may think.

    In this case, the mothers seem more like children than real mothers. Another legacy of Patriarchy cults.

  258. Spunky Says:

    Lin, I didn’t take your thoughts personally I just wanted to clarify what I was saying. 🙂

    You said, “I fear that we fear intrusion by the government so much that we are willing to overlook the abuse going on in cults. I think we need to make sure the public knows that this cult’s idea of ‘homeschooling’ and lifestyle is not the norm.”

    I definitely don’t want to overlook the abuse going on in a cult. This sect definitely appears to have engaged in criminal activity for which they should be prosecuted. But simply because they are having trouble sorting out who belongs to which parent, doesn’t give them the right to separate the children from their mothers.

    I agree that we should also make it clear that as homeschoolers we do not sanction what is going on in this sect and that it is not the norm for homeschool parents in this country. Nor does the right to religious freedom provide cover for criminal activity.

  259. Spunky Says:

    Lin, it’s not just the removal of a child from the home, but the very idea of questioning a child without legal representation. If we are going to give children rights as individuals, then they also have the right to legal counsel of their choosing. In most cases involving CPS, there is no legal counsel and if one is present it is appointed by the state. Clearly, a conflict of interest. I agree that not everyone at CPS is the enemy, but neither are they all advocates for the natural rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. And because this is true, we must err on the side that the parent is right unless proven wrong. Otherwise, the parent is left proving that they are NOT guilty. It is difficult if not totally impossible to prove a negative. Especially when the “deep pockets” of the state are involved.

  260. Cindy K Says:

    Spunky,

    In comment 248, you cited an incident of how a child was manipulated into a false accusation. There is a similar instance in one of the early chapters of a book called “Brainwash” that details the police investigation of two daughters who were at a Charismatic church camp and came home, accusing the father.

    The girls were placed in a highly suggestible level of consciousness through prolonged “revival” meetings and such, then were encouraged to cough up information about sins, etc. One sister started with this tale and then both daughters chimed in. As a result of the interrogation process, the police got the father to admit that there was a possibility that he had the capacity to do such a thing, citing the Scriptures about the heart of man being deceitfully wicked, total depravity, etc.

    The daughters then continued to confabulate and concocted imaginative stories that they were subjected to ritualistic satanic abuse and birthed children that were sacrificed, etc. They were examined physically, and neither one of the girls had any physical indications of sexual violation, certainly nothing that equated to their testimony. If memory serves me, as I read this about a year ago, one of the daughters was a virgin.

    The father went to jail and served a fairly long sentence, despite the fact that the physical evidence did not corroborate the story, partially because the police were able to induce this man to admit to the possibility that he could do such a thing.

    The factors of mind control and thought reform are powerful, and it is an interrogator’s job to obtain confessions, using whatever techinques are at their disposal. Isolation is powerful. Bombarding someone with stimuli is powerful. Social presssure is powerful. People naturally tend to respond to authority figures, and people pleasers under pressure will confabulate. Having studied a little bit of forensic hypnosis and having observed hypnotherapists violate ethical procedure to lead their clients into places where the therapists themselves suggested, I’ve observed first hand how this can occur.

    http://www.amazon.com/Brainwash-Secret-History-Mind-Control/dp/031232572X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208379131&sr=8-1

  261. Psalmist Says:

    You know, the brainwashing comes in very strongly from the other direction, as well.

    All three of the women in the TV interview I watched swore up and down that no laws were being broken in their community and no girls were married against their will, that every accusation was a lie and that they were all law-abiding citizens.

  262. Cindy K Says:

    The thing that bothers me tremendously about the Fundamentalist LDS business is that the state was able to go into that compound and take those children and women before they found the caller who reported the broken ribs, etc. It seems that there were officials who were just itching for an excuse to get into that compound and take those people out, not to say that this was completely unjustified and reasonable. But if someone had a penchant for doing the same in one of our private homes, I think we would think twice about it and would believe that our rights to privacy had been violated.

    If I called the police and they came to my home, I imagine that I would have to demonstrate some physical evidence that I had been abused before my abuser could be charged with violence. (The exparte thing, which I was completely ignorant of for the first 30 years of my life until I went to the Gothardite church where it was often necessary for the protection of some of the married women there, is temporary and does not involve criminal charges for example.) If, God forbid, my husband had hurt me, I would have to provide some kind of physical evidence. From what I understand of this latest LDS business, the state did not have these things in order.

    I tend to think of some of these groups very much like the first Matrix film which has been on my mind lately anyway. The people who are locked into the system and are deeply entrenched do not want to come out and to do so can almost kill them or drive them mad. The whole thing is about freedom of mind, and to get out of a manipulative process, a person must make the choice to get out. That is the difference between “deprogramming” and exit counseling. Deprogramming is an antiquated way of perhaps actually forcing the same types of processes on a person that deceived them to start with (coersion). Exit counseling is never coercive but helps a person who is willing and doubting the validity of the system regain their own powers of reason and critical thought.

    So that bothers me too. To be made free and then not have resources is different to choose to get free. It is America and people have personal freedoms and they can choose to participate in sick relationships and warped systems. The problem comes in when people are raised with no knowledge of anything better such as the freedom to choose and the freedom of thought. If individual wives wanted to flee and take their dependent children, then they could have gone, but I’m not sure that it’s the best thing to force the removal of everyone out of there. It tends to perpetuate the concept that these people are not in control.

    It’s a very tough call to make and it is all very sad. The strong parallels to patriarchy disturb me, too. If they can pick and choose what Scripture is relevant and offer unique twists on interpretation against responsible hermeneutics, than what is to stop these patriarchs from returning all the way to Jacob’s way of life. He had the responsibility of fecundity as well, and he had how many wives in order to produce 11 sons? If the chief means of taking dominion is thru godly seed, and there is such a blurred way of estimating what is “Biblical” and kindgom mandates and such, then what stops one from going back to Jacob’s way or those of the old Testament? The polygamy sites have detailed apologetics about how the New Testament supports polygamy, and they are no more or less convincing than some of these arguments based on Numbers 30, etc. If hermeneutical standards are so fluid in patriarchy, I see it as a viable possibility.

    People say “but that will never happen because so-and-so would never teach such a thing,” but I am involved in a debate right now where people have offered only this defense to counter false and/or very questionable if not heretical teachings that have originated with a seminary professor. The great defense is “I’ve studied them and they would never say that” but they have!!!

    This is all talk and the talk is cheap.

  263. Cindy K Says:

    Returning to comment again before I come back out of cyberland…

    Perhaps there are no really good immediate solutions to the whole FLDS situation. There are no good, pleasant alternatives. I know the terrible stuff that I endured when I left my group (and there was no controversy that I was personally involved in and I was not in any trouble with the group for anything… I’d been lied to and manipulated but not accused or maligned). I laid in bed on days when I did not have to go to work, crying for hours on end until my pillow was wet. I have had several friends and acquaintences that were placed in displaced persons camps after WWII concluded, but things didn’t turn around for them for perhaps 5 years after the war. When Neo wakes up into the “desert of the real,” it was not like waking up to a beautiful spring day with buttercups and Disney animated birds dancing around in the breeze round about him. And some of the Israelites mumbled and wanted to go back to Egypt. Reality and truth can often be hard and bitter.

    There may be no ideals here.

  264. Cindy K Says:

    My husband’s late coming home from work tonight… so I’m still in cyberland.

    Psalmist, you wrote: You know, the brainwashing comes in very strongly from the other direction, as well.

    You are absolutely right. And this makes the whole point even more convincing. People that are used to being manipulated and who live in a highly controlled state wherein they are highly suggestible are easy to manipulate or brainwash.

    This is a major problem with people who have come out of spiritual abuse or even trauma. Parts of the brain have become used to being very inactive, and these patterns are very hard to break. People who have been in situations where they are “floating” or spend a huge amount of time in meditation have more difficulty regaining control of their environments. The effects of lighting also have impact, too, as flourescent lights vibrate at a frequency that induces a trancelike state and promotes this kind of thing, too.

    So it is easy to manipulate a person who is habitually manipulated.

  265. Cindy K Says:

    For those who doubt some of what I have said, I found a good video on YouTube that I have listed on that “patriocentricity” channel as a “favorite.” I trained in hypnotherapy as an adjunct to pain management as both my husband and I have a lot of chronic pain and I can take very few analgesics. As part of my coursework (and thank God they let me certify without doing any regression!!!), I studied some theory of a field called “Neuro Linguistic Programming” which is what I referred to when talking about the “Return of the Daughters” video when Doug Phillips doesn’t move his eyes when he talks about Numbers 30… Another aspect of NLP is called “anchoring” where you use touch in combination with whatever it is you want to ground in someone’s mind through suggestion, though it is profoundly effective for getting rid of junk, too.

    In this video I found recently, you can see how a subject is bombarded with “hints” using language but the idea is “anchored” through physical touch. In the beginning, you will see Derren Brown grab the subject’s right wrist firmly which actually causes a startle response and establishes some dominiance (a rapid induction technique of hypnosis in general taught by Dave Elman). But then Derren goes on to use “anchoring” repeatedly to ground his words of suggestion into the subject’s mind without him even realizing it. The cumulative effect is that the subject redefines his wants and even his memory. I have seen this work, experienced this and it is profound. And this is just with light touches on the subject’s arm and carefully chosen language. This can be enhanced through lighting, environment, social pressure, authority, isolation, etc.

  266. corriejo Says:

    “All three of the women in the TV interview I watched swore up and down that no laws were being broken in their community and no girls were married against their will, that every accusation was a lie and that they were all law-abiding citizens.”

    Psalmist,

    I have been watching the TV news coverage, also. Chilling. These women were also “angry” but one wouldn’t know it by the tone of their voice (always hushed and soft) and the look on their face (smiling weirdly when their faces should have been matching the emotion of the moment).

    Did anyone see the People Magazine? I was checking it out when I was waiting in line at Walmart. They had a picture of Carolyn Jessop, the author of “Escape”, from when she was still in the cult. She was pictured with all her other “sister wives” (blech!). There were about 4 wives on each side of the patriarch Jessop. All the wives were wearing their calico garb and they had their hair in a similar up-do. They had their hand over their heart in some sort of creepy pledge to their prophet, priest and king (after all, they can’t get into heaven without him!). They were all staring up at their patriarch with adoring smiles. And the patriarch was standing with his hands up in the air, big “cat-eating the mouse grin” on his face, facing the camera. He was definitely the Big Cheese and quite pleased with all of his little wives pledging their hearts to him and adoringly gazing at his greatness.

    It was truly a disturbing picture. Not to mention quite patriocentric.

    God help those girls being raised up in this cult and deliver them before they have all trace of their own individuality and personality sucked right out of them.

    I believe the government did the right thing. This is nothing more than glorified sexual slavery/trafficking with a heaping helping of brainwashing.

  267. Cindy K Says:

    Corrie,

    I agree with you also when you look at things like this. It’s just a really bad situation and they want to help these people. There is just no easy answers for all of this.

    My husband said that from what he has heard that someone recieved a call from inside the compound, but now they suspect that the call may have come from Arizona. So the initiated a police action without good DIRECT cause… That sets a scary precedent which makes it easier to violate privacy for everyone else, depending on who does the decision making as to what group looks like they are wacko. But then I did a lot of my nursing clinical about 10 blocks from where the group “MOVE” was camped out in Philadelphia which resulted in a whole city block burning to the ground, just about.

    There are just no easy answers.

  268. Abby Says:

    “Reality and truth can often be hard and bitter.”

    What a profound statement. I think that sums up what anyone might be faced with whenever they come up against something they never expected. The whole of the prairie muffin manifesto seems so muffin-y (for lack of a better word) and the way it’s portrayed is so light and fluffy, while the truth is that there IS NO EASY WAY. The women and children who did leave this “ranch” will not find it easy to adjust to life on the outside. It’s like coming out into the daylight after being in a dark room for hours–it burns your eyes to see the light, yet the light is good for you.

    I think the women who are on tv are displaying classic signs of “Stockholm Syndrome.” I’ve only heard bits and pieces about this, but it’s all about sympathizing with your tormentors. They’ve not only been brainwashed, but they *love* the men who did this to them. I think brainwashing can only take you so far, but having an emotional response on top of that–it’s going to take a lot of work to convince them otherwise.

    There are many situations that are non-religious where women do the same thing, as in, a woman who continues to allow her husband to abuse her, or a woman who continuously gets into abusive relationships. There is something psychological about it all.


  269. It may be a dangerous leap to take, but my gut tells me that it is awfully similar and not just in dress and hairstyles. I should have made that clearer, but I would say that I (personally) find the patriarchy stuff almost as dangerous, if not as much so, as the polygamy stuff.

    To me, there is a grey area blurred between the two. I could easily see some hard core patriarchs going for the multiple wives (multiple blessings!) thing if not careful.

    I am sorry that my “jump” may have offended and I didnt’ meant for it to, but sometimes you need to say what you feel and I definately feel a connection. Can’t lie about that, personally.

  270. sarah Says:

    Please explain to me why we should condemn these people for knowingly violating the law pursuant to their religious beliefs when so many home schoolers did this back in the day? I agree that what was happening here was vile, and I don’t think any of us are without sin, but most of these compound people genuinely believe they are doing God’s will. So do the patriarchs, I suppose, but I have a lot more sympathy for the polygamists because this is a generations long practice, and not something cooked up in 1997 to facilitate the selling of books at home school conferences.

  271. Cindy K Says:

    Sarah wrote: Please explain to me why we should condemn these people for knowingly violating the law pursuant to their religious beliefs when so many home schoolers did this back in the day?

    Sarah,

    That echos my concerns about who gets to decide what violates the law or what constitutes invasion of privacy, part of the risks we take when we establish a free government and religious freedom that doesn’t tell people how to conduct themselves in specific terms. Our society is pluralistic, and far more pluralistic than it was 200 years ago. And I don’t think the checks and balances work so well as they once did either.

    It’s also hypocritical to say that in a promiscuous society that throws marriage away like used kleenex that a group of adults couldn’t live this way if they made that choice. When the standards about sex mean little, how can they say that these guys cant have as many wives as they want.

    But then enter mind control… This is not an agreed upon process but is done covertly or surreptitiously without one party’s knowledge. Some of these kids who grew up in this don’t know any other way to be. And people get pulled in without informed consent, something that our society takes very seriously. Throw in the sex factor and the young women that are not of legal age…

    It’s just a mess and I’m glad I’m not the one making the decisions about what to do, and I wouldn’t want to be them.

    And I saw something on ABC this summer on a news series called “the outsiders” where they interviewed polygamists. They said that the one thing that they wanted everyone to understand about them was that it was not about sex but about serving God per their belief system. And I think that you’re right in saying that, based on convictions and belief systems alone (apart from the other factors and the social implications), this is no different in theory than wanting to homeschool.

    I’m reminded of that poem from the Holocaust where they came for this group and I said nothing. Then they came for that group and I said nothing…. Then they came for me and there was no one to speak for me. There is a very real element of that when a government violates its own laws (when they chose to evacuate the women and children when they never even found whoever it was that placed the phonecall about the abuse, as I understand that this is the case from what I last heard).

    This comes up in medical ethics often. What is quality of life and who gets to decide what that is? And who pays for it? There are some easy aspects of it, and some bottom lines are hard to figure. This presents a great burden in a society that is free and that is pluralistic, particularly when dealing with a group that is exclusive in doctrine and has a well-defined code of what is right and what is wrong.

  272. Lin Says:

    I will not deny that the state and probably the Feds have been looking for an excuse to get in that compound since they moved there. They left a trail of problems in the last place they were. And then the book that Carolyn Jessop wrote showed there were huge spiritual, emotional and physical abuse problems.

    This is a very difficult situation. Legally, most of these women are not married so that makes it hard to prove rape and we all know it is not illegal to have a ton of kids by different women.

    I guess I have a slanted view of this. If anyone has been around abused kids and witnessed how so many adults are quick to protect the alledged perps before they are quick to protect the innocent victims, it is chilling. I have seen it way too many times. This is becoming a huge problem even in many churches besides the Catholic Church. The perps know this and in this case, they have a captive harem who cannot fight back and would not even begin to know how to.

    In this case, the mothers are not protecting the kids. The mothers are like brainwashed children, themselves, taking orders from the Patriarch.


  273. I could deal with polygamy and arranged marriages between adults.

    But barely-teens forced to marry upon puberty to men triple (or more) their age is not right under ANY religious veil, in my opinion.

    I tell you what, if my 12-14ish pubescent daughter was forced to consummate a “marriage” to a 50 year old man, I’d have a more staunch take on this for sure.

  274. Lin Says:

    “They said that the one thing that they wanted everyone to understand about them was that it was not about sex but about serving God per their belief system.”

    It is about Dominion. Power and control. Read some of these books that tell what it is like inside these cults.

    These women are NOT loved. That is a huge lie. They are property…slaves to bear children, work, etc. There are major status fights within each household as to who is most favored wife, etc. It is sick, sick, sick. Most times the wives do not even get along. Warren Jeffs, Sr., married a 15 year old girl in his 80’s!

    So, if we allow this to be passed off as a ‘religious’ belief that is protected and that we should not bother them then what about Sharia law? Will that be ok, too, as long as it does not affect us personally?

    FDLS and Muslims have much in common when it comes to women.

  275. Lin Says:

    Cindy, in these cults…there is a real status level in having many children. If a woman cannot bear children she becomes another mouth for the husband to feed and is worthless in everyone’s eyes…including the women. She usually ends up being the charwoman for them all.

    The amount of children=Status for the woman.

  276. Cindy K Says:

    Lin wrote: So, if we allow this to be passed off as a ‘religious’ belief that is protected and that we should not bother them then what about Sharia law? Will that be ok, too, as long as it does not affect us personally?

    That’s why pluralistic societies have a tough time. No one wants to be told what right and wrong is, yet the government must uphold right and wrong. Your right and wrong might be different than mine and it’s hard to do sometimes. Truth is relative, but truth is not relative at all. We want our cake and want to eat it too.

    The trouble is finding balance in a world and culture that is in ethical crisis. We need leaders with the wisdom of Solomon and they are few and far between. (And there was Solomon who was not perfect by any stretch, either.)

  277. Cindy K Says:

    Lin,

    About the status thing based on numbers of children, I believe that part of the carrot before the horse is the idea that if one is a good wife, one will get to go to heaven with her husband to start their new planet. So their salvation is based upon performance and submission to the role…

    Part of that role is bearing lots of children.

    Sad to think that this is also a directive in some of these areas of evangelical Christianity and in groups like the Moonies who quote all the Christian literature…

  278. Sandy Says:

    Lin,
    “It is about Dominion. Power and control. Read some of these books that tell what it is like inside these cults. ”

    Yes, that is what rape, molestation, and sexual abuse always boils down to. This is part of the link between polygamy and patriarchalism that I see along with other parts. It even makes me think of someone’s comment about the women on the Blayly blog (maybe by Light?) that these women supporters are “emotionally fondling” these men. And how true that was. Whether it’s actual physical sex or “emotional fondling,” these men are collecting followers and syncophants in order to experience power and dominion. The more women who submit to their authority, the more powerful they feel. So, patriarchy may not YET insist that men should have several wives but it does insist that all women everywhere bow down and submit to all men everywhere. Similar premise.

    Cindy K,
    There really are no easy answers for dealing with this situation, are there?

  279. Corrie Says:

    “Please explain to me why we should condemn these people for knowingly violating the law pursuant to their religious beliefs when so many home schoolers did this back in the day? I agree that what was happening here was vile, and I don’t think any of us are without sin, but most of these compound people genuinely believe they are doing God’s will. ”

    Sarah,

    I think the big difference, imho, is that little girls are being forced to marry elderly men, much older men or just plain marry when they are far too young. It is sick. This is a pedophile’s paradise. I am really surprised that more pedophiles aren’t flocking to these sorts of communes? Especially considering that there is a ready supply of young flesh when one of these pervs gets the urge or an itch….it seems like a pervert’s dream come true. They all cover for each other and supply each other the thing that will help give them the “fix” for their perversions.

    The authorities found a bed in this compound’s temple that was used (as told to them by an insider) to have sex with underage girls.

    Maybe this is their biblical answer to the couple going into the tent while the family waits outside for the groom to bring out the bloodied sheet?

  280. Cindy K Says:

    Sandy,

    There certainly aren’t.

    I don’t want to convey the idea that I’m all for letting women and children suffer in a cult or an abusive relationship, but I don’t want to sound like I’m all gung ho for what I’ve heard people call the “baby Nazis” or CPS.

    I’ve mentioned before how I went along with my friend to the ER to get a psych eval and with her to go to CPS when her husband staged a great big altercation.

    One morning, I had a dream right before I got awake — one of those really vivid dreams. I called her and begged her to get out of that house, with or without her boys. I wish she had because things fell apart that evening.

    They had a young, schoolaged child who I don’t think participated, but three teenage boys ganged up on this homeschooling mom under the direction of the husband who was a strange one. He stood there and had the boys take the car keys, all the phones and everything. Two boys tried to restrain her and one had his arm over her mouth as she was trying to scream and yell for help. She said there were hands and forearms over her face, and at some point, her airway was obstructed, so she bit someone at some point. (All while daddy dearest is standing there watching, telling the boys what to do.) She broke loose and ran to the neigbor and had our friend go into the house with her to retrieve her things and she left.

    She had a warrant out for her arrest and all kinds of stuff, though it never came to anything like this at all. She had to go to CPS, and I went with her, sitting for hours in the waiting area. Here, she had done nothing except breathe, the husband ended up orchestrating a circus and she was falsely accused. She lost custody of the kids save for some infrequent visits. That organization never did her any favors.

    And yet, especially before processing some of my own experiences, I have been quite righeously indignant and have wanted very much to “rise to the aid” of others who have been hurt and mistreated. I reviewed some court and medical records a couple of years ago and, at an emotional point in the discussion, told the attorney something to the effect that the abusive father should rot in hell for what he’d done. (It took a couple of weeks to repent of this and deal with it all after reviewing the material.) So I am very much in touch with this issue, too. (I was happy to hear from that attorney months later to find out that the outcome of the case was favorable, BTW. It looked at the time that it would not be so.)

    It’s really difficult to bring balance to things, put personal experience into perspective, defend and help the innocent and remain a good Christian. I hope that I get it right more often than I get it wrong… And I hope that my success improves over time, but I still find some of these things difficult.

  281. Cindy K Says:

    Let me qualifiy that statement before bed. Since I reviewed that chart a number of years ago, I’ve had a lot of therapy specifically for my own life traumas. At that point, I was often unloading my own baggage in situations like that, leveling angst and fear and resistance of my own in situations that pulled that out of me. Through EMDR (eye movement desensitization and reprocessing), I’ve essentially wiped my emotional disk and defragmented from all of this intensity of my own awful experiences.

    But I am still deeply affected by this mess, it just is no longer personal.

  282. sarah Says:

    I don’t see people converting to the Warren Jeffs’ FLDS church in droves. I don’t think they accept outsiders into their group, so I fail to see about this being a pervert’s dream. I bet you they do not let anyone join and start marrying young girls. Remember, too, that they are expected to have families and lots of kids with the wives. This isn’t just “have all the underage sex you want.” I don’t even know how many men in this group are taking 8, 9, 10 wives. They really do have families. It could be just the top leaders have tons of wives and average guys only have 3 or 4. I know, only, but I think 3 is the magic number for their afterlife beliefs. Are the girls and women used as pawns in a game of control by the leaders of this cult? No doubt. Do I find it repugnant? YES! But I am telling you that we cannot sit around and say all these men are perverts, esp. not when they were all raised in the cult – and their dads and grandads and sometimes great-grandads. Could some of them be perverts? Sure. But I don’t see how all of them are or that it’s just about sex with teen girls. I bet most of the men in this cult are not “worthy” in the prophet’s eyes to get the pretty young things. You’ve got to give money, curry favor, etc. to be worthy to have more wives. The faith factor is huge here and I guarantee you they genuinely believe that they are doing God’s work.

    I suppose I should disclose that there has been LDS-based polygamy in my family tree as recent as about 100 years ago. I find it disgusting, but there you have it.

  283. molleth Says:

    It may be a dangerous leap to take, but my gut tells me that it is awfully similar and not just in dress and hairstyles. I should have made that clearer, but I would say that I (personally) find the patriarchy stuff almost as dangerous, if not as much so, as the polygamy stuff.

    To me, there is a grey area blurred between the two. I could easily see some hard core patriarchs going for the multiple wives (multiple blessings!) thing if not careful.

    I am sorry that my “jump” may have offended and I didnt’ meant for it to, but sometimes you need to say what you feel and I definately feel a connection. Can’t lie about that, personally.

    Lindsey,
    I feel the exact same way. My best friend and I did a lot of research into LDS fundamentalists (one of the towns we are looking at moving to is one of their main towns, actually) and continually commented on how EXACTLY THE SAME IT WAS to the Vision Forum patriarchy, Debi Pearl CTBHH, etc, type of mindset.

    The only thing different was that a man could have more than one wife. That was about it. It was really reaffirming, to me, of my choice to exit the world of patriarchy (as, when I was first leaving it, I was very unsure for a while, very fearful of leaving “God’s way,” etc).

    The other thing we both fascinatingly noticed was that we would have been LDS fundamentalists too, had we been born into that. They took their Scriptures literally, down to the t. So did we. Black and white was the way I saw things. I could very much relate with the fundamentalists, because I was one, only of an evangelical stripe instead of LDS (or Islamic, or whathaveyou). So, while I am more than glad the state intervened and took those children out (when it doubt, err on the side of children’s safety!), I do have great sympathy for these (wrong, wrong!) families who really do think they are doing what they do for the glory of God. But for the grace of God, go I. 😦

  284. thatmom Says:

    Molly said:

    “when I was first leaving it, I was very unsure for a while, very fearful of leaving “God’s way.”

    Molly, this is such an important point that you made and I can so relate to it.

    For several years, my husband would say “are we sure we want to re-enroll in ATIA?” nAnd my first inward response was always “Oh, we HAVE to so we can be blessed with the perfect family.” Outwardly I never would have admitted that. Then, when we left a very abusive church, the pastor would preach about “death, disease, and divorce” coming to anyone who left their church unless they were moving and transferring their membership. Though I KNEW this was bogus, I could remember having lingering thoughts that perhaps those things would come to my family and that we never should have left.”

    This is what spiritual abuse does to people. I believe that spiritual abuse is worse than physical or sexual abuse in that it threatens your very relationship with God, causing doubt and often leading to despair.

  285. thatmom Says:

    Sarah,

    One of the things you mentioned several posts ago but that I think we ought to talk about is what some of this cult stuff and spiritual abuse does to men. You mentioned the fact that so many men within the LDS groups have been raised in this and know no differently.

    Isn’t that just the nature of those who aren’t Christians? The natural man doesn’t understand these things in the first place and then when a young man is raised in this sort of environment and knows nothing else (part of their agenda). So how else do we expect him to behave?

    It makes me think of the young men who are raised within patriocentric circles. They are constantly being exposed to patriocentric teachings, men’s meetings, men’s retreats, etc. and are growing up with views of women that are distorted. They are being taught to equate femininity with a certain lifestyle where there is only one acceptable, normative role for women. They are taught that if a woman fears the Lord and seeks to serve Him in any other way than by being a wife or mother, that somehow makes her an androgynous white-washed feminist. They are being taught that they cannot learn from women who are not to be teaching them in the first place. Steve Schlissel even wrote an article warning fathers to not allow their older sons to be taught at home by their mothers. Ludicrous but true.

    Sometimes I look at the burdens that are being placed on the backs of patriocentric men and think that the legalism they have to endure is even worse than what the women must go through.

  286. Cindy K Says:

    During Warren Jeffs’ trial, I saw some of these young men interviewed on Fox. They call them the “Lost Boys” of the FLDS.

    Not all of the males in the polygamist culture enjoy the same level of gratification and have the benefit of young female flesh. They are often driven out of town and abandoned on the highways.

    http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html

  287. Lin Says:

    “But I am telling you that we cannot sit around and say all these men are perverts, esp. not when they were all raised in the cult – and their dads and grandads and sometimes great-grandads.”

    Sarah, Thanks for letting us know about this in your family tree. It helps to know where you are coming from.

    Actually, we should not be concerned with ‘motivations’ for their lifestyle or behavior. They may NOT be perverts but that hardly matters when Polygamy and underage marriage is against the law. And our laws say that is perversion. And, motivation for spiritual abuse never matters. It is just like me saying that we cannot blame Muslims for what they were raised to believe and how they treat women. There is no blame. It is what it is. That does not mean I should not want to rescue them and show them the truth of Christ which is freedom from the legalism and abuse.

    Cynthia, I read about the ‘Lost Boys’, too. I really got the impression from some of my research there was some concern about ‘competition’ from these young boys by the Patriarchs with the younger girls and that is why some were sent away. We are back to power and dominion. And we are back to this is a very ABNORMAL way for parents to behave toward children. Where is the love? Hence, we see again, these are not parents in what we may call the normal sense of the word.

    If anyone read Carolyn Jessop’s book you can see her ‘husband’ had no relationship with his boys at all. They only feared him.

  288. thatmom Says:

    Oh,Cindy, that link to the lost boys is so tragic. As the mom of 5 sons, it breaks my heart.

  289. Lin Says:

    http://www.childbrides.org/boys_KUTV_cast_out_boys.html

    I do not know how anyone can read these first hand testimonies and not think the government should intervene.

  290. Sandy Says:

    To me, even the lost boys and their plight reminds me that this is truly about power and authority. If all the boys grow up to be men in the sect, then there would not be enough women to then allow each man several wives. Simple math.

    Now, to point out something, most of the lost boys were thrown out for some kind of “rebellion.” One wonders if the young girls never rebel in the same ways. It doesn’t seem as if the sect is releasing the young girls in the same way. Could it be because the girls are the commodity?

    I don’t believe it matters that this is because these people were raised this way. This is sin and Romans 1 tells us that we are without excuse.

    That said, I’m going to be a bit radical for a moment. I believe that sects like this and patriarchalism doesn’t just hurt the women. I believe the men are damaged as well. For one thing, they are all deprived of a loving, gentle partnership with their wives. For another and more importantly, they all miss out on the wonderful grace of our Lord. What a horrible thing! Unfortunately, it’s like saying the lost miss out on a relationship with Christ. They don’t understand what they are missing and want others to join them in their search for meaning in themselves.

  291. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I believe that sects like this and patriarchalism doesn’t just hurt the women. I believe the men are damaged as well. For one thing, they are all deprived of a loving, gentle partnership with their wives. For another and more importantly, they all miss out on the wonderful grace of our Lord. What a horrible thing!”

    Well, yes. Jesus said that divorce was allowed under the Law because of the hardness of men’s hearts, and He said that the REAL model for marriage was what God had instituted in the beginning, before the Fall:
    Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    The way of Jesus is to bring us out of the past ways of sin and death and into that state that God has ordained for us. We are to move forward into His perfection, not backwards into the Law and the dead works and lifestyles of dead men.

  292. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I meant to say, “Jesus said that under the law, certain things (such as divorce) were allowed because of the hardness of men’s hearts, but He came to show us a more perfect way, and He said that the REAL model for marriage was what God had instituted in the beginning, before the Fall:”


  293. Sarah, I see what you are saying and agree to a point (esp. about the men being hurt/brainwashed too, I agree).

    BUT—I am very sorry, it is still sexual abuse in my book, religious or not. Let’s just say this wasn’t a FLDS compound. Let’s pretend it was a Bapitst church camp that was raided. Or a Catholic community compound. Or methodist.

    It would get a much STRONGER reaction.

    Marrying off barely pubescent girls against their true consent to men double and triple their age is ABUSE. I don’t know my facts, but in most states, girls cannot marry before 17-18 without parental permission, and many cannot marry before 16 even with permission. So why does a religious group get a carte blanche to marry off 12-14 year old girls?

    I have a hard time putting this in the same box as homeschool pioneeers who homeschooled illegally back in the day. It is not comparing apples to apples if you ask me.

    Now I will agree, that YES—if you asked these folks if they were doing the right thing they would fight you tooth and nail that they were dead center in the will of God with these marriages. But—because they think it is right doesn’t make it an automatic civil liberty to do as they please.

    I don’t know. I have sexual abuse in my own past, so maybe that is why I look at this with a stronger mindset. I maybe could overlook even 16 year old girls being married off, but there is NO religious reason in the world a barely pubescent 12 or 13 year old should be married off to an adult man. It is just completely sick to me.

  294. Lin Says:

    Just a point about the men. The men usually have businesses and are out in the ‘world’ all the time dealing with customers and others who are not in cults. They are not isolated like the women. I was a bit stunned to learn how many businesses these men have and their success levels. Think of where they get money to buy so much land and build.

    These men may be brainwashed to a certain extent but they also have the freedom to be out in the world and KNOW what they are doing is illegal and considered immoral by most.

    But why would they give up being the ruler/Patriarch and having so many under their control? How many kids they have is a form of status. Nevermind they don’t really care about them. The brainwashing excuse will only go so far. What they do is evil and they are evil. Why can’t we admit that?


  295. Lin, I’ve discussed this on other threads and I really think it bears repeating.

    People (namely men) who fall for this patriarchy stuff are really people who need some sense of self-validation. To be blunt, they often suffer from “little man syndrome” and need someone else to control and/or bully around to feel like they are big and important.

    So yes, I’m with you. The brainwashing is a problem even for the men, but it will only go so far. Beyond that we need to see if they are just stroking their own needs and ego by being the “patriarch” or whatever you want to call it.

    I think it is a mix.

  296. sarah Says:

    I have stated over and over that I find sexual abuse and spiritual abuse and the whole thing to be wrong. But I do not believe this is resulting from all the men being sexual perverts. It is very easy for us to demonize the men in this situation, but it is not that simple.

    It is easier for me to be critical of some of the home school patriarchy leaders because they have deliberately chosen their lifestyle. As Karen points out, however, in 80 years, when we have 2nd and 3rd and even 4th generation patriarchs who genuinely do not know better, what should our response be? I for one feel badly for them.

    I am all for intervention when there is a demonstrated case of actual abuse. But I don’t know that the government would raid an entire community and take all the kids just because of one anonymous phone call. I don’t want to live in a world of child abuse, but I don’t want to live in a world where the government can just carte blanche remove 400 children from their parents. Frankly, in most cases, these kids are/were better off at the compound than they will be in the foster system. Not a perfect solution, and it seems like there is no good answer for this situation.

    When you make a statement that it’s wrong because it’s against the law, would you agree then that home schooling in 1981 was also wrong because it was against the law in most places? And it was considered child abuse in the form of educational neglect. From a logical perspective the argument and facts are quite similar.

    Ultimately, what is needed is the light of truth and the love of Christ. Christ-like love does not seek to dominate, cause pain, or impart fear as radical religions often do. Rather, it puts the needs of others before yourself. Were patriarchs and FLDS walking in the light of Christ’s example of love and service, none of this would be an issue. As noted above, when we break the big laws (love), we get small laws.

  297. sarah Says:

    Speaking of the Pearls, has anyone read their latest book, Jumping Ship? I’d love to hear an evaluation.


  298. Still disagree, but kindly 🙂

    Yes, homeschooling was once illegal. However I’m not one to declare something wrong just because the government says it is.

    Sexual abuse is wrong whether there is a law regarding it or not.

    I just cannot equate the two at all and do not see any similarities personally. On that we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But I do get what you are saying, I really do. I just don’t agree with it all the way. No biggie. that is what makes this debate fun (? not sure if that is the right word ?)

    As for Jumping Ship, I remember reading the short article series in the NGJ magazine a year or more ago. It, like most of these things, had some valid points. But it takes it too far.


  299. I’m having a horrible time expressing my thoughts in succinct comments these days. We are moving next week, my daughter is starting school (after being homeschooled 3 years), and my son is having surgery ALL in the same week, so my mind is mush.

    I wanted to elaborate on the Jumping Ship articles. It has been awhile since I read them. I have not read the more indepth book that followed. But from what I remember about the articles, it was about losing our kids to the world. Homeschooled kids “jumping ship” to the secular-feminist-woosie-boy-world (to use Michael Pearl’s thinking and terminology he so often employs).

    Basically it was a little like this:

    Let your kids watch tv? Lose them forever!

    Don’t let your son play in the woods and have a knife? He’ll be a wussie!

    Send your kids to school or Sunday School? They’ll be feminized little cultural brats!

    FEAR FEAR FEAR. It all plays on our fears. Most every parent, Christian or not, wants our kids to grow up to be healthy, happy, successful adults. So when we read this type of propaganda we have an emotional reaction, or at least I did when I was a Pearl fan.

    Want to have good kids? Follow *their* specific formula (and don’t forget—buy all the books, CD’s, videos, et al) and it will miraculously happen, with Jesus too, don’t forget (funny how that is the main focus but gets lost in the formula)

  300. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Hey folks, sorry to interrupt the conversation, but could y’all pray for my grandson Matt? An older boy tripped him, and he fell and hit his head, and the hospital is sending him to Hershey Medical Center because one of his pupils is staying dilated.
    Thanks, gotta go now….

  301. Lin Says:

    “But I do not believe this is resulting from all the men being sexual perverts.”

    Sarah, rape is not about sexual perversion, either. It is about power and control. I think most of us understand this. I know I do because I have read up on their lifestyle. While it IS perverted to marry off young teens to old men, I don’t think that is the motivation.

    “When you make a statement that it’s wrong because it’s against the law, would you agree then that home schooling in 1981 was also wrong because it was against the law in most places?”

    Sarah, Abortions are legal but that does not make them moral. We could go around and around with this line of thinking. Some laws are for our protection as individuals. Some are stupid and some are heinous such as legalized abortion.

    I cannot even imagine you are equating homeschooling with spiritual abuse, neglecting children and marrying off young girls to old men. I had to pause on that one.

    Am I understanding you right? Do you think they should be left alone to live the way they want? Do their religious freedoms extend to marrying off multiple young girls to old men? Do the men’s religious freedoms extend past the young girls individual freedom who knows nothing else? Do the men’s religious freedom extend past our laws against polygamy? Do the women have choices about their lives?

  302. Lin Says:

    Cynthia, I am praying for Matt right now. Blessings

  303. thatmom Says:

    31) While Prairie Muffins try to be women who make plans and stick with them, so that they use their time wisely and reach the goals they and their Prairie Dawgs have determined for their families, they also know they must be flexible and be prepared to meet whatever circumstances fall into their laps, sometimes at a moment’s notice, responding with grace and calm.

    32) Though we abhor the idea of women being involved in the military and fighting battles which men are commanded to fight, Prairie Muffins recognize that there is a real battle in which they are on the front lines: the battle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent. In this most-important conflict, we gratefully serve King Jesus in the capacity He has given us, waving our wooden spoons and rallying our children to stand alongside us in the battle, training them to be mighty warriors in the defense and furthering of God’s kingdom.

    33) Prairie Muffins are not clingy, they are clinging. There are many things in this world that it is tempting to grasp, even good things such as our homes, our marriages and our children. Our hands need to be firmly planted in the Savior’s hand, not clinging to those things which are good gifts from Him, but clinging to His will for our lives. When those good things are sometimes taken away, we must accept what is better, knowing that our loving Father wants what is best for us.

    34) A Prairie Muffin is generously affectionate with her children (and husband!), lavishing hugs and kisses on each one as a reminder of how precious they are to her.

  304. Alisa Says:

    Do I understand #32 correctly?

    All I was able to glean from it’s extremely vague language was the analogy that women are to wield “wooden spoons” (instead of a sword or automatic weapon?) in a battle, not against an enemy like Al Qaeda, but on the backsides of their children?

    I agree children have to be disciplined and trained for God’s Kingdom. But there is a failure to demonstrate how a wooden spoon is the best weapon of choice in this battle (and I think “battle” is probably an appropriate word to apply here; Satan would love to get a hold of our children). What about the “Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God”? That is the only tool I can think of off the top of my head that we are actually commanded by Scripture to use to disciple our children. There’s absolutely no commandment to wield a rod or wooden spoon on them.

    I’m not a no-spanking activist, but neither am I a fan whatsoever. It’s an absolute last resort as far as I’m concerned. It just seems to me that the Armor of God that Paul prescribes for us in Ephesians 6 is a much better choice of weapon in the spiritual battle for our children than immediately picking up and “waving our wooden spoons”.

    And I love #34!!! Great reminder. In my experience however, the mentality that seems to be in #32 can greatly hinder both the giving and receiving of that affection.

  305. Lin Says:

    “the battle of the seed of the woman against the seed of the serpent.”

    Am I reading into this or wasn’t this particular battle won at the Cross?

  306. JohannaS Says:

    I didn’t interpret wooden spoon to mean a tool of discipline, rather to complete the mental image of the cute “little woman doing her kitchen duties”. Sort of the same cutesy language that “prairie muffin” and “prairie dawgs” are supposed to be, I guess. But, Alisha, I share your views on spanking and discipline. To me, the “rod of discipline” spoken of in the Bible is just referring to the tool by which you discipline. It doesn’t have to be a literal rod or switch or whatever; it can be however you choose to discipline your child.

  307. sarah Says:

    Lin, I do not support child abuse. I have made that clear in all of my other posts.

    My concern is that we are bashing on these men who were raised to believe that what they are doing is right and God’s work. They really do not know better. They abuse because they were abused and raised to commit these abuses as part of God’s plan. I am simply pointing out that they are victims , too. Look at us, we are sitting here judging every family and person in this FLDS cult, even though they were raised in this, don’t know better, and the vast majority probably had nothing to do with perpetrating any sexual abuse or child abuse at all. If you have read about these communities you know that not every man gets his pick of wives, for example. You also know that while some girls are married off young, plenty of others aren’t.

    In terms of equating home schooling with the abuses here, you initially stated that these children should be removed because of alleged law breaking, so I am making a logical extension of your argument. Under the law, home schooling was considered child abuse in the form of educational neglect for a long time. Is it therefore per se abuse? No, of course not, and neither is raising your kid in a polygamous compound per se abuse.

    In more specific terms, frankly, I do see a lot of spiritual abuse in the home school community. I have also seen sexual abuse, and marriage far too early, and arranged marriage, and horrible maltreatment girls and women. This doesn’t mean that the state has the right to go round up all the home school kids in my city because of one phone call alleging abuse. If there is abuse, then yes, the children need to be protected and removed from the situation. But it should be family and situation specific – not a “raid” on a community.

    My concern is now there is precedent for the government to come in and take all the children from communities on one anonymous phone call. That should give everyone pause, child abuse or not.

  308. Lin Says:

    “They really do not know better.”

    Sarah, we can make this same argument with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahlmer, Ted Bundy, etc. It hardly matters.

  309. Lin Says:

    “My concern is now there is precedent for the government to come in and take all the children from communities on one anonymous phone call.”

    Well, the phone call gave them entry. The gov has been tracking these folks since Arizona city and know all about their polygamy, lost boys, abuse, underage marriages etc. Some of the testimony comes from Carolyn Jessop and others from the lost boys.

    Why do you think Jeffs built the compound in Tx and moved them all? You may want to read up on Jeff’s legal problems to give you some idea of what this really entails. Quite frankly, I am amazed the gov did not find a way in sooner.

  310. Alisa Says:

    Can anybody tell me what happens with the boys in the FLDS? I’ve heard inferences, but have not heard what actually happens with them. You’d think there would be excess single boys/men since there are so many wives to one man. Like my husband said, “the math just doesn’t add up”.

  311. Light Says:

    Alisa, often they are taken into Salt Lake City or another city and simply abandoned at the age of 14, 15, 16. Many end up living on the streets or prostituting themselves to survive.


  312. I read an article today on foxnews.com that says that men who “fall out of favor with the FLDS” are banished and their wives and children are “reassigned” to a new man. And yes, they used the term reassigned.

    BLLLLEEEECCCCH

    Property, anyone?

  313. Lin Says:

    Alisa, there are estimates of as many as 400-1000 teen boys who have been banished from these cults. Some in Canada and some from Jeffs’ FLDS and others. They are uneducated, too. There is a website raising money to help them that was linked a few days ago on this thread.

    Someone please tell me how the men who do this are ‘victims’, too? What father would allow this to be done to his own son who is not evil?

  314. sarah Says:

    Lin, all I can say is you haven’t actually read my posts, because you have not, in any case, addressed my point. I have explained in every post that I have made on this about the men that this is a multi-generational, entrenched way of life for them. That is my point, and why I feel badly for them, too.

    Hitler and Pol Pot did not have 4 or 5 generations of their family where they were all dictators and mass murderers and isolated from society. Hitler’s mother did not raise to become a war monger. Stalin’s father was not a 4th generation murderer. The comparison is invalid. By contrast, all the men in this case, and their fathers, were raised in this with this belief system and very little contact, if any, with the mainstream world. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and etc. were all men who had contact with mainstream society and were part of it.

    This is multi-generational brainwashing here. Not all the boys get kicked out. This isn’t Jim Jones. Warren Jeffs wasn’t a normal guy who decided he was a prophet one day and started a cult group. He was raised as the son of the prophet of this group, groomed for leadership, and if you know his history, abused by his own father in accordance to their belief system. If you knew anything about this group, you would recognize that it has been around in its present form since about 1920. These families have lived in isolation and fear almost 100 years, with little contact with the world outside their church.

    So yes, I will continue to see the adult men in this as sad and as victims. It doesn’t mean I don’t think some of them are child abusers, I just am not going to sit here and bash them ad hominem. I am glad that Warren Jeffs is in prison and I think he was rightly convicted. I would be happy to see any of the fathers or mothers rightly convicted of abuse go to prison. But I reserve the right to see that they were brainwashed and abused themselves.

    Further, you missed my point about the phone call. I don’t think one anonymous phone call, which appears to be a prank call at that, should be justification for taking all the children out of this community carte blanche. If they can show specific cases of child abuse in certain families, I have no problem with that. What happened here is a raid as a result of an anonymous phone call, of a whole city.

    If a home school girl called 911 and said, “My brother rapes me, my parents don’t care, they’re controlling, teach me that I’m property, won’t let me out of the house unsupervised, won’t allow me basic medical care, and are trying to arrange my marriage and I’m only 17,” should that give the state the right to go and remove all home school children in one town from their families? I sure don’t think so. Remember, the government has been tracking home schoolers for years. . .

  315. sarah Says:

    Lin, all I can say is you haven’t actually read my posts, because you have not, in any case, addressed my point. I have explained in every post that I have made on this about the men that this is a multi-generational, entrenched way of life for them. That is my point, and why I feel badly for them, too.

    Hitler and Pol Pot did not have 4 or 5 generations of their family where they were all dictators and mass murderers and isolated from society. Hitler’s mother did not raise to become a war monger. Stalin’s father was not a 4th generation murderer. The comparison is invalid. By contrast, all the men in this case, and their fathers, were raised in this with this belief system and very little contact, if any, with the mainstream world. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and etc. were all men who had contact with mainstream society and were part of it.

    This is multi-generational brainwashing here. Not all the boys get kicked out. This isn’t Jim Jones. Warren Jeffs wasn’t a normal guy who decided he was a prophet one day and started a cult group. He was raised as the son of the prophet of this group, groomed for leadership, and if you know his history, abused by his own father in accordance to their belief system. If you knew anything about this group, you would recognize that it has been around in its present form since about 1920. These families have lived in isolation and fear almost 100 years, with little contact with the world outside their church.

    So yes, I will continue to see the adult men in this as sad and as victims. It doesn’t mean I don’t think some of them are child abusers, I just am not going to sit here and bash them ad hominem. I am glad that Warren Jeffs is in prison and I think he was rightly convicted. I would be happy to see any of the fathers or mothers rightly convicted of abuse go to prison. But I reserve the right to see that they were brainwashed and abused themselves.

    Further, you missed my point about the phone call. I don’t think one anonymous phone call, which appears to be a prank call at that, should be justification for taking all the children out of this community carte blanche. If they can show specific cases of child abuse in certain families, I have no problem with that. What happened here is a raid as a result of an anonymous phone call, of a whole city.

    If a home school girl called 911 and said, “My brother rapes me, my parents don’t care, they’re controlling, teach me that I’m property, won’t let me out of the house unsupervised, won’t allow me basic medical care, and are trying to arrange my marriage and I’m only 17,” should that give the state the right to go and remove all home school children in one town from their families? I sure don’t think so. Remember, the government has been tracking home schoolers for years. . .

  316. Lin Says:

    The gov has been tracking these groups for years and from first hand testimonies of illegal activity…polygamy…desertion of lost boys…underage marriage, etc. Then you have the moving to the closed off compound.

    Maybe you don’t think underage marriage to old men is sexual abuse. I do. And the law does, too which is why it is illegal. I hope and pray the children are kept out. Perhaps, then they will have a chance to hear about the REAL Jesus Christ. Perhaps when they can figure out whose kids belong to whom they can convince some women to stay out, too.

    One of the saddest reports was of the young man who said he grew up with 40 brothers and sisters and never knew his dad at all except from a distance. He had never even talked to him!

    Generations of brainwashing does not excuse illegal and immoral behavior. This will be my last post on the subject because we are talking past each other.

    Blessings to you even though we disagree. :o)

  317. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If you knew anything about this group, you would recognize that it has been around in its present form since about 1920. These families have lived in isolation and fear almost 100 years, with little contact with the world outside their church.”

    So since when does that make it acceptable to break the law? What these people are doing in the name of religion is WRONG and illegal, and a longstanding tradition of wrongdoing and lawbreaking does not justify the lawbreaker.
    If it did, the multigenerational bootleggers still operating in Appalachia would have it made in the shade!

  318. sarah Says:

    I give up. You are not reading my posts objectively at all.

    For the last time, I said if they are engaged in activities that are wrong, they should be punished accordingly. I clearly condemned the child abuse and sexual abuse. I just said I felt badly for even the perpetrators here, too, because of the way they were raised. That poor boy you spoke of, with the 40 siblings, who never knew his dad, well, in 10 years he would be the sinister villain in these cases, and I guess he would no longer be sympathetic to you, but evil incarnate instead. As I stated, I think Warren Jeffs deserves to be in prison, but I still feel badly for him given his background and the abuse he clearly suffered as a child.

    Color me purple, but I tend to agree with Kevin Swanson on this one! Who knew?

  319. Cindy K Says:

    Sarah,

    Your timing might be off for some. When things are more resolved, your considerations might not be taken as such. The wounds may be too fresh for some. You know, kind of like war movies that don’t do well until the country has had a time to heal and put difficult things into perspective.

    And I think that it might be easier to take if Warren Jeffs had shown some contrition, so he would then warrant more compassion from people.

    I remember how I was when I left my crazy church and was still dealing with emotions that seemed to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. (I deeply love this person, but they lied to me and hurt me like no one else could..) It took years to be able to get enough emotional distance to be able to have compassion and pity for those who had mistreated me. And another thing to consider is that this stuff pulls out uninvolved people’s own personal garbage that they may have never dealt with, so not everyone finds it easy to look at things with a more detatched perspective.

    It just might be too soon for most people to be at ease to discuss things, particularly when things are still a struggle for the women and children.

    But I completely see what you’re saying. The abused become abusers, and this is all they’ve known.

  320. molleth Says:

    Sarah,
    I’m of the same opinion you are. I think that maybe a few of the “patriarchs” chose this out of the evil desires of their heart, sure. But most of the men are likely just doing what they think God wants them to do, just as the women married to them, etc, are doing the same.

    It’s easy to point the finger at one part and say, “Evil! It’s all YOUR fault.” But that would be to deny all the complexity there is in situations like this. There’s no easy way in, and there’s no easy way out. It’s a big muddled tangled ball of yarn. It’s not the women’s fault, and it’s not the men’s fault. There is no one easy scapegoat upon which to pile all the blame.

    It’s the fault of the deciever and people who are readily deceived. It’s the fault of an ideology that was trumpeted in the name of God, and people (good ones, bad ones, smart ones, dumb ones, and honest sincere seeking ones) who got sucked into it.

    We humans have been deceiving and being deceived since Adam and Eve first ate the forbidden fruit. I don’t think we should ascribe evil motives to others unless we are CERTAIN that they knowingly participated in and led others into evil. In all likelihood, most of the people in this compound, men just as much as women, were simply doing what they thought God wanted. That part is what is so very sad.

  321. Lin Says:

    OK, I have to ask this. Do you guys not think Polygamy is wrong? We know for a fact Polygamy is illegal. But is it immoral or just a lifestyle choice if you are brainwashed for generations?

    Molleth, what I do not understand about your “Evil, its all YOUR fault’ is that we are ONLY saved by conviction of sin and our need for a Savior. Otherwise there is no salavation…just cheap grace. Is the sin I am convicted of when I am saved…not my fault? If it is not my fault then how can I be convicted of it to be saved? If I do not see how depraved and sinful I really am how can I be saved? And how can I be convicted consistently of sin so I can repent and grow in holiness if it is not my fault?

    Do you guys honestly believe that when these young teen boys are driven out to the desert and dropped off…banished…from their homes so the old guys can have the young girls…their own fathers do not know this is wrong? Even atheists love their kids!

    Guys, go to any prison and ask any hardened murderer who grew up around hate and murder all their lives if they know murder is wrong. They KNOW it! How do they know that?

    I went with a friend of mine to a prison where she interviewed 25 pedophiles. Most of them had been sexually abused as children and grew up in that world. Everyone single one of them knew it was wrong and admitted they knew it was wrong before they did it. Everyone one of them said they did not want to overcome the temptation. Does that mean it is not their fault? They all knew it was not ‘normal’.

    None of these people have a chance of hearing about the REAL Jesus and the Gospel message that saves unless they are out of there.

    This is NOT like following a certain brand of Patriarchy. We have polygamy, desertion of their own kids, sex with young girls by old men who they are not legally married to…and so on…Where is the “IF” they are doing something wrong here? Do you guys really think these things are not wrong? I am so confused with your line of thinking and am a bit shocked.

    These men knew it was wrong and that is the reason they built the secluded compound…because they are breaking our laws and they know it. And the men who rule are NOT secluded all the time. They run businesses and are out in the world. They see a whole world around them not living in polygamy or old men married to 15 year olds. So, they hide it. What does that tell you?

    It’s no ones fault?

  322. Cindy K Says:

    This stuff strikes very deeply for me, but this is really wonderful because I don’t feel so personally engaged directly as I probably would have a year ago. Hooray for emdr.com!!!! And the Amen Clinic for a referral to a good Christian counselor!!! To God be the glory for the help and healing that has occurred in my life.

    Okay, praise fest concluded (sort of). To the matter at hand. One of the first, deeply personal things like this that I was faced with as a young girl was my sad situation with my cousin. His promiscuous mother had married a drunken gambler and divorced him, never living with him for very long, bringing the two boys home to her parents when they were very young, the youngest still a baby. She worked all the time, and it was left to her own parents and sister to do all the primary care and parenting. When they were both about about8 – 10 years old, the mom remarries a hot head who was mean to those boys, eventually hitting them as they got older. I know the mother acted like she could care less for those boys because I stayed with them while a family member was ill, and as a six year old girl, I was placed in the care of the 10 year old for the week. He fed me and cared for me. I went to school with the mother (who taught my grade), but when we got to her house, she disappeared for the rest of the evening.

    When the youngest was about 12, he was arrested for shoplifting model glue which he huffed to get high. They sent him to reform school for a year or two. A year or so later, he was smoking pot, eventually getting arrested more than once. In recent years, he’s been arrested for drunk driving and has done some jail time. He’s in his late 40s now, has a live in girlfriend and helps parent her son. He dropped out of college in his younger years, bought a sad little trailer where they live and he works doing roofing. The older brother who has two grown sons now is divorced and also lost his driver’s license for DWIs/DUIs.

    I so deeply love this cousin(the younger one), and I know how wounded he is. Until I was about 10 years old, we spent about 8 weeks of every summer together. He is a lover, a kind hearted kid, who essentially has had no parenting since he was displaced from his grandparents’ home at about age 8. When he was arrested and each time he was arrested after that, the topic of discussion was raised in our home about how culpable he was and at what point he became fully responsible for his own actions. He’s heard the Gospel from me numerous times in his life, but never responded that I know.

    I’ve also wondered about the different people that have abused me over the years, including the man in his 50s that repeated molested me — I finally brandied a butcher knife at him when I was unavoidably alone with him when I was 14 to keep him away from me. I told him that if he ever touched me again there at his mother’s home, I would find a way to get to his house and I would take that knife and see to it that he had no capacity to harm me in the way that he had again. So at some point amidst a long, confusing and sick relationship of compassion/love/friendship/trust/mistrust/
    pain/psych abuse/sex that eventually ended in a rape when I was a little older, I asked myself these same questions about him — when was he responsible, but I asked when I became responsible and what would I do to protect myself.

    I also think about my pastor who eventually lied to me and who assisted and rewarded so many abusive husbands, one who pulled the biggest brain job on me since my molester. This was certainly a man who knew better, a Christian, but someone who was born again into a system of spiritual abuse. There was real, effective ministry that took place there. I love that man like I love a father and a close friend, but with knowledge of the truth and access and a love for the Word of God, he had to become fully culpable for his actions along the way.

    In the cult exit literature, there is a book called “Snapping” that discusses the point at which your conscience becomes seared enough that the “things that don’t make sense” about the cult stop bothering you, causing you to “snap” psychologically. It is the point at which the cognitive dissonance that is inevitable in those situations takes over, and the personality alters itself so that thought, emotion and behavior all conform to pressure and one becomes part of the system in order to survive the deep cognitive stress of the group. I remember coming to terms with the fact that I myself had snapped, for I found this so deeply disturbing and threatening to my own sense of identity. I remember the day I sat with the exit counselor, saying to her that I surely had not snapped. And she sat there silently, looking at me deeply and with compassion as I so painfully realized that I had indeed snapped many times.

    Now, I had not let the group completely work it’s way as deeply into my own heart and soul as did the group leadership, but it was clear to me that I had indeed compromised my own integrity by deferrring to the group. And in this moment and the months that followed, I revisited all the moments where I now recognized that I had sold out in small increments. I did a lot of repenting to God and to others, and it was one of the most heart wrenching experiences that I believe a Christian can experience. Sin is still sin, and my sins were not any different in the eyes of God than those who went to greater extremes. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. I was no different than the “chief of sinners” who carried with him the memory of throwing stones at Steven until he was received up into glory. I was no different than the “vilest offender who truly believes… that moment a pardon from Jesus receives. Praise the Lord…”

    I was manipulated and it became easy for me to sin. My pastor was manipulated, never having good, healthy examples and role models as a Christian, being taught the spiritual abuse of shepherding/discipleship as the highest form of Christian living. (Like that shooter, Matthew Murray in Colorado whose best example of Christian living came from ATI and his own, flawed Christian role models?) My pastor was manipulated, and so it was easy and he was trained to accept a lower form of Christian living. And my sexual abuser — at what point was he fully culpable for molesting an eight year old that was placed in his care? And at what point was my neglected cousin responsible, left like a baby sheep without a mom or without a shepherd there to care for him?

    Sin is sin. We have the general revelation and the conscience that God puts into each man, that which Paul speaks of in Romans 1. “I am a debtor to both Greeks and to barbarians” (vs 14).

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
    24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

    The pains of conscience visit every man, whether they are made a new creation or not. Paul wrote that the things of God are foolishness to the natural man, but all have the inner sense of right and wrong until some have their hearts darkened. So we can certainly have some common compassion for the sinner, as we were once ignorant of the truth, but we are all accountable before God for our own sins. Some are more directly destructive to others than are other sins, unfortunately for victims, but the problem of sin is common to every man. We are all accountable and we all fall short of God’s glory. So in that respect, we are no different than Warren Jeffs.

    But consider also that Mormons have access to Bibles and will one day be accountable for the Scriptures that they have read, whether they were taught a twist on them or not. I still hang my head, remembering my own days of darkness of misunderstanding and misapplying the Word of God, for those days are many. And my life is full of sin and conviction under the Holy Spirit as I go to the cross and die daily (I hope, as this is what I deeply desire). Yet I am as culpable before a Holy God as Warren Jeffs is for his own hosts of sin and abuse. I will face God and will one day give an account for all I have done, just like every other creature that has ever lived. But my spiritual abuse and the bad experiences and my parents own growing understanding of the Word which was not perfect (though this was their highest desire) do not make me innocent. I now recall the day I went and repented to the mother of three beautiful boys who was locked in a basement at the hands of her husband, for I had taken her phonecalls and forwared them to the pastor on that day I filled in for the church secretary. I repented to her for not hearing and realizing when the pastor told me later that day that she was locked in the basement which was the reason for her many calls to him that day. I repented for my telling myself that “I must misunderstand what he’s saying — that could not have happened. — I missed something in what he’s saying.” In my own confusion and cognitive dissonance, I learned the truth and didn’t ask more questions until weeks later, learning that I had understood what he said but was duped into doing nothing. I was partially culpable for doing nothing to help that mom locked in a basement.

    And Warren Jeffs is responsible for what little of the Word of God he’s read. He’s responsible for the girls he’s manipulated and used. Matthew Murray is responsible for those he shot, and for his own head. My pastor, above and beyond and by a higher standard, is responsible for his role in so many situations, the number and likes of which I do not want to know. And I am still the chief of sinners, in the company of men whose sandals I am unworthy to unlace, all who fall short of God’s glory apart from the Atoning Blood of the Lamb.

    We are all at fault. They are all at fault. We are all fully responsible, and some of us also bear the culpability of leading others into sin through our leadership and through our testimonies. God have mercy on all of us who have saving knowledge of the Salvation and Word of God but lead others into sin. That is the scariest prospect of all. Our sins are worse than that of these who have no heart and spirit knowledge of the truth. God have mercy on us all.

  323. Cindy K Says:

    After ruminating on this a bit more, here’s another thought:

    Maybe we are confusing the purpose and value of consdering why a person may do what they do and whether that makes them responsible.

    When I consider why a person might have done something awful, considering the predisposing factors which made it easier for them to sin or harm someone does not do anything to make them less culpable. It does not exonerate them or aleviate them of the consequences of their actions.

    But it does do something for me in my own heart and mind. By separating them from the event and their “redhanded acts” by just looking at them, it allows me to have more compassion for them and thus it becomes easier for me to forgive them. This is very much apart from the consequences of their deeds.

    So in some sense, I think we are talking about these men and confusing or mitigating justice and mercy. We are all responsible to the law. In our legal system in the US, if we transgress the law, we are guaranteed the right to trial and are innocent until proven guilty. But the system and process has two parts, one that finds justice first, then one to show mercy in a higher court.

    We are tried in a lower court to determine whether and to what extent we have done right or wrong. So do we all stand judged before Him with which we have to do. We all go with our sins upon our own heads before God. We are found guilty before a holy God, just as those who transgress the law are found guilty of the law.

    The court that offers mercy to the those who break the law and violate others is a different process and a higher court. It is at least, a higher process. In that court, the mitigating factors and the contrition of the person, the likelyhood of further harm to others is considered. It is then the decision of the judge to offer and extend the punishment and the righteous requirement of the law, or that judge can choose to offer mercy and forgiveness to the offender.

    So I see Lin saying “Don’t forsake justice and wink at the blatant and harmful transgressions of the law.”

    I also see Sarah and Molly saying “Have compassion and show Christian charity to these people because they don’t know their right hand from their left.”

    I defer to the proverbs and the whole idea that ignorance of the law is not a defense against breaking the law. First comes the determination of JUSTICE. After justice is determined, then comes MERCY. They are two different courts, one a lower court and one a higher court. I would say that it is just as much a sin for a Christian to skip the justice process to rush in to show mercy as it is for the Christian to refuse to show mercy to those who have REPENTED of their sins. That is also a factor, for we are only required by God to show forgiveness and to wipe the slate in practical matters when people repent and demonstrate contrition. When we go to the Cross, we are judged by God’s holiness. When we resist the Cross, we do not merit forgiveness or mercy. That is a factor to consider. In that case, considering the mitigating and contributing factors that lead to someones sin gives us human reason that helps us be more forebearing and to suffer under injustice without forgiveness, and it helps us not PERSONALLY want to seek vengence or punishment for those who have not repented. It gives us reason and facilitates our ability to “have a longer fuse.” Because sooner or later, violation and unwilling or required sacrifice leads to resentment which becomes bitterness. The contributing factors help us resist this, but to deny justice her due, we create an inevitable environment for bitterness to grow.

  324. thatmom Says:

    I am trying to get caught up on all the posts.

    Sarah, it really sends a chill down my spine when you write about this in terms of “what if these were all homeschooled children being rounded up because there was suspected abuse in one home.” (my emphasis) We began homeschooling in a day when, in some states, that easily could have happened. We knew of people not far from us who lived in Iowa and who went to jail. Because Michigan had such restrictive laws back then, when my in-laws from the Grand Rapids area were first told about our plans to homeschool, they thought we were potential criminals, though they understood, on some level, why we wanted to bring our children home. My ever-so-dramatic mother-in-law probably was disappointed she never got to bake me a cake with a file inside!

    Back in those days, we were probably looked upon as being cultic. In fact, my husband’s boss had seen some TV special where all these militia zealots in camo where homeschooling their children in the hills of Arkansas. He thought that because my husband had been in Special Forces that this is what we were going to do. Too funny. But not funny if you step back and realize that there were people who thought we were abusing our children by removing them from school. In fact, we had people in our own church who though just by having our daughter miss prom that we were abusive. I look back and realize, especially by thinking about how this all came down in Texas, we might have had our children removed from us at one time.

    Any of us who personally remember those days can certainly understand the hesitancy Sarah feels about going into that compound and about taking those children away from their moms. I believe the way this raid was handled was wrong, wrong, wrong. There should have been a better plan for addressing the child abuse issues and in light of what is so ingrained in these people that most of them don’t know any other way of life. There should have been a better plan in place for deprogramming the women and for doing whatever they could to keep the children with their mothers. It just seems over the top for them to have gone in the way they did. I am not saying I have a better plan, I just think that the perpetrators should have been taken into custody and then a long process of sorting through this mess begun. Since, as several have pointed out here, people like Carolyn Jessup have blown the whistle on what happens inside these compounds, why wasn’t there a better plan put into place that took all the factors into consideration?

    This topic is so multi-faceted. Those of us who are Christians know many people who might be considered to be in a “cult.” What about, for example, all those people who re-locate to R. C. Sproul Jr.’s church. They are “cultish” but not in a cult. But to those on the outside who live near them might see them in another light. If they have “mother’s helpers” they might really be looked at suspiciously because of what is going on in Texas. What if one of those girls was being abused by some man. Should everyone be rounded up? And this all brings in the religious freedom factor, too. Polygamy, they way these people at LDS practice it, isn’t illegal. Neither is it illegal the way it is being done by that guy at Christian Polygamy. But that doesn’t make it moral. And what about all the people I know in my own home town who practice their own brand of polygamy, ie, teenage guys who get several girls pregnant and jump from bed to bed. Why is no one dealing with that? Couldn’t we just as easily say that the 13 year old girls who jump into bed with these guys are indoctrinated by their culture, ie TV and movies and music where bed hopping is the norm? There are lots of innocent children involved in these lifestyles as well.

    Just many random thoughts…..


  325. POLICE searching a Texas compound occupied by a polygamist sect have found a bed in a temple thought to have been used for men to have sex with their under-age wives after “marriage” ceremonies.

    The discovery was made as state troopers completed their search of the sprawling grounds of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, from which more than 400 children have been removed, said a spokeswoman, Tela Mange.

    The temple “contains an area where there is a bed where males over the age of 17 engage in sexual activity with female children under the age of 17,” according to information given to the Schleicher County sheriff.

  326. Psalmist Says:

    I wonder if there’d be more outrage if it had been the boys being sexually abused (i.e., forced into a sexual relationship at 13-16 years old)? (According to an interview I watched with Warren Jeffs’ nephew, in his community, there WAS widespread molestation of the boys.)

    Sorry to say this, but there’s a real double-standard. Sexual abuse of girls does arouse some outrage, but if you want the waste matter to really hit the ventilator, it takes boys being molested. I guess some folks (not speaking of anyone here, I’m sure) think it’s somehow more “natural” for middle-aged men to have sex with 13-year-old girls than with boys.

  327. molleth Says:

    Cindy,
    Thanks for sharing your story.

    Lin,
    I’m not saying that evil isn’t evil. I’m just saying it can get complex. It isn’t so easy as pointing the finger and saying, “It’s all the husband’s fault.” By saying it’s complex, I’m not saying the sin wasn’t horrific, or that it wasn’t deeply damaging. I’m just saying that many times, the person comitting the sin didn’t realize what they were doing. When you are brainwashed into a cult, you don’t realize the full extent of your actions. You aren’t thinking clearly: that’s why you’re in the cult in the first place. Some of these men may have purposely joined this cult in order to dominate and abuse. But I have a feeling that most of the men were dominated and abused themselves, and were raised up to think of their cult’s practices as “God’s Way.”

    Were Ezzo parents abusers, when they let their babies cry for hours on end? Or were they just duped into thinking that putting baby on a schedule was “God’s Way.” Was I an abuser, when I began training my daughter at 8 months by the Pearls methods? Or was I just duped into thinking that loving parents *had* to train their babies? Was my husband evil when he made me follow a list on how to clean our bathrooms and kitchen, or was he told that he was responsible before God for how I matured, and that he was also to see that I knew how to follow his vision—and that he would answer to God for how well I did that?

    In all three cases, the “abusers” were not intentionally abusing ANYONE. They honestly thought that they were doing things “God’s Way.” They didn’t even always *like* what they were doing, but they thought they had to do it, and after a while, learned to push aside their feelings so that they could “obey God.” If we could go back and do it over again, WE WOULD. NOW, we see how stupid we were. But then, we really truly honestly believed we were doing things God’s Way.

    I think that’s why I react against a blanket statement of “guilty” towards all the men in this fundamentalist LDS group. I have a feeling that most of them sincerely believed they were following God’s path.

    That doesn’t make the abuse any less abusive. That doesn’t make the pain go away. I’m not saying it does. They are guilty of abuse, yes. But to say that they FULLY RATIONALLY knew what they were doing, knew that they were decieving women and children and did so on purpose, purposely chose to hurt and control and dominate and abuse? I know far too many people who’ve been completely decieved, myself included, to say that.

  328. TulipGirl Says:

    “Were Ezzo parents abusers, when they let their babies cry for hours on end? Or were they just duped into thinking that putting baby on a schedule was “God’s Way.” Was I an abuser, when I began training my daughter at 8 months by the Pearls methods? Or was I just duped into thinking that loving parents *had* to train their babies?

    Were we abusers? I’d say no. Were our actions abusive? I’d say yes.

    What is so heart-breaking within the Christian community is the well-intentioned child abuse perpetuated by parents who are loving and desiring only the best for their children. That was me. That was you. And it harmed our children, our families and ourselves. I would completely agree with you that so many of them (so many of us) are not abusers while our actions would rightly be be judged to be abusive.

    That’s speaking frankly and awfully. Intentions were only the best, motivation was love and wanting to do the “right” thing. Sadly deceived. . . the actual actions were harmful.

  329. Lin Says:

    “I’m not saying that evil isn’t evil.”

    Good! You guys had me worried for a while! :o)

    ” I’m just saying it can get complex. It isn’t so easy as pointing the finger and saying, “It’s all the husband’s fault.” By saying it’s complex, I’m not saying the sin wasn’t horrific, or that it wasn’t deeply damaging. I’m just saying that many times, the person comitting the sin didn’t realize what they were doing. When you are brainwashed into a cult, you don’t realize the full extent of your actions.”

    Just curious here: Would the view of ‘being decieved’ affect how you would view the crimes of polygamy, desertion of the boys and underage marriage of young girls to old men if you were on a jury during a trial of these leaders?

    Lastly, I just cannot equate your brand of patriarchy with polygamy, underage marriage of teen girls to old men and desertion of teen boys. You may have been deceived with good intentions but how can we view it the same for fathers who allow their children to be banished in the desert or old men who marry and rape young girls. (yes, it is rape). We know for a fact, one girl who has testified she did NOT want to marry the old man but was forced to by her father. The man already had 4 wives and a ton of kids.

    I guess I am confused. Are these crimes or just deception? Are we willing to say Muslims are deceieved because of brainwashing so we allow Sharia law to be practices in their communities? Where is due process for the women?

  330. molleth Says:

    Ah, I see what you are saying, Lin (well, I think so). 🙂

    I’m not saying that the women (and children) shouldn’t be given due process. I can lament the circumstances that led many of these men into such abusive acts, while still wholeheartedly agreeing that the acts are wrong and must be stopped. In other words, I don’t think that hating the men is a requirement for believing that justice should prevail.

    Hope that makes sense.

  331. thatmom Says:

    In case you didn’t see this, I wanted to make sure everyone here knew that the podcasts interviews with Cindy Kunsman on the topic of spiritual abuse have begun and the first one is online. I hope you all will participate in any discussions we have in the comment sections each week.

    http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/april-18-podcast/#comments

  332. Lin Says:

    “In other words, I don’t think that hating the men is a requirement for believing that justice should prevail. ”

    That must be were our breakdown is. Saying something is evil does not mean I hate the person who commits evil. Wanting justice for the ‘least of these’ does not mean I hate the person doing the injustice. But I do hate the evil and injustice and believe those who perpetuate it should be held accountable.

    Was that clear as mud? :o)

  333. sarah Says:

    Actually, I think adults who want to live by Sharia law, polygamy, or patriarchy should be allowed to.

    My problem comes in when they abuse their children, don’t teach them the skills they need to be self-sustaining adults, etc. If they want to do that in America, they ought to be held accountable according to our present laws. If they move to Iran, they will be bound by the laws there, and perhaps those law will be more to their liking.

    Do I hate the subjection of women? Yes. But if an adult woman chooses to live that way, so be it. It’s a whole ‘nother world if we are talking about a brainwashed 17 year old girl. And I also think I have a right to tell the adult woman who chooses why I think she has chosen incorrectly – that’s not belittling, that’s respectful, regardless of what the patriarchs claim.

    Any of these people, making and informed choice, should be open to dialog. So far, they have not been open to discussion but rather threaten and attack those who disagree with them. The patriarchy folks cloister themselves and decry any influence that is outside their narrow circle/ideology.

    Personally, I think the El Dorado polygamists have been the most gracious of these fundamentalist groups – at least they acknowledge that their lifestyle is different and not for everyone.

  334. Psalmist Says:

    There comes a point, however, where a group’s freedom to “be different” conflicts big-time with the law of the land. In the case of El Dorado, the law that those people’s “different life style” conflicts with is the law prohibiting young adolescents from marrying, which is closely related to laws against statuory rape.

    If a community’s customs include violation of the basic legal protections of that community’s children–and El Dorado’s most certainly do–then the rights of those children should trump the rights of the adults to engage in polygamy (specifically, in El Dorado’s case, polygyny).

    It seems to me that El Dorado’s right to be different includes an inherent expectation that their girls will be sold off/given away in marriage in their early teens, certainly before they are old enough to give informed consent. And the slippery “it’s only spiritual marriage” is no defense of the practice. If it’s a consummated marriage, it involves statutory rape so long as the “bride” is a minor.

    There was a time when “because polygamy is against the law” was sufficient cause to arrest both husband and wife for engaging in the practice. But here again, I have an uncomfortable suspicion that because these people were hiding behind “religious freedom” and because the primary victims of the illegal activity were only girls, people have been too willing to wink and nod at the fact that El Dorado was a safe haven for law-breakers.

    And now we have over 400 children who don’t seem to know who their parents even are. I think the judge made the only prudent decision possible: conduct DNA testing to determine who the children’s parents are. I hope they’re looking closely at how many adolescent boys there are compared to girls of the same age.

    Why is it that people cry so loudly for “religious freedom,” yet consistently deny the responsibility and accountability that any true freedom must entail?


  335. Sarah, can I ask a point blank question?
    I mean no ill will at all and don’t want to be argumentative, I really don’t 🙂

    It would just help me to clarify where you are coming from.

    Have you ever yourself been “into” patriarchy or caught up in the movement in any way personally?

    I ask because I am a 30 year old woman. I have grown up in the best of circumstances and had a wonderful, moral, Christian childhood. I made some bad choices as a teen and young adult, but nothing I didn’t learn from and rebound from. I have a pretty good IQ and I’m overall considered to be a “smart” lady.

    I fell into patriarchy and agreed with the teachings not because I’m stupid or because I was brainwashed. I simply saw a formula that was packaged prettily and sold to ready-make the perfect homeschooling, Christian family. So I bought hook, line and sinker.

    About a year or so later I finally realized it was NOT who God created me to be.

    I ask because you made the statement above that: “… if an adult woman chooses to live that way, so be it. It’s a whole ‘nother world if we are talking about a brainwashed 17 year old girl”

  336. sarah Says:

    Normal Middle, you were an adult woman who chose patriarchy for a time. I have no problem with you making that choice, even though I think it is a poor choice. I don’t think every point the patriarchs make is wrong, and they have some very persuasive leaders who eloquently argue that patriarchy is how Christians are called to live. I am not saying you were stupid or brainwashed to choose it.

    Some young people are brainwashed to choose it. Normal, you were not raised in it exclusively with limited contact with the outside world. That is what I think is brain washing, when people are not allowed to think critically about things. You were allowed to think critically, and thus as a thinking adult chose to leave the patriarchy movement.

    The Amish, for example, do not cut their children off from the world entirely and allow them to choose the Amish life or not. Although I am sure there is great to remain Amish, they nonetheless have the rumspringer tradition. I see none of this “education” or “choice” in patriarchy or FLDS polygamy.

    As a home school graduate, age 28, I am painfully familiar with patriarchy, its proponents, and its ills. Although I would never say I was caught up in patriarchy, it has directly impacted my life.

    I have said all I want to say about my position on the child abuse alleged to have occurred at the compound. See my previous posts on this subject.

    And, factually, in terms of the DNA testing of the compound kids, it’s because the terrified parents and kids are lying to officials about who belongs to whom. Lying is a part of their subculture, especially to government investigators. It’s not because the kids don’t actually know who their parents are.

  337. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Was that clear as mud? :o)”

    Lin, I understand you perfectly, and I am in perfect agreement with you, too.

  338. Lin Says:

    Sarah, we would have to suspend the Constitution in order to allow a group to practice Sharia law. There are no individual rights or due process under Sharia law.

    If a woman is raped she can be killed. The man is not punished. A thief can have his hand cut off. A woman’s testimony does not count in Sharia law. Slavery is legal under Sharia law. Most people do not realize what all Sharia law entails. I have forgotten most of what I have read and been taught about it but what little I remember, I do know it is henious.

    Under Sharia law, a woman could not say, wait, I now want due process since I was raped in America.

    The problem is not just what adults choose to do, it is getting out when you realize you have made a bad choice, too. That is the hard part in any of these cults. And if we allow their ‘law’ we cannot even help those who want out legally.

  339. Alisa Says:

    sarah said – “Some young people are brainwashed to choose it. Normal, you were not raised in it exclusively with limited contact with the outside world. That is what I think is brain washing, when people are not allowed to think critically about things. You were allowed to think critically, and thus as a thinking adult chose to leave the patriarchy movement.”

    Let me tell you, this is EXACTLY what is happening to the young people in patriocentric homes. They are cut off from contact with anybody that might have a “negative” influence on them, ESPECIALLY “mainstream/normal” Christians who could possibly shed some Biblical light on holes in the patriarchal mindset.

    They ARE being cut off from the outside world, they ARE being “programmed” into this lifestyle, and they certainly ARE NOT allowed to think critically about what they are being taught; if they did that they would be considered “in rebellion” and are then subject to further “re-programming”.

    Just how many young women who grew up in this will “wake up” to the truth and find that they are now married to a dominionist and bearing children every 16 months for the next 20 years and that they are stuck in a man-made paradigm because that was all they ever knew?

    This may have nothing to do with what you were discussing, but when I read that I couldn’t help but be reminded just why this is so important.

  340. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Most people do not realize what all Sharia law entails.”

    Much of Sharia sounds a lot like the “reinstitution of “Biblical” law” that Gary North and his followers advocate.

  341. Lin Says:

    With Sharia law some do not realize that there are even beheadings and stonings in places like Saudia Arabia in stadiums where thousands come to watch…cheer!

    It is barbaric.

  342. sarah Says:

    Alisa: “Just how many young women who grew up in this will “wake up” to the truth and find that they are now married to a dominionist and bearing children every 16 months for the next 20 years and that they are stuck in a man-made paradigm because that was all they ever knew?”

    I have seen this up close in personal. It’s really sad and it does lead to divorce on occasion. :-(. Biblical courtship and patriarchy do not divorce proof marriages, no matter what the Prairie Muffins tell us.

  343. thatmom Says:

    35) This society worships rugged individualists, and lone ranger Christians are often the rule rather than the exception. While we know that it is becoming more difficult to find family-friendly and biblically-based churches, Prairie Muffins reject the notion that commitment to a local church is optional. We affirm the importance of the church in our families’ lives, and we willingly submit to its leaders. It is our desire to raise children who are life-long worshipers in the pew and future leaders of strong churches.

    36) Prairie Muffins are happy to be girls—they rejoice in the distinctives which God sovereignly bestowed on them which make them feminine. They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God’s grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.

    37) Prairie Muffins may go against the flow, but they also know how to roll with the flow. Living moment by moment, day by day, season by season, they don’t depend on present circumstances to dictate their direction in life. Circumstances change constantly, so Prairie Muffins hang tightly onto the Father’s hand while they ride out the waves of life that ebb and flow past their doors.

  344. TulipGirl Says:

    “I have seen this up close in personal. It’s really sad and it does lead to divorce on occasion. :-(. Biblical courtship and patriarchy do not divorce proof marriages, no matter what [so many people] tell us.”

    I’ve witnessed that, too. . . And divorce, and struggling marriages and “failed” courtships. . . and people feeling like they “failed” their families because even though they did everything by-the-book, they still have more problems than they ever anticipated. But then they are stuck–because they placed their faith in “principles” and the struggle is to take their eyes off the “principles” and put them back on Christ.

  345. RichardD Says:

    This society worships rugged individualists, and lone ranger Christians are often the rule rather than the exception.

    What, then, is the purpose of a Manifesto describing in detail how Prairie Muffins are to follow the crowd of Prarie Muffins? Somehow I don’t sense “rugged individualism” here.

  346. JohannaS Says:

    “…and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions…”

    These two principles are in contradiction to me. Men can have “habits” and not be in sin, just because it’s in their make-up as boys….but women can have very real hormone shifts and have to be careful not to sin? Why can’t they just both be careful not to sin??? I’m in a hurry so I’m not sure I’m making sense but did anyone else scratch their head over this?

  347. thatmom Says:

    Johanna, this really bothered me as well.

    First of all, what constitutes “boys will be boys” behavior? And when is it just plain old immaturity that we might be feeding? After living in a household with, now 6 men, for more than 3 decades, I still do not know that “correct” answer for this. However, I can tell you that hormone issues are real and are thrust upon us without any choice of our own much of the time. Right now I struggle with the hot flash issue. I can feel find and suddenly be so hot I want to rip off all my clothes and jump into a barrel of ice water. And a few minutes later I am cold, even without the ice water. It often takes a lot of self-control to not react to this sensation.

  348. Beatrice Says:

    Number 36 in the PMM REALLY bothers me. About the boys-will-be-boys thing, I remember Spunky said something in one of thatmom’s podcasts, to the effect of “Why, when men are immature, do people like Debi Pearl when her husband upset the trash excuse it by chalking it up to masculinity?” I thought that was a good point. Yes, men and women are different and we need to give each other understanding. But are there times when we baptise mere cultural expectations and personal faults as “the way God made them?” I think so.

    But what bothers me the most is this “submit to God that He made you a woman” thing. There is a such a real core of truth to that. We MUST submit to what God has made us to be, and that includes whatever gender He made us. BUT … look at the context this statement is being in, the rest of the Manifesto, lots of which we’ve already discussed, Carmon’s theological background and influences, the friends she hangs out with online like Mrs. Macdonald, ect. All those extra Scriptural ideas floating around. It reminds of me reading a testimony in the SO Much More book, about a girl who struggled with being feminine and wishing she were a male. Eventually she came to accept what she was. Which sounds good, but look at the context of this story. It’s in a book that has lots of dubious ideas presented as sound Scriptural teaching. Girls who read this who may be struggling with their identity will feel not only pressure to submit to this girl’s idea of godly femininity, but perhaps the whole shebang of stuff outlined in the book. Also, this girl in her testimony describes a period in her life of tomboyishness as living in sin. Gaaak! What a horrible message for the many God-honoring girls who climb trees and play sports and delight in having a strong body (like this girl says she did) and would never be caught dead in a dress.

    To sum up, we already knew we must accept God’s will in ordaining our gender,as well as other things about us. So why do we need to read stuff that not only tells us what we already knew, but puts it in a atmosphere that loads it with extra-Scriptural implications?

    This bothers me so much because of the wonderful girls I have known througout my life, some of whom are my close friends, and many of whom are homeschooled. Some girls love babies, some don’t enjoy babysitting. Some girls love dressing up, others don’t so much or not at all. Some like to take dance class, others to climb trees and play soccer and run like the wind. Some are computer geeks. Others are bookworms. Some love wearing dressess, others you’d have to pay to wear anything with a skirt. Some live or will continued to live with their families, some don’t, or will not at one point. Some love being a girl, others struggle a bit. And it makes me angry to think of the ones who struggle with their identity being fed some of this junk that circulates in the Christian world. Grrrr. It makes me angry that man-made, extra Scriptural rules would just put all of these wonderful girls in some tight little boxes. I’m angry at myself for previously judging some of these girls for things that weren’t sin.

  349. JohannaS Says:

    Good point about the “tomboys”! I was one. I had dolls growing up but my favorite thing to do was play with Matchbox cars. I had cowboy boots, a “rifle” and a target. I wore overalls, shorts, jeans, and hated wearing dresses. (I still prefer to wear anything other than a dress.) I still has “girlish” qualities such as I enjoyed playing house, wanted to be a wife and mother someday but my parents never discouraged me from my “boyish” interests. I don’t understand the stereotypes; I really don’t. If women are under such pressure to wear dresses, sit with a blank smile at all times, and bake bread 24/7, what of the boys who enjoy cooking or other “feminine” activities? Are they shamed?

  350. JohannaS Says:

    Hit submit too soon…

    Are boys made to feel like sissies as Michael Pearl so “nicely” put it (eye roll) if they are not interested in shoot ’em up games or in hunting or fishing or other so-called manly activities?

    If they are not in sin, why not let children just be who God made them to be?

  351. Cynthia Gee Says:

    ” Girls who read this who may be struggling with their identity will feel not only pressure to submit to this girl’s idea of godly femininity, but perhaps the whole shebang of stuff outlined in the book.”

    Well, who WOULDN’T want to be male, if being female meant only what people like the Botkins claim that it does?

    Thank God that HE made true femininity to be so much more than the narrow little box prescribed by the patriarchal definition!

  352. Beatrice Says:

    Sounds like you were a very normal, happy little girl to me. 🙂

    I hope no familes in the general patriocentric, or VF circles would actually impose those cliches and stereotypes on their familes. But looking at some of their literature, I fear that is not the case.

    Yeah. Why not let children be who God made them to be?

  353. Beatrice Says:

    Amen, Cynthia.

  354. Lin Says:

    This bothered me as well. It is not boys will be boys…it is ‘sin is sin’.

    I am having a few challenges about this right now with some ‘Christian’ parents at my daughter’s school. They think some of the stuff the boys are saying and doing are amusing and shows they are ‘just boys’. I think it is a wake up call for them to see these boys need to be trained and disciplined. The parents attitudes toward behavior like this breeds worse when unchecked.

  355. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Lin, I know what you mean.

    This reminds me of those tiresome people who claim that boys and men have a harder time “controlling themselves” and avoiding temptation, and so they are not really to be blamed for bad behaviour, and who maintain that God made women with superior self control, and so women must always take the moral high ground and keep their weaker brothers from sin.

    Yet, these same folks generally say that women must not work or speak in church or ever make any decisions on their own because women are the weaker vessel.

    Does anybody besides me see the disconnect here? Anybody who wants to have theior cake and eat it to the extent that these folks do, ought to buy a bakery.

  356. Sandy Says:

    “This reminds me of those tiresome people who claim that boys and men have a harder time “controlling themselves” and avoiding temptation, and so they are not really to be blamed for bad behaviour, and who maintain that God made women with superior self control, and so women must always take the moral high ground and keep their weaker brothers from sin.”

    So, if we women are the ones who have superior self-control and are to keep our weaker brothers form sin, why are the men the ones who are supposed to have control???

    Yes, Cynthia, there is a HUGE disconnect here and this kind of teaching is tiresome. Unfortunately it seems to appeal to the sin nature in many people because it masquerades giving into that sin by covering it with supposed biblical justification. Within that system. people are taught NOT to think and so the disconnect is not as obvious and difficult to realize. If my husband doesn’t follow through on his responsibilities, well boys will be boys but if I speak a bit louder than normal or am more emotional due to hormones, I’m in sin and need to be more submissive. Yikes!

  357. Joanna-from-England Says:

    They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up.

    Emphasis on the word ’emanate’

    One imagines grimly smiling, tight-lipped Prairie Muffins nobly putting up with men/boys who don’t wash, who leave the toilet seat up, who leave skid marks in the pan, who suffer from the spontaneous (or even occasionally calculated) release of intestinal gas from assorted orifices, who snore, who wear the same shirt for days on end . . .

    Poor Prairie Muffins – all that rampant Prairie-Dawgishness.

    And they’re not even allowed a little fit of hormotional (their word, not mine) tears now and again. Even when they put that seat down for the tenth time that day? Is there NO justice?

    Oh the prim and proper nobility of it all!
    I can never match up . . . sigh.

  358. Alisa Says:

    If only #35-37 could be read WITHOUT the Prairie Muffin presuppositions!

    Re #35 – We DO need to be plugged into a BALANCED/truly Biblical church. Circumstances (travel, sickness, etc) for my family have made it hard to be consistent in this lately and it’s a strange feeling not being regular attenders. I joke that we’ve become heathen! While we study at home when we can’t make it to the service, I’ve seen how important it is to not allow ourselves the “convenience” of being lone rangers.

    Re #36 – Again, I would be able to agree with this IF it could be read without the Prairie Muffin presuppositions; the context that Beatrice referenced. And yep, there is a double standard there, because there are male and female traits that fall into both the immaturity and sin categories, and to leave the impression that if its male it’s “immaturity” and if it’s female it’s “hormonal=sin”, well, that’s just evidence of a patriarchal mindset, because NOWHERE does the Bible allude to that.

    That said, it IS hard to not allow ourselves a loophole when we’re being hormonally assaulted. But there’s no loophole for our husband’s when they’ve had a long day either. And we DO need to be careful not to make our men feel like they are bad/sinful/crude simply for displaying male habits/traits. I do hope they extend the same grace to us though! ;^D O course our sin nature will occasionally intrude, but I think if everyone is committed to living with each other in an understanding way (which means being both considerate in our actions towards others and extending grace when we fail in that), I think it’s a giant leap towards harmony.

    Re #37 – This one troubles me a bit. Yes, we must be flexible if we’re going to remain sane in this crazy life. But it seems a recurring theme in patriocentric circles that we are just at the mercy of benevolent Providence, that we are helpless to have any cause and effect. To me, that kind of ignores this simple reality that we teach our kids daily; if you don’t do this, then this is what happens, if you do this, this is the consequence, etc.

    What about these verses; “A man PLANS his steps, but the Lord determines his way”, or, “Do not say ‘On such and such day we will do this’, but ‘if the Lord wills, we will go here and do this'”. In both cases the man (we) actually plans ahead, and I don’t think just the daily to-do list. I could be wrong, but it seems like the PM’s are ignoring/discounting long term planning that is essential for having a “vision”. Oh, the irony. Whoops, maybe this is here for Prairie Muffins because the long term vision and planning is up to the Prairie Dawgs!!!

    I think I just stumbled onto another issue women are excluded from, but I’ll leave that for another time!

  359. Alisa Says:

    “Oh the prim and proper nobility of it all!
    I can never match up . . . sigh.”

    Joanna, you’re too cute! ;^D

  360. Alisa Says:

    “Well, who WOULDN’T want to be male, if being female meant only what people like the Botkins claim that it does?

    Thank God that HE made true femininity to be so much more than the narrow little box prescribed by the patriarchal definition!”

    Thank Him, indeed!!!

  361. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “One imagines grimly smiling, tight-lipped Prairie Muffins nobly putting up with men/boys who don’t wash, who leave the toilet seat up, who leave skid marks in the pan, who suffer from the spontaneous (or even occasionally calculated) release of intestinal gas from assorted orifices, who snore, who wear the same shirt for days on end . .”

    ROFLOL!!!

    Oh, Joanna, I almost snarfled my orange soda!!!!!

    But, I guess a Dawg’s gotta do what a Dawg’s gotta do, LOL!

  362. Corrie Says:

    “They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God’s grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.”

    Huh? This sounds like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.

    Husbands have “habits” which “emanate” from the “fact that boys will be boys”? What does that really mean? What is this “boys will be boys” stuff? What are some examples of “boys will be boys” habits?

    So, basically, is this Manifesto saying that men can excuse their “hormotional” (yes, men have hormones AND emotions!) weaknesses because that is all part of being a man but a woman has no “girls will be girls” habits that are just part and parcel of being a woman?

    Makes no sense.

  363. RichardD Says:

    So, basically, is this Manifesto saying that men can excuse their “hormotional” (yes, men have hormones AND emotions!) weaknesses because that is all part of being a man but a woman has no “girls will be girls” habits that are just part and parcel of being a woman?

    Corrie … This is the man speaking, so avert your eyes and take this lesson to heart. Men have hormones, but testosterone causes men to behave brutishly and to act on impulses with a total lack of control, whereas estrogen causes gentility and politeness and increases the cranial activity in the self-control centers. This is not merely a physical manifestation and science, it is also biblical as is seen in the famous verse from 2 Hez 3:17 “Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails, thats’ what boys are made of. Sugar and spice and everything nice, that’s what girls are made of.”

    So since I have no self control, you must dress in a way so as to make yourself as ugly and unattractive as possible because if I lack self-control to this degree, surely all other men must lack the same self-control and I don’t want them hitting on my wife–especially if they are taller than 5’4″ since this could make my wife think that they are better than I am. After all, in Judah 1:9 we read: “Size matters” and then in 1 Chronologies 4:22 – “Short people got no reason to live. They got little legs that stand so low ya gotta pick them up just to say hello.”

    Here endeth the lesson.

  364. RichardD Says:

    Disclaimer: In re-reading the above post I realize that I indicated that Corrie is my wife. I’m sure she would not want anyone to make this mistake.

    😉

  365. Lin Says:

    “Does anybody besides me see the disconnect here? Anybody who wants to have theior cake and eat it to the extent that these folks do, ought to buy a bakery.”

    OH MY WORD. I never thought of it like that! YOu are right!!

  366. sarah Says:

    The boys will be boys attitude is a natural extension of patriocentrism. Patriocentrism involves the family revolving around the *male* headship figure. Here, the Prairie Muffin is simply asked to extend the male-centric thinking by adjusting her behavior and blaming herself instead of the male being responsible for his own shortcomings. In a way, it makes perfect sense viewed through the eyes of a patriocentric world view. Outside the myopia of patriocentrism, it seems absurd.

  367. Psalmist Says:

    Re: #372

    Lin, they CAN’T buy a bakery. Baking is women’s work. They already have a bakery: their own kitchens, where their wives work merrily away so that their feet need not stray from home to buy baked goods from heathen shops where either unintentional harlots (work-away-from-home women employed at the bakery) or sissified men (men who work at the bakery) are doing for them the work God ordained that women are to do. The only bakery any man needs is the one his wife runs under his command.

    (Knowhatahmean, Vern?)

  368. Psalmist Says:

    I wonder if some PMs’ and PDs’ (Prairie Dawgs’) Bibles are missing the following:

    “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became and adult, I put an end to childish ways.” (1 Cor. 13:11, NRSV)

    Or is that actually a support for the PM Manifesto, in that it’s from the “Love Chapter,” and everybody knows that men don’t need love, they need respect, so Paul was writing this chapter only to the women. After all, these qualities don’t describe a properly masculine PD, do they?

    *Patient
    *Kind
    *Non-envious
    *Non-boastful
    *Non-arrogant
    *Not rude
    *Not insisting on his own way
    *Not irritable
    *Not resentful
    *Not rejoicing in wrongdoing
    *Rejoicing in the truth
    *Bears all things
    *Believes all things
    *Hopes all things
    *Endures all things.

    Yep, love is definitely on the “pink list.” The qualities of love in action Paul gives us are way too wimpy to appeal to properly patriarchal prairie dawgs.

  369. Lin Says:

    “Or is that actually a support for the PM Manifesto, in that it’s from the “Love Chapter,” and everybody knows that men don’t need love, they need respect, so Paul was writing this chapter only to the women. After all, these qualities don’t describe a properly masculine PD, do they?”

    YOu bring up something that has perplexed me for years. I heard it over and over about men wanting respect and women want love. It seems to me, once again, we take ONE proof text and apply it as a command. And you are right…men are not exempt from 1 Corin 13. And Jesus Wept. :o)

  370. molleth Says:

    And love is respectful. It is loving to give honor, and in reverse, when Christians show honor, they should do so in love.

    The other thing that [%$#] book “Love and Respect” forgot: in 1 Peter 3, husbands are told to grant their wives honor/respect. And in Titus 2, young wives are counseled to love their husbands.

    Funny. I guess love and honor aren’t pink and blue in the Bible…

  371. Corrie Says:

    Sarah,

    Excellent point. You are right that outside the myopia of patriocentrism, this “boys will be boys” mentality seems absurd.

    I once heard the same exact phrase from a patriocentric father after his son (homeschooled, sheltered, set-apart) had sexually assaulted, both anally and orally, a very young boy.

    When the father was confronted with what his son had don by the young boy’s father, this patriocentric father told the young boy’s father that “boys will be boys and that this was just normal boyhood curiosity”. The young boy’s parents were to excuse the grossly perverse and ILLEGAL behavior of their son because “boys will boys” and God made boys to be sexually curious.

    The young boy’s parents thought his assertion was absurd.

  372. Corrie Says:

    Another similarity between patriocentrism and the Mormon polygamists is their focus on militant fecundity. The polygamists believe that a woman’s purpose and role in life is to produce as many children as possible.

  373. Corrie Says:

    Richard,

    Thank you for that wonderful lesson! (ROFLOL!!!!!)

    I was properly shame-faced when I received your instruction. 😉

  374. Corrie Says:

    When the young boy’s mother heard the ridiculous explanation of “boys will be boys” to explain why her son was sexually assaulted in a violent fashion while he was sleeping, she was told by the perp’s father that she could not understand because she was a woman. She was told that women do not have this sexual curiosity that God only gave to males. Basically, her estrogen got in the way of understanding why the assault on her son was just normal boyhood curiosity and not a crime against her son.

    Her vision of the whole situation was clouded by her gender. She was rendered inconsequential to the whole discussion because she was not a male therefore she could not understand why boys will be boys and she should not impose her own female standards.

    The mother had to be restrained from attacking the father of the perp and from doing great bodily harm.

    So much for female self-control and female non-aggression.

  375. Beatrice Says:

    number 35 in the PMM bothers me as well. This is because there is just so much bad mouthing of any kind of individualism in the VF/patriocentric circles.

    And there is a reason for that. This age IS an exceptionally individualistic one, and it bears a lot of the heritage of Romanticism, I guess. Unlike the Enlightenment era where everyone had to fit into a system, no matter whether it hurt or demeaned their humanity. But you can go to both extremes in many ways. You can worship the individual, and forget all responsibilites to family and church, need of mentors and guidance and accountability, all of that. This is bad, and we DO need other people, friends, family, churches, in our lives. When Christians encourage each other to remember this, to be humble and to need each other, that’s good.

    But it’s not good to go to the warped extreme some have done. They redefine what it means to be a healthy human being (especially for women) so that any thought of an independant mind pretty much goes down the drain. And an unhealthy dependence on others is taught in its place. This can include leeching off another in one’s spiritual life so that one does not have one’s own spiritual inquiry going on apart from a parent or church, which is a very dangerous situation, IMO. Girls are told in the Botkin’s book that they need their fathers so much, that having space away from them is dangerous. One of the girls who gave her testimony in the book was implicitly commended for leaving behind her doubts and disagreements with her father’s viewpoint and adopting them.

    When independence of ANY sort is eschewed, then we don’t get a view of self that’s any more Biblical than the most Romantic or hippie or whatever kind of individualism. When any form of individualism is demonised (as the Botkin girls do in that letter to those girls who were having parent issues, to manipulate them into adopting their own views of how the family should function) then we lose some of the most beautiful parts of being a human as God gave us the power to be, especially when this is a redeemed human. We lose strong will, free spirits, thoughful consciences that answer only to the Lord, and courage, things that make Christianity shine to the world.

    One concluding thought though – some do encourage a kind of individualism, I guess, by encouraging one to doubt one’s father if he’s not all for the Botkin kind of lifestyle, like on that post on the Your Sacred Calling blog, ect. But questioning one’s parents or spiritual leaders only seems to be allowed when what they believe conflicts with what the famous book or blog teaches. So … that’s not really individualism at all … just slavery in another guise.

  376. Rae Says:

    Alisa,

    >> I’ve seen how important it is to not allow ourselves the “convenience” of being lone rangers.

    What if you feel you’re a lone ranger at your church??? How do you not feel like a lone ranger?

  377. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Rae, please don’t take this the wrong way, but if someone is a lone ranger at their church, either the church has some unbiblical beliefs, or the individual does.

    Often people (young mothers especially) get caught up in all sorts of “sideline” pop-religion fads, such as extreme modest dress, homeschooling, parenting styles, etc, and attribute to these the same importance as they would as true religious doctrine.
    Then they try to introduce these non-issues into their church and win adherents to their cause, and this causes division.
    Eventually, they start to see themselves as being lone rangers because they have separated themselves from the rest of their congregation on the basis of personal ideas and standards which ought never divide the Body or be brought into the Church at all.

  378. Sue Says:

    Loosely based on comment 364, I have a question. And I am serious too. This is my question which I have often wondered…

    What is the big deal with a toilet seat that is up? So when we pee we have to put it down. And after that when he pees he has to pull it up. What is the big debate?

  379. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Because if you pee without looking first and it’s up, you’ll fall in!

  380. Andrea Says:

    Because if you pee without looking first and it’s up, you’ll fall in!

    That happened to my friend’s mother when she (the mother) was about eight months pregnant. It was the middle of the night, she got up to do the necessary, and found out the hard way that her husband had left the seat up! She and her very pregnant belly actually not only fell in, but they both got wedged inside the toilet and she had to holler for her husband until he woke up and came to fish her out.

    Much easier for all concerned, really, if guys can just PUT IT DOWN! lol!

  381. TG Says:

    ROTFLOLOLOL!

  382. Sue Says:

    I am trying hard not to laugh at comment 387 because it seems cruel. But my goodness, its so freaking funny. Well, we don’t have this problem in our house as we have separate bathrooms (he cleans his own too), but I was just wondering about the whole thing. 🙂

  383. Lin Says:

    Sue, To have a truly happy marriage, one must have their own bathroom. :o)

    “What is the big deal with a toilet seat that is up? So when we pee we have to put it down. And after that when he pees he has to pull it up. What is the big debate?”

    Why not just install urinals in our homes? It is the same effect when it is left up? IMHO, the seat AND the top should be put down when finished. :o)

  384. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “IMHO, the seat AND the top should be put down when finished.”

    I have a friend who would disagree with that. Deb is a self-described “hoverer”
    (probably from too many bad experiences with folks forgetting to put the seat back down!) and it seems that she went into the restroom to do her business one day and didn’t bother to turn on the light…… :O)

  385. sarah Says:

    Can’t help but weigh in on the porcelain throne issue: As one with 8 siblings given to humor and pranks, I tend to think anyone who sits down on *anything* without looking first is not only asking for trouble, they probably deserve it.

  386. Rae Says:

    Cynthia,

    >> Eventually, they start to see themselves as being lone rangers because they have separated themselves from the rest of their congregation on the basis of personal ideas and standards which ought never divide the Body or be brought into the Church at all.

    Thanks, Cynthia. I guess it would be wonderful to hear from the pulpit that homeschooling is a good school choice. Nothing is said from the pulpit about any school choice, and I guess I understand their point since it is not a doctrinal issue. It’s just such a big part of my life and our lifestyle, and to not have the church address it at all makes it feel like I can only look to the Lord for my support, not from the Body, the local church, my brothers and sisters in the Lord. I don’t know why I think I need the church’s support…

    Does anyone else ever have these feelings or “needs”?

  387. Sandy Says:

    “Does anyone else ever have these feelings or “needs”?

    Rae,
    I think this is one of the reasons we were so drawn to Gothard and his teachings. What a validation we felt. We were home schooling in the 80’s and didn’t know many others who were choosing to do the same. The church we were attending was undecided on the issue and so we felt some pressure to send our children to school elsewhere.

    The need for like minded fellowship and validation is real but it is important that we work at filling that need carefully. Finding a good support group helps. We eventually found our way to a church which considered all school choices a matter of conscience and supported us all without preaching about it form the pulpit.

    Another source of support we found was through individual members and families of our local church. There were some who wanted to support us and so i looked for ways in which to involve them. If any of them had an interesting job, hobby, or skill, I would ask them about the possibility of showing my children. This made them feel a part of our home schooling and often won over even adversarial people over. Some of these became our biggest source of support over the years.

    It’s important to actively seek sources of validation and support for your schooling choices. Those who send their children to public or provate school don’t deliberately leave out home schoolers. It’s just difficult for them to understand how big a part of life home schooling is for those who choose that route.

  388. Rae Says:

    Sandy,

    Thank you for your encouraging words and all your helpful ideas.

    Rae

  389. thatmom Says:

    Rae, I think I really struggled with this at certain periods in my life. When I was growing up, I really struggled with the fact that I fit into no paradigm. In fact, I think it really wasn’t until I sat down and thought it through and then wrote the Amazon Barbie podcast that I was able to sort it through and realize why I so desired acceptance even as a homeschooling mom. I think that changes, in part, once you graduate a child from home schooling. You will feel a huge sense of accomplishment.

    We spent many years struggling in churches that didn’t accept homeschooling and sometimes there were even church leaders who were downright hostile toward homechooling. Then we went to two different churches that were homeschoolers only and, in retrospect, that wasn’t really good either. Now we are in a church were most of the pastors are homeschoolers but no one talks about it. We are encouraged to discipline our children, to have family devotions, etc, which, of course, are the most important aspects of relationship building with our children. I think having experienced both ends of the spectrum, I am now very content to hear nothing about homeschooling on Sundays!

    Sandy is correct that most nonhomeschoolers don’t really think about it. I know that I have always purposed to go out of my way to talk with the public and private school children in church, to take an interest in their lives. I also have had friends who were working outside the home and I sought to learn about their jobs, their needs, etc. It has been so much more beneficial if I concentrate on what I can do to encourage them. Many of then have never asked about my “job” nor have they ever sought out my children to talk with them about school. I think perhaps they don’t want to sound like they are prying. I don’t know.

    I hope that helps a little.

  390. Sandy Says:

    “I think that changes, in part, once you graduate a child from home schooling. You will feel a huge sense of accomplishment.”

    Amen, Karen. I’ve done a lot of things in my life… but THIS is what gives me the greatest sense of accomplishment!

  391. thatmom Says:

    I wrote: “We are encouraged to discipline our children”

    I meant to say “disciple” our children.

  392. Cindy K Says:

    Ethics Daily just posted ANOTHER article about patriocentricity this morning — this one about militant fecundity and trends of it in the SBC. Of all the many topics I brought up in (or crammed into)that workshop, people were really disgusted by the whole militant fecundity thing. I mean really disgusted. There’s someone on the video almost groaning, and another who just keeps saying “Oh, no” and “Oh my.”

    The Board of the unnamed apologetics organization made a vague but strong statement against me (within a few days of my posting of the video online) because I cited the teachings of some big professors in the SBC seminiary system, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Evangelical Theological Society as an influence on patriocentricity. Many of these things overlap. When the video went up on You Tube, the apologetics group took a lot of heat about it and asked me to take everything down. I complied with taking the sponsoring organizations names offline, but I’m not going to take that video down. As Wade Burleson said on his blog, they want to pretend like the whole thing never happened.

    Someone that I know contacted the apologetics group who told me that they essentially said that I was only there to talk about patriarchy and not about the SBC, and even though those SBTS names were included in all the materials, even in my first submission to them (approved by the president and two other board members), they now say a couple of things. I don’t have much in writing because most of what I was told was over the phone, and even within a day or so of the two phone calls and a phonecall that my husband initiated, the facts about what was said to me have become quite “fluid.” So most of what I know came from a phonecall and there is no documentation. All I have are emails that came from the president and they only came because he objected to something I wrote to our own Richard D when I emailed him asked him to take the organization names offline. I got an email that said “that’s not what the Board said.” Well, how exactly am I supposed to know what the Board said? I’m not worthy of even a letter. In fact, when the disclaimer came out, I found it online myself before they emailed me to tell me about it. One of the things that I was told on the phone (unless I’m psychotic all of a sudden and dreamed the whole thing up) was that people in the SBC were offended that I associated them so strongly with patriocentrism.

    The other thing that this friend of mine was told was that I changed my views about Bruce Ware — that I said intially that the patriocentrics take Bruce Ware and misuse his holy perfect teachings. I would like to challenge any of you who read here to demonstrate where I’ve ever said that. The most contemporary evangelist for the misuse of Trinity to support patriocentrism is Bruce Ware and I’ve said so all along. Now the organization is telling people that I’ve suddenly changed my song? At least that’s what I’ve been told. The interested parties at the lecture certainly pushed me to say that. In fact the one commenter who interrupted the lecture said “these guys give these teachings and these guys misuse it.” When I transcribed the talk, I realized that I only identified one set of “these guys,” those being the both these seminary professors at SBTS/CBMW and the patriocentrics. In my mind they were a collective “these guys.” They started out on the right track, but then they perverted things by branching out into Subordinationism of Trinity. When I typed out what was said to me, I realized that the person making the comment was actually differentiating between “these guys” who were the SBC whose teachings were pure and “these other guys” who were the patriocentrics who abused the teachings. So if they are referring to that comment, I only saw him talking about one set of people, and he meant two — both of whom he referred to as “these guys.” This is ridiculous though, because at multiple times, I spoke with the president specifically about these matters, usually always discussing Subordinationism which comes right out of SBTS.

    Anyway, the bottom line was that I confabulated or something and drew lines between patriarchy and the SBC. Well, Ethics Daily just exonerated me again. I had no idea that this ran so deep. Al Molher’s views (SBTS president) and Paige Patterson (SWBTS president) believe this same stuff that the patriocentrics are teaching, and SBTS even hired a family integrated church specialist. I had no idea that all of this ran so deep and that association between the ideologies of both this faction in the SBC and the patriocentrics was so STRONG. I even had a couple of people on Wade Burleson’s blog say that I had UNDERSTATED the significance in the talk.

    Go to EthicsDaily.com and read the second article vindicating me. It’s easy to find… It’s today’s headline article!

    So my assertions are “unwarranted,” “misinformed” and “faulty” are they?

    Someone didn’t do their homework before they wrote their press release. But I’m not holding my breath for a retraction or an apology.

    I anticipated hearing a lot of flack about my workshop, but I had no idea that it was going to come from the Baptist Seminaries.

  393. Cindy K Says:

    I wrote above: The Board of the unnamed apologetics organization made a vague but strong statement against me (within a few days of my posting of the video online)

    That is not accurate.

    The Board informed me of their desire for me to “pretend like the whole thing never happened” two weeks ago. The press release came 6 days later.

  394. WWF Cindy K Says:

    I think that it that’s right about the timeframe, anyway. It’s not worth my trouble to look it up.

  395. JohannaS Says:

    Cindy, thanks for the link to ethicsdaily.com. As someone who grew up Southern Baptist and used to respect Mohler, I am disappointed in some of the things I’ve read. Has he always been this way and I was just blind to it? I was especially saddened to read his views on in-vitro fertilization. There are a lot of moral issues to sort out surrounding any type of fertility treatment; it is not all black and white, at least to me.

    I am afraid what the future of the SBC will be like if their leaders are of the patriarchial ilk.

  396. WWF Cindy K Says:

    Johanna,

    I respect Drs. Mohler, Moore and Ware and these others. I respect their position. I respect their credentials. They are my brothers in Christ and Al Mohler is esteemed as the premiere NT scholar today.

    But this militant fecundity business is just absolutely wrong, at least in the way they present these things. It’s a shame because the valid points of their arguments and the many items with which folks like me agree upon get lost in what Karen calls “patriocentric voodoo.” It goes from conservative to WEIRD rather quickly. And then it descends into what I call “spiritual eugenics” and what amounts to social Darwinism in the church.

    I’ve been told by several people that Al Mohler used to run with the moderate crowd, but this is his newer twist. And I ask the same questions of folks in Christian Reconstruction, particularly about Gary DeMar who I have loved for a long time. I often wonder if things changed or if the scales just fell from my eyes and now I see? I think it’s a little of change over time (so much since Y2K and since the death of Rousas Rushdoony) and my own personal growth and realization of this stuff. We never step into the same river twice, and we change along the way as well. (There’s your good Greek quote for the day, everybody.)

    God bless that editor that authored the article, someone who has clearly recognized these same trends that have been growing in patriarchy!

    Note: In the article, there’s a quote from Russell Moore who says that Baptists need to have lots of kids because they aren’t keeping up with groups like the Mormons and the Church of God.

    Is he classifying the Evangelical, Pentecostal Church of God, a denomination that actually has a strong Reformed presence in their theology department at their Lee Univeristy along with the Mormons? Is that to say that they are considered a cult in the same sense as the Mormon religion?

    I never heard anything so weird, save except for militant fecundity, that is.

  397. Lynn Says:

    http://www.emnr.org/

    I am disappointed in the disclaimer that EMNR (Evangelical Ministries to New Religions) wrote against Cindy’s talk. It is too vague. I am the one who wrote to Don Veinot, who is interim president of EMNR and Midwest Christian outreach, and his response to me was what Cindy outlined above in what is now comment #399.

    I think it would be good if you are interested, to contact EMNR and ask them to give a detailed response, instead of this vague disclaimer (I also did that). My firm opinion is if they are going to do this kind of thing to Cindy, after she was quite candid with EMNR about what she was going to include in her speech with them, that they ought to give an explanation as to why they are now disowning the speech.

    I know some information, but only from private correspondence, and being a third party, I am not the public’s information broker on this. I firmly believe it is the only right that EMNR cite what they think is in error, and simply issue their views, and let the rest of the speech stand. They can’t possibly have disagreed with all of it.

    You can find the disclaimer if you go to the above site and click on “press releases.” They also have a contact box, but I don’t know if it is functional.

  398. Light Says:

    In the article, there’s a quote from Russell Moore who says that Baptists need to have lots of kids because they aren’t keeping up with groups like the Mormons and the Church of God.

    Moore lost all credibility with me when he was quoted as saying that he sees it as a bad thing that: “practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission and consensus.”

  399. Lynn Says:

    Cindy K. caught flack from the SBC for “misrepresenting” them in her talk on Patriarchy. I just found something that I’d like to see made known all over the place, for a couple reasons, the chief one being the women out there who listen to this kind of advice and what might happen to the myriads of stories that don’t have happy endings like this one supposedly had.

    This entails the SBC and the views of their chief spokesman on domestic violence — Hat tip to the “Sandy” who posts here (I’d give her link but then this comment wouldn’t make it past WordPress’ spam filter). Sandy wrote about abuse on her blog, and cited Paige Patterson’s advice to women, which sounds exactly like Bill Gothard’s advice to women — no divorce (you need to click on the mp3 audio in the link below to hear that), as well as the following, which includes putting up with at least some physical violence and staying with the man, with no counsel to call the police, no anything like that, just prayer and submission. The anecdotal part of this is what scares me:

    http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/02/25/defendant-paige-patterson-to-be-deposed-today/

    I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”

    And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.

    And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.

    Sounds pretty hyperpatriarchal and fatalistic to me. I know one person who claims his sister committed suicide, in part (not completely, but in part) on account of trying to practice this advice that was given her, and it failed. The resultant aftermath was a tailspin that she never recovered from.

    Anyway, hyperpatriarchal or not, this qualifies as “wolfish” advice in my book.

  400. WWF Cindy K Says:

    Lynn, Lynn, Lynn.

    Wow! What can I say?

    I hope they don’t blame me for starting some letter writing campaign! 😉 At this point, I don’t really care anymore about what their position is, though I was personally disappointed with my contact person there (though I think that personally, he didn’t have a problem with my material until he took major heat from the SBC presence on the Board). This is just ugly, schoolyard bully politics, I think. Someone took great offense at how these men were classified along with the patriocentrists, and they reigned down hard on the lesser powers. I’m the least ranking power… They’re just demonstrating how the hierarchalists operate and further proving the points I made in the lecture.

    I’m embarrassed for them, at this point, especially because I didn’t do anything to reveal their names after they asked me to take the names offline. And maybe I really don’t want to know what the specifics really are about why I’m “faulty.” ? My mother was a hamster and my father smelt of elderberries ? It all might come down to presupposition and opinion which I’m apparently not allowed to have.
    And Light,

    Here’s a great couple of quotes from Ware’s book on the Trinity:

    Pg 145

    Therefore, in obeying Scripture’s command that wives submit to their husbands, it is not enough before God simply to grit your teeth, buck up, and say, “Okay, if you insist, God, even though I don’t like it and I don’t want to do it, I’ll submit.”

    Why is such begrudging submission insufficient? It is insufficient in part because it fails to understand the nature of submission as reflective of the Son’s submission to the Father, and the Spirit’s submission to the Father and the Son. In the Trinity, just as the Father takes his responsibility of authority seriously and exercises it with impeccable wisdom and goodness, so the Son and Spirit render joyous and glad-hearted submission, always longing to do just what is asked or commanded of them. In addition, begrudging submission also fails because it does not express what a wife’s submission to her husband is meant to reflect, according to Paul in Ephesians 5… Just as God calls all of us to submit to authority with a whole heart and willing spirit, so this special calling and privilege is given to wives, to the honor of Christ and his church, and as a reflection of the triune relations within the Godhead.

    There are more quotes at UnderMuchGrace.com under “AGAINST SUBORDINATIONISM” under the “Ware’s Book” option. The chapter 6 quotes are just bizarre to me. Keep checking it if it’s of interest. I have a lot to add there that I haven’t had opportunity to work on yet. I did just put up info on Trinity theories, though. And I didn’t even touch Giles’ books yet.

  401. WWF Cindy K Says:

    Lynn,

    That stuff does sound like it’s straight out of Gothard. All that’s missing is a reference to “love covers a multitude of sins, so you have to be a door mat and say nothing.” I’ve heard enough of that to last a lifetime.

    I’m so blessed to hear Karen’s account of the recent speaker at the local Peoria homeschooling conference who reportedly mentioned “mutual submission” many times, along with warnings about the “witchcraft of paradigms.” Reportedly… Haven’t heard the tapes.

    I read the EthicsDaily article to my husband over the phone this morning (as I’m under orders if any more newspaper article pop up, since this made the Dallas paper, too). He said right away that we know the patriocentrist leaders aren’t good at coming up with their own material and have such a history of stealing intellectual property of others, that at least we now know where their ideas came from. Hmmm.

    Someone told me that I innocently stumbled on to fault lines and spoke aloud many things that people have been thinking for ten years or more but were to afraid to actually say anything. I guess that I’m dumb enough to say it. (Like Mikey eating the cereal.)

    Yeah well. Makes life interesting!

  402. molleth Says:

    WOW. Interesting stuff… Gives me the heebie jeebies now—and makes me really thankful I finally disentangled myself from all that stuff a couple years ago.

    Cindy, those were GREAT articles on EthicsDaily! AWESOME! The more the word on this stuff gets out, the better. This movement is slinking forward, though many are unaware of it, but people REALLY need to know about it and be prepared before it hits their own backyard.

  403. Sandy Says:

    Lynn,
    As I was researching Paige Patterson and his views on women, I was absolutely astounded, to say the least. I wonder if he would allow a man to beat him over and over and black both his eyes and only respond by silently praying for his attacker? Would he return day after day only to be ebaten again? How in the world can he even consider this as glorifying to God?

    And the man coming to church??? Does Patterson have no idea of the way in which these men use the church in order to continue to manipulate women to stay under their control? This always makes me so angry. I see so much of it at work, sometimes it’s more subtle as in verbal abuse or emotional abuse, but it’s all abuse and men like Patterson help justify it.

  404. Lynn Says:

    Sandy, perhaps this was one instance of the man getting serious. Let’s assume that.

    I personally know of a situation where a husband who did something felt real shame and sorrow after it was over. But after a period of time, he just continued with the physical and verbal abuse. This according to his wife’s testimony to me.

    So even if the man isn’t intending to abuse any more, and is really sorry, and says so, that doesn’t mean the cycle has been broken.

  405. Lynn Says:

    I didn’t finish my thought, sorry.

    What I was saying was — there are men who act sorry and repentant, who only intend on continuing the abuse, as Sandy said.

    Then, there are men who are genuinely upset in the aftermath of being out of control, and it settles them for a while, and then they spiral back into the same behavior pattern.

    So you can act upset in order to manipulate, or really be upset at your bad behavior, and in both cases that might look as though everything is fine, but it really isn’t.

  406. Sandy Says:

    Lynn,
    Agreed with both points. The problem lies in that the men almost always revert back to abuse unless serious intervention takes place and even that, I’m sorry to say, is not as effective in the long run as most of us would like to admit.

  407. Beatrice Says:

    “Therefore, in obeying Scripture’s command that wives submit to their husbands, it is not enough before God simply to grit your teeth, buck up, and say, “Okay, if you insist, God, even though I don’t like it and I don’t want to do it, I’ll submit.”

    Statements like these, I think, show a really warped view of the emotions and what obedience and submission really are. What is wrong with saying something like this to God? Can we not be honest with Him? Or we supposed to automatically be emotionally exuberant or cheerful at everything He commands? Where does God command us to FEEL good at hard things?

    Jesus AGONISED in the Garden of Gethsamane! He struggled! He HATED the thought of dying, yet He did it. Would anyone suggest that His work and heart were therefore imperfect? They better not DARE!

    All this comes down to is saying that negative emotions dishonor God. This stems from a very harmful outlook on faith, and what it means to have faith and to be obedient to God. This warped outlook is very harmful, very destructive. It misses so many things I can’t even begin to enumerate.

  408. WWF Cindy K Says:

    Preach it, Beatrice!

    Actually, I said the same thing. What Ware describes as sin is the human experience. We are at enmity against God in our flesh and we are certainly subject to it every day. It’s like learning algebra. You’re taught what to do and then after practice doing pages of the same kind of equations, then you get it. Something clicks in your head and you understand, but you had to go through the motions. We are creatures of habits.

    Don’t we hold to what is right out of OBDIENCE because of love, not out of submission that fears consequences of authority? Otherwise, life is all about fear and avoiding penalties instead of love and maturity.

    They ought to just have a rule that every woman with an IQ over 110 must go get a lobotomy. But, then again, looking at the SPECT brain imaging, this is essentially what spiritual abuse does. People get so slammed down, they get caught up in fear and anxiety which shuts down blood flow in the prefrontal cortex (reasoning and critical center in the brain) as a natural response.

  409. Beatrice Says:

    Yeah, Cindy, I really find myself obeying God (when I do!) out of love, not out of thinking “Well, He’s my authority, so I better snap to it.” He most certainly has authority over me … but still it seems just wierd to put it like that. That’s why whenever Christians get obsessed with authority and who-does-what it just seems to be approaching things from a very weird paradigm. I can’t explain it better that saying that they seem to looking at 3-dimensional reality from a one dimensional level, and missing so much, or warping it. It just leads to fear, like you said.

    That is really sad about spiritual abuse. I really look forward to your podcasts on the topic.

    I forgot to say outright that I think our negative emotions can glorify God, just like the positive ones can. Of course, both can serve sin. God enabled us to feel anger and fear and disgust and sadness. And this glorifies Him, it is not a weakness, unless we’re talking about Paul’s when-I-am-weak-then-I-am-strong mindset. All this is a big thing I think Ware missed.

    Oh, wow, Lin, I just glanced at that link and it looks pretty amazing. I’ll have to go back and really study it and incorporate it in my quest to examine some of my old ideas I believed blindly.

  410. thatmom Says:

    Lin, that link was to some wonderfully refreshing writing. Thanks for sharing it.

  411. Lin Says:

    I love Paul Burleson. He is a most loving, kind and compassionate man. His love for the Lord just shines through. And, he can disagree with with the blog meanies with such love!:o) I am starting to consider him my ‘internet’ pastor/teacher. :o)


  412. Lin, thanks for directing us to Paul’s blog. He has some really thoughtful and thought-provoking posts there. He does seem like a good ‘internet’ pastor.

    In another one of his posts, I like how he explains how we need to understand the times of the Bible, and to keep an understanding of context. He gives an example of how he could be misunderstood in context by saying he rode into town for some lunch on his “hog”, or something like that, and explains how he could be misunderstood by other’s from another culture to be saying he rode a pig, etc., and cause a debate. That’s a good way for us to remember to go to God with a humble, teachable spirit to gain wisdom and understanding from the Bible, and not just insert our own presuppositions.

  413. sarah Says:

    My favorite internet pastor is Greg Boyd. gregboyd.blogspot.com. I appreciate his intelligence.

    When I look at something like the PMM, I see a new gospel of works. It’s about following the PMM, or the Patriarchy rules, going to the right church, the right conference, etc., to save yourself. This is a distortion of Christianity, which is about redemption through the grace of Christ. No amount of “perfect” living will redeem a person’s sin nature. PMM’s can do everything right and still have kids that grow up and live in a way that PMM’s will find unsavory and sinful. No amount of isolation or rules will save your kid or yourself.

  414. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I’ve been reading through the comments that just seem to keep building on James and Stacey McDonald’s blogs.

    Basically two themes are developing — some of the commenters are disagreeing with Stacey and James, and urge them to read the testimonies of abuse given by people who have left the compound over the years, while others are following the McDonalds’ line of thought, ie, that if the government can “seize” kids from a place like the FLDS compound, then they might feel free to do the same to homeschoolers, quiverfull types, etc.

    James, Stacey and their syncophants are downplaying the fact that polygamy is central the FLDS faith, and are glossing over the documented fact that in this denomination, young girls are FORCED to marry older men (a ceremonial bed was even found in the FLDS Temple!) Rather, they are making the situation out to look as if the FLDS is being persecuted solely because they are “counter-cultural”, modest, and believe in early marriage.

    It almost looks as though the McDonalds, et al, are worried that if everything about their own lifestyle were to come to light, then they might be the next church group to receive a visit from Child Protective Services.

  415. Rae Says:

    Karen,

    >> I think that changes, in part, once you graduate a child from home schooling. You will feel a huge sense of accomplishment.

    I don’t know. When I’ve thought about it, I feel very guilty about not doing enough… 😦

    >> We spent many years struggling in churches that didn’t accept homeschooling and sometimes there were even church leaders who were downright hostile toward homechooling. Then we went to two different churches that were homeschoolers only and, in retrospect, that wasn’t really good either. Now we are in a church were most of the pastors are homeschoolers but no one talks about it. We are encouraged to disciple our children, to have family devotions, etc, which, of course, are the most important aspects of relationship building with our children. I think having experienced both ends of the spectrum, I am now very content to hear nothing about homeschooling on Sundays!

    Thanks for sharing, Karen.

  416. JohannaS Says:

    I’ve seen the posts/comments on Stacy’s blog. What concerns me is that Stacy and some of the commenters are seeing this in such black and white terms. Children ripped from their mothers’ arms: always wrong! they declare. Do they not realize that these same mothers are also brainwashed and part of a cult? Mothers that allowed their young daughters to be married off to old men in order to “please the Prophet” or whatever? The mothers are in just as much need of help, IMO, as the children are. Maybe, just maybe, having their babies taken from them will be the first step in clearing their brain of the FLDS haze. This situation is not just a matter of babies ripped from mothers’ arms; that is a very simplistic view of what is happening.

    And to imply that our gov’t took action because the children were being abused because they were “missing out on MTV”? WHAT? I couldn’t care less how these children dress or if they’ve even seen a TV before. I believe in an individual’s right to practice any religion they want, even one that I don’t agree with at all. But to allow abuse of children in the name of religion? Absolutely not.

  417. Corrie Says:

    JohannaS,

    I am totally in agreement with your assessment of how shortsighted Stacy and her commenters are.

    Stacy has made this issue one of the government going into that compound because they dress modestly, eat good food and teach submission! What a bunch of fear-mongering nonsense.

    That isn’t what this is about.

    I just got done reading both her and her husband’s blog and I cannot believe they have such a hard time separating their own agenda from the issues that are happening around this world.

    You are correct that this could be the very thing that opens the eyes of these brainwashed mothers so that they can protect their children from the perverts who prey on them.

    And this isn’t akin to teens having sex with other teens as Stacy and Co. is trying to make it out to be.

    This is about old men, breeding up a stock of young girls in order to supply their fellow perverts with fresh meat.

    Where are the men, btw? Hiding behind the skirts AND welfare checks of the women they have bullied into subservience by their perverted doctrine of demons.

    You are also right about MTV. That was an absurd comment. This is about forcing young girls to get married to aged men and about turning young boys out on the streets because they are a threat to the aged men and their chances of acquiring more young virgins. This is about telling little girls that they will go to hell if they ever “rebel” against the demonic forces of evil that how sway over them in the form of fathers and husbands.

    One commenter stated that we can’t trust Carolyn Jessop and the other ex-members of these cults because they are “disgruntled”.
    Stacy doesn’t bother with the irrational comments because they suit her own arguments. The only time she responds is to throw more illogic at the thoughtful and intelligent responses.

    My kids don’t know what MTV is all about, either. But, at least they know what a Crayola Crayon is and they don’t have to be forced into a marriage at the ripe old age of 14 to some man that has hair growing out of his ears and a lecherous grin on his face.

    I have to wonder why all of these fear-mongering is going on?


  418. I can’t believe that anyone would want anything to do with any kind of association with the FLDS, in part or in whole, remotely or intimately. There is an issue of having our rights trompped (sp?) by our government and our homes invaded because they might find our faith objectionable. This could be true of any religion, and this is of great concern here. But given the horrible behaviors and injustices – essentially prostituting young girls and abandoning their young men out on the innerstate… I just don’t get it at all.

  419. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Interesting conversation taking place on this blog, which is linked to James McDonald’s site:

    fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/04/even-government-is-bigger-in-texas.html

  420. molleth Says:

    As Christians, our job is to look out for the underdog. Kids are being raised to think that polygamy and abusive beatings and forced marriages are a good thing. To me, that’s enough to call for intervention.

    As a Christian, my first reaction shouldn’t be, “How might this hurt me?” It should be, “How can we help THEM?”

    The MacDonalds are concerned with themselves. Why? Because, as others have said, there’s not much space between what’s going on at the compound and what patriarchal groups are teaching as normative.

    Absolutely, we should work to make sure kids aren’t taken out of their parents homes just because someone has a political or social difference. But when those differences are actually HARMING kids? That’s when things get a lot more complex. It’s not as black and white as the patriarchalists want us to believe. But in the meantime, little girls are being raised to believe that their sole purpose in life is to obey the prophet and all other authorities or be severely beaten, culiminating in being married to whoever the prophet says they must (as soon as they have their first period), and then to bear him as many babies as they possibly can while working their skirted bottoms off in tasks of drudgery.

    And the Holy Christian’s first reaction is, “Ack! How might this hurt my rights?” Good GRIEF. Things like this make me want to become an atheist.

  421. Cally Tyrol Says:

    I’ve read a few books on the FLDS since the beginning of the year and I have to say that there are a great number of similarities between their doctrines of family and those of the hyper-patriarchs. It was frightening, really, because as I read these books, I thought first of the HP’s and then of the FLDS. Take away the polygamy and the heretical doctrine and you’ve got your basic hyperpatriarchal home going on.

  422. madame Says:

    Modest dress: that article is still incomplete: the nape of a woman’s neck is sexy. She should cover it.
    Her hands are sexy. She should cover them. Her lips are sexy. She should cover them. A nice jaw line is sexy. She should conceal it. The curve of a waistline and hips (even with a skirt on) is sexy. Women should wear shapeless dresses, made of stiff material that doesn’t naturally drape over her body, in case the men are attracted to the curves. Her hair should be long, but she should cover it because hair is also sexy.
    I think we should just wear burkas, walk behind our husbands and not meet any man’s eye, lest he be overcome with lust.

    Now, seriously, I think it’s important that we are honest with ourselves and, if in doubt whether our outfits are modest or not, ask. I ask my husband. I don’t want to make life harder for the men in our church, but I would deeply resent any man accusing me of his lusts, because we are all called to work on our own salvation, but also to walk in love towards each other.
    This whole issue has been so legalized!

    to me, the whole manifesto reads a bit too legalistic, concerned on the outward, and bordering idolatry. They are almost encouraging women to worship their homes and their husbands. The dangerous bit is that there is enough truth in it to make it seem right.

  423. madame Says:

    One last point: the manifesto is ridiculous for people of other cultures. It’s not based on what GOD tells women to do, but on the American, patriarchal interpretation of it, back in dark days when women were seen as lesser people.

  424. Sandy Says:

    “Modest dress: that article is still incomplete: the nape of a woman’s neck is sexy. She should cover it.”

    This reminds me of when I was a puppet team leader and we went to a camp in NY to compete. The dress code for the girls stated that the collar bones were not to show in any form or fashion. Now, let me say, I absoluetely loved the particular program and I understand the need for some kind of dress code at a camp. But we have laughed in my family for many years about the sexy collar bones of women. Things can really become an absurdity when we attempt to define specifically for others what the Holy Spirit should define.

  425. Lin Says:

    “As a Christian, my first reaction shouldn’t be, “How might this hurt me?” It should be, “How can we help THEM?” ”

    Triple AMEN!! That one thought could revolutionize Christianity. We should not think in terms of our ‘rights’ but in terms of our responsibilities to others as Christians.

  426. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Lin, exactly. And a lot of the people who are defending the FLDS are complaining about how their Constitutional rights were trampled on, but even in the secular sphere, our Constitutional rights are not limitless, and the government has the right to limit a person’t exercise of his rights
    so that they do not interfere with another citizen’s exercise of HIS rights, in this case the right of underage girls to live in an environment in which they are protected from being forced into marriage.

  427. Corrie Says:

    ” But in the meantime, little girls are being raised to believe that their sole purpose in life is to obey the prophet and all other authorities or be severely beaten, culiminating in being married to whoever the prophet says they must (as soon as they have their first period), and then to bear him as many babies as they possibly can while working their skirted bottoms off in tasks of drudgery.

    And the Holy Christian’s first reaction is, “Ack! How might this hurt my rights?” Good GRIEF. Things like this make me want to become an atheist.”

    No kidding, Molleth! Woe to those who are stumbling blocks to little ones.

    What in the world are we so afraid of? Where does Romans 13 fit into the whole picture? Why aren’t people taking this scripture literally?

  428. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Corrie, they DO take Romans 13 literally, as long as THEY and the people who are like them(in this case, the FLDS) aren’t the ones who are being called upon to obey the law of the land. THEN, they go on and on about how they are being persecuted and how their Constitutional rights are being trampled.

    Remember, these are the same people who are leading a crusade to remove Sports Illustrated from Walmart.

  429. Corrie Says:

    “and the government has the right to limit a person’t exercise of his rights
    so that they do not interfere with another citizen’s exercise of HIS rights, in this case the right of underage girls to live in an environment in which they are protected from being forced into marriage.”

    Cynthia Gee,

    Hello!!! Yes! What in the world is wrong when people can only think of their own personal rights but don’t get a rat’s behind about the rights of the “least of these”.

    Are we not told, in the Bible, to deliver those who are being oppressed???????????

    I happen to think that a 13 year old girl’s right to NOT have to be raped by a 55 year old man who already has more than enough sex partners, TRUMPS the pedophile’s right to force himself on that girl.

    I love how Fr. Hollywood is dazzling you with his illogic. It didn’t take him long to throw out the marxist label, did it? He keeps on insisting you are saying something you never said.

    Do people actually read what is written nowadays?

  430. Corrie Says:

    I have to wonder if this attitude has its root in the low view of women propagated by the patriarchal movement?

    I mean, if (I am borrowing this example from a comment from Ben Stein’s article on this issue) “young girls” was replaced by “white business men” then people might be upset by this. If it was reported that, “white businessmen” are being forced to submit to sex with much older men” all the while being told that they will go to hell if they don’t submit to this disgusting prospect, then they might be whistling a different tune.

    Fr. Hollywood claims that Cynthia isn’t upset because it isn’t her ox that is being gored. Well, I see it the other way around. He isn’t upset because HIS ox isn’t being GORED.

    As long as the patriarchal male isn’t being forced to submit to disgusting acts of oppression when they are barely out of childhood, then all is good. After all, women are created solely for the purpose of serving men, making them happy through sexual intercourse and bearing as many children as possible. What is wrong with that philosophy? Why should anyone balk at such a sentiment when it only affects a woman?

    But, change the players around and reverse the scenario and you might just find them whistling a different tune.

    These girls in the FLDS compound are just like their Babylonian counterparts who were rounded up and made to be sex slaves in a harem to some king.

  431. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I love how Fr. Hollywood is dazzling you with his illogic. It didn’t take him long to throw out the marxist label, did it? He keeps on insisting you are saying something you never said.

    Do people actually read what is written nowadays?”

    LOL… I see you found “Father Hollywood”.
    It sort of makes me wonder, “Bless me, what do they teach them at these schools?”

    As the saying goes, “if you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with, er, fallacy.”

  432. Susan T Says:

    Corrie and Cynthia,
    My daughter is now reading Stacy’s comment “So, no doubt, when all is said and done and if it was in fact all a big mistake (which I highly doubt – in fact I think it’s likely that abuses have taken place), God may use this travesty to reveal His Truth to these poor folks. If this hadn’t happened, He may have saved them in some other way. It’s not like it was up to the government to “save” them. God’s in control after all.”
    It reminded her of an illustration our Pastor used… a man sits at the table with his bread in hand and butter on a dish and wants butter on his bread… does he do it himself or does he sit there and pray for God to send an angel to butter it for him? So it reminds me of the man in the flood on top of his roof after God had sent flood warnings days ago, then guard troops, then a boat and now a helicopter and the man has said no each time and is still waiting rescue.

  433. Corrie Says:

    “Hollywood is incensed that someone would suggest that God used a crank call for Good, but then Stacey turns around and says that God may well use child rape for good.”

    Cynthia,

    The irony IS delicious.

    “Stacey abhors the fact that “the government should trample the rights of the innocent to get to the guilty” (and that SHOULD have read, “steps over the “rights” of the guilty in order to get to the innocents and help them”), but she doesn’t mind if the govenment ignores the rights of the innocent in order to protect the rights of guilty, as long as guilty party happens to espouse a paradigm that is similar to hers.”

    Yep. Pretty sad.

    I am glad for that disgruntled, ex-mormon “she-devil” who RESCUES young girls from the polygamist cults. The polygamist Mormon cults use her as a scary bedtime story in order to indoctrinate their little girls against this woman but she is a woman with guts who is actually delivering the oppressed females from the hands of pedophiles and mothers who have had their natural protection mechanism taken from them through the art of brainwashing.

    She lived the horror of being part of the polygamist machine and she escaped from it. I wish I could remember her name but there was a documentary by A & E (I think) on her.

    While Stacy laments these “poor people” and “poor mothers”, I am rejoicing that these poor children have been RESCUED and DELIVERED from their oppressors, even if it is only for a time. For, in this short time, before they are returned, someone may be able to get through to them and break through the cult’s brainwashing and get them to see that this is NOT right.

    I am trying not to be too hard on these “poor mothers” because I know they have been oppressed and brainwashed but I just can’t understand a mother who will not fight to the death to protect her children from predators. The scripture portrays the fierce protection a mother has for her children but it also shows us how sin and perversion erode that natural protection.

    It appears that agenda takes precedence over the “least of these” who Jesus seemed to be so concerned about.

  434. Cynthia Gee Says:

    In the USA, we the people are the government:

    Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled;”…… and saved from statutory rape by men twice your age…. notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

  435. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “The scripture portrays the fierce protection a mother has for her children but it also shows us how sin and perversion erode that natural protection.”

    Yup… that’s how come OT parents, even mothers, were able to bring themselves sacrifice their children to be burnt offerings to Moloch without even batting an eye.

  436. JohannaS Says:

    What has me shaking my head is, on the surface, all of these blogs look to be “so very concerned” for the “poor, innocent children” who have been ripped from their mothers. You read a little further and begin to say, as others have said, that is only a minor concern. The major concern is…so what does that mean for ME? For MY family? Are people going to beat down MY door and take MY children from ME because they are being homeschooled? (Seriously?!? Since when is hs’ing illegal?) This selfishness boggles my mind. Just another way to use someone’s (these children) pain to further an agenda.

  437. Corrie Says:

    You know, this is no different than NAMBLA except they use little girls instead of little boys.

    If you don’t know anything about North American Man Boy Love Association or NAMBLA, look it up and you will see what I mean.

    After all, if parents agreed and produced a ready supply of young boys for the ‘needs’ of other older men, then who are we to trample on their rights to raise their own children as they see fit? Homosexuality isn’t illegal in this country! Who are WE to protest against a compound of people who all agree that older men should be able to enjoy sex with young boys, even if they have to brainwash the young boys from birth in order to get them to comply.

    Perverts have rights, too! And it seems that a pervert’s rights trump the agenda of their victims.

    JohannaS is right, this is just another way to use someone else’s nightmare/pain (just think of those poor, young girls who have to put up with such disgusting sex acts in the name of religion?!) to further their own agenda.

    Really, I do wonder if some people are just sticking their head in a hole and ignoring the facts? There are so many books out there on this that give firsthand testimonies of what these young girls suffer that I find it hard that people would urge them to go back to it all.

  438. JohannaS Says:

    “Really, I do wonder if some people are just sticking their head in a hole and ignoring the facts? There are so many books out there on this that give firsthand testimonies of what these young girls suffer that I find it hard that people would urge them to go back to it all.”

    But didn’t I read that those who wrote firsthand accounts might have “an axe to grind” or something like that? It was from a comment on Stacy’s blog. I don’t remember the exact wording. So, do rape victims have an axe to grind when they want tougher penalities for rapists? Are they just “biased” against rapists because of their experience? Um…YEAH! How on earth does being a victim of something invalidate your opinion? Because you are too close to the situation? I just don’t have any words for that line of reasoning.

  439. Corrie Says:

    “And I am so confused by how she writes.”

    Susan,

    You and me both. This has been my problem with her writing for about a decade now. She says two things at once and both of the things are polar opposites.

    “It appears she actually agrees with me and is restating my argument until she gets to her final question, and I am still trying to figure out her point- if there is one.”

    Good luck.

    “1)Yet, even if that happens, it doesn’t negate the fact that these people were harmed, their rights were violated, and children were terrorized and traumatized. 2)Yes, I know; they were probably terrorized while in the cult, or they may have been traumatized in 15 years when they grew up and became child brides or were forced out of the camp as teen boys with no education. But, if that happened, is God not big enought to use that “bad situation” for His glory too?”

    Is she arguing that the SIN of the gov’t in “sentence 1″ is worse than the SIN of what the cult probably did to the children over the years in “sentence 2″ ? ”

    I believe, from all the other things she has said on this subject, that she believes the “sins” of the government are very bad and that the children are better off in that abusive environment.

    After all, Mamma knows best.

    Look at how she makes light of the case against the polygamists? She mocks by saying that this is all about women being taught to be homemakers, not being able to watch MTV, eating healthy food, homeschooling….she even mocks the fact that these girls are being forced into marriage at a very young age by telling us that this is how it used to be in Bible times.

    This isn’t what this is about. This is NOT why the State went there to take the children into custody until their investigation is complete. But, then, fear mongering is the name of the game. If they don’t speak up, the government is coming for them???????

    WHY???? I am a mother of 10, a homeschooler, a healthy eater and one who doesn’t watch MTV. Should I be afraid, too?????

    Please. Romans 13. They really need to take that submission literally. If they don’t, why should anyone take the wifely submission verses literally? Their bias is showing.

    “Do you think that is her point?”

    I can only assume what her point is by the other things she writes. She is upset that the government has taken these children away from their abusers and away from their potential abusers. The government is evil, not the mothers of the pedophiles….errr….husbands who are preying on children. I don’t get it. She says there is no proof? Really? Over half of the teenagers have given birth and/or are pregnant. Some of them, by the age of 16, have given birth multiple times and have 3 or 4 children.

    Well, children who have been locked in a cage for years and abused by their parents are terrified when they are liberated and taken into protective custody, too. That is because all they have known is abuse.

    In other words, Stockholm Syndrome or bonding to the abuser. The child would rather be in their abusive environment because that is all they know. The unknown terrifies them.

    Why are the women so thin? Is it because they eat healthy or there is not enough food? People who used to be in that cult report that there was never enough food for the women and children.

    Here is an example of girl who was held as a sex slave for 7 years:

    http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/sex_slave/index.html

  440. Corrie Says:

    that should be:

    not the mothers OR the pedophiles….

  441. thatmom Says:

    This is the same kind of “logic” we see in the Passionate Housewives book, too. And isn’t all the loaded language interesting when you realize what you are looking at?

  442. Cynthia Gee Says:

    There’s another interesting conversation taking place over on Fr.Hollywood’s blog.
    check out the third comment. Scary.

    http://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/04/few-more-thoughts-on-texas.html

  443. Cynthia Gee Says:

    There’s another interesting conversation taking place ove ron Fr. Hollywood’s blog. Remove the @@ and check out the third comment. Scary.

    http@@://fatherhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/04/few-more-thoughts-on-texas.html

  444. JohannaS Says:

    The Bible approves of polygamy? Not the Bible I read.

    Quote from “Father Hollywood” blog:

    “If all of this rape and mayhem were going on, why isn’t it all coming out? Surely, the police would have evidence before rolling tanks onto private property and seizing children.”

    I would guess b/c it is an ongoing criminal/CPS investigation and the general public isn’t privy to the details.

    I realize that most of these people are pretty much anti-gov’t across the boards, but CPS (or DFACS, or whatever it is called in TX) DOES have a right to get an emergency order to go in and grab children they believe are being abused. To me, this is an instance of CPS trying to do the right thing (maybe not in the right way). I was a teacher for 5 years and I’ve seen so many cases where CPS would lose paperwork, not investigate the complaints, or move at the speed of a turtle when they should have acted quickly.

    And if I read the argument of “well, no one is speaking up against teens having sex and having pg outside of this cult”, I will scream so loud all of you will hear me. lol That is comparing apples and oranges. Teens choosing to have sex outisde of marriage, while still a sin, isn’t illegal. Teenage girls (or younger) who are forced to marry…”marry”… some old man is abuse, no matter how you spin it.

  445. Corrie Says:

    “Remember, these are the same people who are leading a crusade to remove Sports Illustrated from Walmart.”

    Interesting.

    What about the Constitutional rights of those who want to read the Swimsuit Issue?

    I just don’t understand. Stacy was so outraged about the Swimsuit Issue and how her children had to be exposed to the woman in a swimsuit on the front cover.

    I would expect at least a 1/4 as much outrage over young girls being forced to copulate with much older men under the guise of God and submission and a woman’s role and purpose. Again, how much more proof do they need to know that this stuff is going on in these cults?

    I would much rather my children be exposed to the front cover of SI than know that I did nothing but protect the rights of mothers and fathers who forced their daughters to participate in sexual slavery under the guise of religion.

    I feel that the command to deliver those who are being oppressed to be much WEIGHTIER than any supposed “rights” we may have.

    After all, aren’t the patriarchalists the ones always going on and on about how feminists and women don’t have “rights” when they are confronted with the issue of women’s suffrage or something like that?

    I just do NOT get it.

    Female children do not have rights.
    Women do not have rights.
    A woman’s highest calling and only role/purpose is to marry, obey and bear as many children as possible.

    Hmmmm? Where have I heard this before? Sounds very familiar.

  446. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Hmmmm? Where have I heard this before? Sounds very familiar.”

    Here? (remove the @@)

    http@@://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_web_all.pdf

  447. Corrie Says:

    “To me, this is an instance of CPS trying to do the right thing (maybe not in the right way). I was a teacher for 5 years and I’ve seen so many cases where CPS would lose paperwork, not investigate the complaints, or move at the speed of a turtle when they should have acted quickly.”

    Right! This is an important point!

    If they didn’t act, then they would be belly-aching because CPS doesn’t take complaints seriously and really doesn’t care about children and all they are is some bloated bureaucratic machine that serves no purpose…blah, blah, blah.

    I have heard more cases of CPS fumbling the ball and ignoring situations where the child has ended up dead or seriously hurt than I have where they have overstepped their boundaries. In fact, I know of cases where there was knowledge that the dad was molesting his children but CPS did NOTHING because the father seemed so nice and so clean-cut and respectable and fatherly.

    There was a recent case that I just heard on the news of a father who took his 7 year old son to the ballgame. He ordered himself a beer and a lemonade for his son. An employer later saw the kid drinking the lemonade which is actually a “Mike’s Hard Lemonade” (yummy!) and confronted the father. The poor guy had no idea it was an alcoholic drink. He was reported to CPS and they took away his kid.

    Now this WAS an overreaction. The first time I ever had a Mike’s Hard Lemonade, I guzzled that thing down at a very hot, summer wedding. Then I guzzled down another one. All of a sudden I started feeling a bit whoozy. I looked at the bottle and I suddenly realized it was an alcoholic beverage. I had no idea. The bottle almost resembles an old-fashioned rootbeer bottle.

    So, I can totally relate to this poor dad who was only trying to have a father/son bonding time at the ballpark! The guy was obviously unaware of the alcohol content in the lemonade.

    Let us transport into the days of Esther. If there was a chance to liberate all of those girls kidnapped from their families and put into the King’s harem as sex-slaves, would we have taken the chance to liberate those poor girls and women? I bet the mothers and fathers of those girls would have.

    I don’t know, but it makes me just as sick to know that this is going on with someone else than it would if it were my own daughter. Maybe that is my problem.

  448. Susan T Says:

    Corrie, Cynthia, and everyone,
    Thanks for answering. It makes my head hurt trying to follow Stacy’s thoughts and it makes my heart hurt that it appears she would rather self-protect than help the abused.

    Cynthia,
    “Yup… that’s how come OT parents, even mothers, were able to bring themselves to sacrifice their children to be burnt offerings to Moloch without even batting an eye.”

    Sharing the same thoughts- after studying the Divided Kingdom and all its idolatrous living in Community Bible Study this year.

    And yes- “In the USA, we the people are the government:” and I am thankful “we” are doing something to try to help the victims/potential victims NOW instead of waiting for a ‘holocaust’.

  449. molleth Says:

    I just want to weigh in and say that it’s fair to make sure CPS is acting in the best interest of children, and it’s also fair to consider charges of inconsistancy (is CPS unfairly going after these kids while leaving the kids of drug-abusers alone, etc).

    What drives me nuts is the emphasis on *our* rights far over and above the emphasis on being a voice for those who have no voice.

  450. thatmom Says:

    “What drives me nuts is the emphasis on *our* rights far over and above the emphasis on being a voice for those who have no voice.”

    Yep. AQ person’s a person no matter how small unless they live in a polygamous compound.

  451. thatmom Says:

    So my question is this….what is supposed to be done if there is suspected abuse toward children? I have read no suggestions whatsoever from these people. What steps of action would they take?

  452. thatmom Says:

    And, who in the world uses the word “honky tonk” in 2008? What does that even mean?

  453. Light Says:

    find it incredible that there is all this hoopla about protecting the innocence of daughters while turning another blind eye to the innocence of sexually exploited and abused daughters.

    That’s because it isn’t about protecting girls. It’s really about girls as property. If Doug wants to keep protect his daughter’s innocence, all well and good. But other people’s daughters are their property, not his, so they can use them as they see fit.

  454. Corrie Says:

    Maybe he is listening to Trace Adkins’ song, “Honky Tonk Badonkadonk”? 😉

  455. CalamityJean Says:

    “I just want to weigh in and say that it’s fair to make sure CPS is acting in the best interest of children, and it’s also fair to consider charges of inconsistancy (is CPS unfairly going after these kids while leaving the kids of drug-abusers alone, etc).”

    I have enjoyed reading all of your points. I live in Texas and I have several friends who are or have been a CPS officer. I see daily what this job entails and the emotional distress that it causes. One actually worked with the compound children for a week and said that the brainwashing was beyond belief. Just to address Molly’s above comment, I do know from the little that they has been able to tell me about this job in general is that the state wants to put the children with their families. Its never ideal to pull them away from their family completely. They always look for a grandparent or other family member to care for the children. I also know how many nights they work late staying with the children of drug abusers. In my somewhat informed opinion, I think that Texas is very diligent in pursuing all counts of child abuse. This wasn’t an assult on religious freedom.

    From my own point of view concerning the protesters of the raid, I don’t understand where giving birth automaticlly makes you the best mother to a child. By that logic, I am going to be a horrible mother b/c I may never give birth to my own child.

    This whole situation makes my hear hurt.

  456. Lin Says:

    “But, if that happened, is God not big enought to use that “bad situation” for His glory too?” Is she arguing that the SIN of the gov’t in “sentance 1″ is worse than the SIN of what the cult probably did to the children over the years in “sentance 2″ ? Do you think that is her point?”

    Yes, she does speak out of both sides of her mouth. There is a good reason for it, too. Plausible deniability… one can say, that is not what I meant.

    However, her reasoning suggests there was NO reason for the Epistles to be written. We are not robots waiting around for our bread to be buttered (love that analogy), we are to look out for the least of these.

    It is the same argument leaders use to excuse other leaders who are in sin. Let God handle it. Well, if that is the case then why was 1 Corin written? It was written (and other passages) to tell us how to deal with sin within the Body.

    Wouldn’t that mean that God wants us to act on things? I think these folks are too worried about their ‘rights’ and not enough about the ‘least of these’.

  457. thatmom Says:

    One other thought here…..

    what is the truth about the woman who called with that tip to the police in the first place. James McDonald claims that she is associated some way with Barack Obama. From what I can tell, this appears to be “guilt by association.” In fact, there seems to be a greater connection between James and the founders of kinism than there is between this woman and Obama.

  458. madame Says:

    I read on a patriarchalist’s website that “some abuse has to be tolerated to not break the chain of command”.
    To be honest, it sounds like all the bloggers who are more concerned about their rights, not having CPS and such, are indirectly saying just that: We, the patriarchs, have to keep our authority. If that means turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to abuse, so be it.

    Re. Patriarchalists becoming polygamists, I think it’s a bit far fetched.

    My dh and I were talking about polygamy once and I actually saw that God doesn’t forbid it. He doesn’t encourage it either.
    My dh pointed out something rather interesting. He said polygamy could also have been an altruistic pursuit of some men to care for widows and orphans.
    I don’t think that was Solomon’s or David’s purpose, though…

    One of our OT lecturers at Bible school taught that polygamy wasn’t God’s design, and you could see it by the problems in those families with more than one mother. He used the example of Elcana, Hanna and Pennina, Jacob, Leah and Rachel, Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, David and his disastrous parenting skills (aparently he couldn’t keep up with everything on his plate, etc…
    But God allowed polygamy.

  459. thatmom Says:

    Madame, could you send me a link to that comment if you don’t feel comfortable posting it here? I would really like to read that.

  460. madame Says:

    I thought I had read it on the Pearl’s website, but it was on Spunky’s homeschool site. The quote is from Debi’s CTBHH book.

    Using I Peter 2 and 3 as the primary text he( Michael Pearl) states on page 262,

    The servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed. It is acceptable with God (God’s will) for the underling to suffer wrongfully and take it patiently.

    You will surely wonder, “why is it the will of God for the underling to suffer at the hands of an unjust, and perverse authority?” Two reasons are obvious, one of which we have already stated. First, the chain of command must remain intact, even to the point of allowing some abuse. The other reason is introduced in verse 20 – glory.

    We were created by God and placed upon this earth to express his glory (Ps. 8:5, Is 43:7, Rom 2:7, Heb. 2:7). Jesus did not live his life in ease for his own pleasure. He lived and suffered for the glory that was to follow (1Pet. 1:11). Lady, you were created to give glory to God. When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer, it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering. And when you suffer wrongfully, as unto the Lord, you bring great glory to God in heaven.

  461. madame Says:

    I thought I had read it on the Pearl’s website, but it was on Spunky’s homeschool site. The quote is from Debi’s CTBHH book.

    Using I Peter 2 and 3 as the primary text he( Michael Pearl) states on page 262,

    The servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed. It is acceptable with God (God’s will) for the underling to suffer wrongfully and take it patiently.

    You will surely wonder, “why is it the will of God for the underling to suffer at the hands of an unjust, and perverse authority?” Two reasons are obvious, one of which we have already stated. First, the chain of command must remain intact, even to the point of allowing some abuse. The other reason is introduced in verse 20 – glory.

    We were created by God and placed upon this earth to express his glory (Ps. 8:5, Is 43:7, Rom 2:7, Heb. 2:7). Jesus did not live his life in ease for his own pleasure. He lived and suffered for the glory that was to follow (1Pet. 1:11). Lady, you were created to give glory to God. When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer, it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering. And when you suffer wrongfully, as unto the Lord, you bring great glory to God in heaven.

  462. Lin Says:

    “The servant is not given the option of deciding that the master is not acting within the will of God and therefore should not be obeyed. It is acceptable with God (God’s will) for the underling to suffer wrongfully and take it patiently.”

    Peter is talking about unbelievers and our behavior as Christians winning them to Christ. he speaks of government, slaves, wives and husbands in this passage. Somebody took the scripture out of context! What else is new?

    One wonders why we have Matthew 18 if this is what they are teaching it is to be like within the body of Christ in the Holy Priesthood.

  463. RichardD Says:

    My dh and I were talking about polygamy once and I actually saw that God doesn’t forbid it.

    Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

    I don’t see any polygamy in that statement. The Bible clearly presents marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Polygamy is not presented as the “norm” for marriage. To quote a famous patriarchalist “narrative is not normative.”

    rly presents that

  464. RichardD Says:

    Okay – I’m not sure what “rly presents that” means, but there it is at the end of my last post. Hmmmmm. Perhaps I was speaking in tongues.

  465. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Well, now Father Hollywood is calling me a pagan, saying that I have been spending too much time on his blog, and telling me that I need to repent, all because I believe that it was right for the state of Texas to protect the FLDS children from their parents’ crazy cult (and he’s now legitimizing the FLDS by calling it a religion, rather than a sect or a cult):

    “…..All I have been saying all along is that children ought not be removed from their parents without due process. People cannot be presumed guilty based on their religion. No-one seems to be able to explain how it is that a single mother, who was never even suspected of abuse, who has not been charged with anything, has had her toddler taken from her with no due process whatsoever.

    That, madam, is diabolical. And if you believe this is good, just, and noble, than you cannot worship the Triune God. You worship someone else.

    Put your faith in Jesus instead. You need to repent. That is why you are spending more time on my blog than you should be. How much time have you spent today praying for these folks?

    But if that’s not your thing, then maybe you should get your own blog. They’re really easy to set up, and they are completely free.”

    ……then again, maybe this is all a red herring, and an attempt to avoid answering my question about whether or not he ever took a logic class???

    😀 😀 😀

  466. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Biblical Patriarchy and Polygamist site”
    (remove the @@)
    http@@://www.patriarchywebsite.com/founder.htm

  467. madame Says:

    Richard, I know that polygamy is not God’s design, but he certainly allowed it and I haven’t found a law condemning polygamy in the Bible.

    Lin, They take 1 Peter 2 out of context to support their theory. Of course. They worship the chain of command.

  468. madame Says:

    One more thought on polygamy and why God may have allowed it.

    The law of the leverite marriage, (Deut 25), commands the brother of a childless widow to marry her and give her a descendant in her deceased husband’s name. Nowhere does it say that this brother has to be single, so I assume there were men married to more than one woman, their second, third or more marriages were just as lawful and acceptable because they were redeeming a widow.

    Thinking about it, Boaz may not have been a single man before marrying Ruth.

  469. thatmom Says:

    “Okay – I’m not sure what “rly presents that” means, but there it is at the end of my last post. Hmmmmm. Perhaps I was speaking in tongues.”

    Glad you explained Richard. I am only on my first cup of coffee and must admit you had me completely confused! 🙂

  470. madame Says:

    comment 485 should read
    The law of the leverite marriage, (Deut 25), commands the brother-in-law of a childless widow to marry her and give her a descendant in her deceased husband’s name

  471. thatmom Says:

    Cynthia, I went to the link that someone left in James’ comment section and here is a sample of the “loaded language” I found:

    child-nappers

    As with every other act of government coercion, this unspeakably cruel crime will be accompanied by the threat of lethal violence (referring to taking a nursing baby from his mom)

    Child-snatchers

    State-sponsored kidnapping

    the state-sponsored kidnapping of the children of the members of the FLDS church

    What I DIDN’T find was any reference to the child sexual abuse that was THE reason for the investigation in the first place. I also saw a huge number of commenters supporting these loaded phrases and many falsehoods such as “there are no proof of abuse.” Hello. What do you call 31 underage pregnant girls?

    Is it just me, or am I properly sensing another source of anger that was rekindled by this event?

  472. RichardD Says:

    Sorry, thatmom, I’m going to have to change my nick to thatidiot – or maybe thattypo

  473. thatmom Says:

    Oh, and I also found more references to homeschoolers and how we are the next ones they are coming for. Do you know how bogus that is? In the first place, we have never hidden ourselves away from any authorities in our community. In fact, a few days ago my son stopped into the police department to find out when they would be going to the firing range for practice to ask if he might record some gun shots for the sound for a movie project he is working on with some college friends. They rolled out the red carpet, took him along to the range, offered suggestions for recording from the best angles, and offered to do it again any time and to even bring along more guys if he needed sound for an action scene. Of course, we live in a household with one mom and one dad and our own kids, we don’t take government money (unless the coming economic stimulus check counts) we know our neighbors, we participate in community activities, the guys get their haircuts from the retired mayor, and if a few days went by and I didn’t show up at the local grocery store, someone would call Columbo.

    This “let’s scare the homeschoolers” stuff makes me madder by the day.

  474. thatmom Says:

    Richard, either have a nice ring! 🙂

  475. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Putting the polygamy issue aside, evidently these people think that either
    A.)there is nothing wrong with underage girls marrying older men and getting pregnant, and that this does not constitute abuse
    or
    B.) that since all of these girls COULD have gotten pregnant by boys their own age, which is not a crime, their pregnancy is not evidence of criminal activity.

    I think that the former is true, and that these guys think that even though older men having sex with underage girls is illegal, it is really OK because it is not against God’s laws.

    When I pointed out that this was aganst the “law of the land”, Father Hollywood (his real name is Father Larry Beane II, from New Orleans) wrote,
    I think your appeals to “the law of the land” are most illustrative. Until a couple years ago, the “law of the land” in Texas allowed children of 14 years old to have sexual relations legally. The “law of the land” in Saudi Arabia allows decapitation of Christians. The “law of the land” in the United States formerly permitted slavery, putting people in internment camps based on ethnicity, and even genocide in the case of certain Indian tribes. The “law of the land” in Nevada allows prostitution and the “law of the land” in California allows medically prescribed marijuana. The “law of the land” in every state in the union permits infanticide. That doesn’t make it right, just, or in accordance with God’s law.”
    He also writes
    You put a lot of faith in “the law of the land.” But if we follow your desire to allow a two tiered legal system, one for politically-correct religions and one for politically-incorrect religions, soon that “law of the land” will be used against anyone who opposes abortion, the teaching of evolution, and female ordination.

    Yet, he repeatedly appeals to this very same “law of the land” when he claims that these people’s children were taken “without due process” and with “no proof of abuse”.

    As for the statement,
    “As with every other act of government coercion, this unspeakably cruel crime will be accompanied by the threat of lethal violence (referring to taking a nursing baby from his mom)”
    ……who threatened lethal violence?

    Not the CPS.

    The fact that words like “lethal violence” spring so readily to these guys’ lips is an indicator of how their minds work — perhaps THEY are the ones who would not hesitate to use “lethal violence” should they be confronted by a similar situation.

    But then, we already know that.

  476. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Now, if these guys think that the law only applies to them when it is in accordance with OT Biblical Law, and that it’s OK to break it when it doesn’t, what’s to stop them from quietly practicing ALL of the stuff that the Law of Moses allows but which the laws of the United States do not?

    Next thing you know, they will be justifying churches which inflict bodily punishment on wrongdoers, as happened at Jonestown before it imploded and as happens under Sharia law.

  477. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “This “let’s scare the homeschoolers” stuff makes me madder by the day.”

    We’ve already been through this back in the 80’s and 90’s.
    The next step is to start promoting “citizen militias” again, and then comes the gun-hoarding, food hoarding, etc. In fact, some of these guys’ gun caches date from the 80’s and 90’s. I do hope their food is fresher than that.

    Sheesh…..

  478. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Karen, I just followed the link on McDonald’s website to the blog with the loaded language, and the threat of lethal violence directed to (or employed by ?) nursing moms:

    http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/04/quid-spucatum-tauri-est.html

    I don’t usually call names, but this guy is an anti-government, anarchical, raving NUT!

    He says,
    “Rather than being groomed to be predatory polygamists, the FLDS boys can now be preyed upon by military flesh-peddlers desperate to fill the ranks of the Empire’s armies of conquest and occupation. Why, I’ll bet that as arrangements are made to distribute the FLDS children around the country, recruiters are preparing to descend on them wherever they land.”

    And:
    “No longer will the prospect of polygamy becloud the future for the FLDS girls. Thanks to the benevolent coercion exercised by the State of Texas, those girls will be free to emulate the Lone Star State’s racoon-eyed exemplars of modern Christian womanhood — the Simpson sisters, Jessica and Ashlee. Oh, sure: Jessica’s determination to market herself to the one-handed reader set destroyed her marriage and has left her a kind of Ronin among pop culture courtesans. And Ashlee, an alleged singer whose talents run more toward pantomime, recently announced that she is enceinte without benefit of marriage vows.
    What really matters here is that the Simpson sisters aren’t polygamous “wives” in some rustic fundamentalist cult. They’re the sterling offspring of a former Baptist minister. Oh, I grant that Joe Simpson has displayed a certain skeevy interest in his eldest daughter’s mammalial allotment (or “suckers,” as he so inelegantly referred to them) — but he’s just, ah, pumping up his most profitable assets

    This fellow would do well to write pornography, when he isn’t busy twisting facts and presenting false dilemmas.

  479. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Karen, I have a comment with a link in it that WordPress either ate or stuck in moderation. I think that WordPress ate it though, because usually a comment in the moderation queue is visible to the person who wrote it.

  480. RichardD Says:

    Regarding “law of the land.” We are to give unto Ceasar the things due to Ceasar and unto God the things due to God. So if the law of the land does not violate directives in scripture, we are to follow the law of the land. That seems to me to be a simple concept.

  481. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Exactly. If “Caesar” forbids something which God allows but does not demand, we are to defer to “Caesar”: if the law forbids 14 year old girls to marry,we must obey the law in this, even though the Bible does not forbid it.

    And, should the law allow non-Christians to do something which God forbids, we may work within the system to change the law, but as long as that law does not demand that WE do the things which God forbids, we may not interfere with other people who are legally doing what the law permits. Case in point, the law in Nevada allows prostitution, but it does not force Christians or anyone else to become prostitutes or patronize cathouses.

    Until it DOES try to force Christians into prostitution or force them to utilize the services of prostitutes, we may work to change the law, but we are NOT allowed defy the law by harassing cathouse patrons, threatening to bomb the cathouses, etc.

  482. Corrie Says:

    I just watched the Dr. Phil episodes from last week on the FLDS compound in Eldorado and in Colorado City.

    He had interviews with people who were related to the leaders of this cult and who had “escaped” from the compounds. Don’t miss the word “escape”. Each one of them used that word to describe leaving this cult.

    I am floored that Cynthia Gee would be called a “pagan”, especially after hearing the firsthand testimonies of these survivors.

    The two Lost Boys that Dr. Phil interviewed talked about how the girls were considered special and they get special treatment UNTIL they became wives and then they just sort of disappeared into cooking, cleaning, scrubbing and baby-making.

    I see this also happening amongst the patriocentrists. There is a GREAT emphasis put on daughters/young virgins but we never see their mothers nor are the mothers in this movement (except for the handful of “leaders”) out in the forefront like some of the young girls are.

    Warren Jeffs niece also told about how her mother escaped from the cult and took all of her children with her. It is quite a story.

    Carolyn Jessop spoke about how her father would come in and fondle/molest her almost every night and she just thought that since he was the father, God’s “mouthpiece”, then what he was doing to her must have been right. The mothers know that many of these fathers molest their own daughters but because of the threats of hell, the taking away of food for themselves and their children as punishment and other abuses, they would never stand up to their husbands because that is not their “place”. So, abuses just go on unchecked because the women have been conditioned to submit or ELSE suffer abuse in some form if they do not 100% go along.

    Also, Stacy mentioned something on her blog in a comment about “forced marriages”. She is missing the point. It isn’t just “forced marriage”. It is pedophelia. Much older men preying on little girls of only 13 of 14 years old. And these are not “marriages” because these girls are only one of several other sex partners.

    The mothers at the Eldorado compound keep on talking about how the purity of their children has been taken away by the State.
    They are very concerned about the “purity” of their children.

    NOT. If they were concerned about the purity of their children, they would keep the lecherous old men away from their daughters and they would turn their child-molesting husbands into the proper authorities.

    Dr. Phil made some very good points about returning the children to their mothers. They should be returned to their mothers AFTER they receive proper education about boundaries and sound thinking concerning their “place” as a woman and wife in a family and as a protector of their children. These mothers need to be educated on how to protect their children and stand up against the abusers.

    And, don’t forget, that the narcissistic psychopath, Warren Jeffs, is this cult’s prophet. That man is considered to be a god. He was also involved with molesting his own children and having sex with his own sisters.

    Incest is not an uncommon thing in the FLDS cult.

    I hope people can get the issues straight and stop making this about homeschooling, modest dress, homemaking, healthy eating and MTV. How silly!

    The victims of this cult do NOT know how to get help, they are too terrified to speak out against their “gods”. They don’t have the tools. Just because they cover up abuse and say there is no abuse does not make it so. They are brainwashed victims of a demonic cult.

    Also, in Dr. Phil’s interview it came out how the cult leaders use these people as slave labor. It really is all very sad.

    What is even more sad is that people are lying about the real issues and using this abusive and horrible situation as a launching pad for their own pet agendas.

    I wish they would educate themselves.

  483. Corrie Says:

    I have no idea why the winkey-face is my above post. It was supposed to be a parenthesis. 🙂

  484. Corrie Says:

    Cynthia,

    Father Hollywood’s response to you is simply amazing on so many levels.

    It looks like you hurt his feelings or something. He seems quite emotional.

    “That, madam, is diabolical. And if you believe this is good, just, and noble, than you cannot worship the Triune God. You worship someone else.

    Put your faith in Jesus instead. You need to repent. That is why you are spending more time on my blog than you should be. How much time have you spent today praying for these folks?”

    Of course, he has spent a lot of time praying for these “folks” and because you disagree with him, it automatically means you have spent no time praying for them and that you are not a Christian. This has nothing to do with his own personal opinions or any agenda.

    Maybe we need to go down to the local honkeytonk and see what the talk is concerning this issue? I grew up in taverns and those “folks” seem to have the common sense a lot of Christians are lacking.

    I love to ask my Vietnam veteran step-dad his opinion on these things. He always seems to get right to the heart of the matter with very few, albeit colorful, words.

  485. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I am floored that Cynthia Gee would be called a “pagan”, especially after hearing the firsthand testimonies of these survivors.”

    To be absolutely fair to “Father Hollywood”, AKA Rev. Larry Beane II, he didn’t come out and use the word “pagan”, that was my term.
    But he did say that if I agreed with the CPS decision to remove the children from the FLDS parents — specifically, “if you believe this is good, just, and noble, than you cannot worship the Triune God. You worship someone else.”

    This must mean that considers me to be either a pagan, an athiest, or an out-and-out devil-worshipper, for if someone does not worship the Triune God, he must be one of the above — there are no other options.
    Then again, the Pharisees said that Jesus and His disciples were following Beelzebub when they did right, too.

    I was about to hit the “submit comment” button just now, when it hit me — this IS all about homeschooling, modest dress, homemaking, healthy eating and MTV!

    These people who are defending the FLDS are doing so because they share similar attitudes toward patriarchal living, homeschooling, modest dress, homemaking, healthy eating, etc, and they are paranoid, reasoning that because CPS took away the children from one counter-cultural group that was breaking the law, their group might be next. They are willing to see polygamy and the sexual abuse of children tolerated if it will help to ensure the security of their own countercultural lifestyle, AND in so doing, they are villifing the persons who are aghast at these evil things.

    Put simply, these guys are willing to tolerate the evil actions of the FLDS and call the truth a lie, all in the interest of protecting their own lifestyle and culture.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that coming dangerously close to blasphemy?

  486. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I love to ask my Vietnam veteran step-dad his opinion on these things. He always seems to get right to the heart of the matter with very few, albeit colorful, words.”

    LOL…. I KNOW what my Dad would have to say about it, if he were still alive, but I wouldn’t repeat most of it here.

  487. Lin Says:

    “But he did say that if I agreed with the CPS decision to remove the children from the FLDS parents — specifically, “if you believe this is good, just, and noble, than you cannot worship the Triune God. You worship someone else.””

    Perhaps he does not understand what is wicked and what is just as this proverb warns us against those who justify wickeness:

    “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” Proverbs 17:15

    If the FLDS leadership is not wicked with their raping of young girls, forced illegal marriages to underage girls, polygamy and parental abandonment of young boys, then I have to wonder what this man thinks is wicked? Kind of scary to speculate on.

  488. Alisa Says:

    Corrie wrote – “The two Lost Boys that Dr. Phil interviewed talked about how the girls were considered special and they get special treatment UNTIL they became wives and then they just sort of disappeared into cooking, cleaning, scrubbing and baby-making.

    I see this also happening amongst the patriocentrists. There is a GREAT emphasis put on daughters/young virgins but we never see their mothers nor are the mothers in this movement (except for the handful of “leaders” out in the forefront like some of the young girls are.”

    This whole emphasis on fertility (or fecundity, it you prefer) or even POTENTIAL fertility as with the young girls, keeps leading me to the same distasteful impression…

    Can you say, fertility goddess?

    Yeah, I know. I told you it was distasteful, but I can’t get away from it. I think the patriocentrist’s have actually crossed the line into fertility worship.

    But it doesn’t stop there. Has anyone else had the same thought I did upon considering the actual implications of this whole “200 Year Multi-Generational Vision” nonsense? Of course, who is going to say that it isn’t a good idea to pray for you grandchildren’s grandchildren? But tell me again exactly HOW these generation’s are supposed to be “God-glorifying”? God only gets indirectly “glorified” as the earthly one gets direct service. And should these generations get “godlier and godlier”, who is going to get the credit and “glory” for it. Who was the first Patriarch that sought to make their family so great?

    Can we say “Ancestor worship”?


  489. Corrie wrote: Can we say “Ancestor worship”?

    Can you say “The Family Toledoth”?

    (One of the topics in Vision Forum’s new 200 Year Plan, with a hat tip to MrsJoy for pointing out what it meant.)

  490. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Can we say “Ancestor worship”?

    Sounds kind of oriental, doesn’t it?

    The Jews put great stock in the fact that their father was Abraham, but Jesus said,

    Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
    AND
    Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    Maybe this tendency to worship procreation and paternity is why God made circumcision the sign of His covenant with Abraham — it may have been intended as a tangible sign of the mortification of the seat of man’s deepest pride.

  491. Lin Says:

    “And should these generations get “godlier and godlier”, who is going to get the credit and “glory” for it. Who was the first Patriarch that sought to make their family so great?”

    My first thought was of the Puritans. As a friend of mine who did his PhD thesis on them told me: What happened to them? Why did they die out?

    The answer is in their belief in ‘covenant’ families. They believed they could baptize their babies, raise them in the faith in their covenant communities and all would be well. Over a short time, It did not happen that way at all. We do not ‘inherit’ regeneration. That is ONLY a work of the Holy Spirit and as with raising our children in the faith, we should pray for the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts, convict them of sin and make them Born Again. We are ONLY guides and intercessors. We cannot make it happen.

  492. Corrie Says:

    “That’s because it isn’t about protecting girls. It’s really about girls as property. If Doug wants to keep protect his daughter’s innocence, all well and good. But other people’s daughters are their property, not his, so they can use them as they see fit.”

    Light,

    I agree with you. I don’t think this is about protecting girls at all.

    Just like the FLDS who keep on talking about how the “purity” of their children has been taken away by the State, this isn’t about “purity” because if it was, then they would have donned some steel-toed boots, by now, and kicked the child molesters right in the groin.

    It is about protecting one’s own paradigm and keeping the “dangerous” opinions of others out in order to keep the people locked into the paradigm.

    If people were really all about “purity” then they would be outside that cult compound and insist that all the child rapists be dealt with according to the Law of God.

    This is a cult (FLDS) which is predicated on a psychopath’s (Warren Jeff) perversities who has a godlike hold over the people under his sway, even from jail. This is a cult which rapes little girls, forces other females into marriages with men who already have more than enough sex partners, who force the young “bucks” out of the cult in order to cut down the competition and who use the people as slave labor to build their own little kingdom on this earth. This cult is also “bleeding the beast” or taking advantage of us tax-payers by using welfare, falsifying father’s (making up a man’s name) names on welfare requests, food stamps, etc in order to build their little kingdom.

    As a tax payer, I demand that the government look at the fraud in these cults and crack down on it and prosecute those who have committed fraud to the fullest extent of the law.

    If it makes me a pagan to look at this as a BLESSING to those children, then so be it. They have been LIBERATED from Warren Jeff’s and his diabolical hold over these people and I pray that these children will have their eyes opened and they will see the truth. I do want the children to be back with their mothers if and only if those mothers undergo some extensive education and training.

    Just because there is a little pain now in their lives does not make it bad. It is always painful to be delivered from bondage. There are going to be struggles but this is a chance for some of these people to wake up and see the light of day and to get the help that is being offered to them. This might be bad NOW but a year for now, we may be flooded with many more books about how this was the best thing that could have ever happened.

  493. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Just because there is a little pain now in their lives does not make it bad. It is always painful to be delivered from bondage. There are going to be struggles but this is a chance for some of these people to wake up and see the light of day and to get the help that is being offered to them. This might be bad NOW but a year for now, we may be flooded with many more books about how this was the best thing that could have ever happened.”

    Amen and well said!

  494. Alisa Says:

    “Can you say “The Family Toledoth”?

    (One of the topics in Vision Forum’s new 200 Year Plan, with a hat tip to MrsJoy for pointing out what it meant.)”

    Cindy,

    I missed that. What exactly is The Family Toledoth? I’m glad to find someone who knows!


  495. About the Toledoth,

    It appeared on VF’s website on April 4th: Above image from the message “The Family Toledoth,” presented at the > 200 Year Plan: A Practicum on Multi-Generational Faithfulness.

    If you go to thread 3 of the Prairie Muffin thing and look at entry 460 by Mrs. Joy, she offers some links.

    Apparently it the Jewish tradition of reviewing the family story on a regular basis as part of worship. From the best that I can tell, it is the retelling and mediation upon the unfolding of God’s faithfulness among the true patriarchs, Abram, Isaac and Jacob.

    I guess we are supposed to develop our own stories as we work towards the 200 year mark. This could be fine and wonderful if there was not patriocentric worship of the man of the house.

  496. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I guess we are supposed to develop our own stories as we work towards the 200 year mark. This could be fine and wonderful if there was not patriocentric worship of the man of the house.”

    The Family Toledoth for Christians should only be about one family, God’s family, which has but one Father.

  497. Corrie Says:

    Just thinking…

    Aren’t the patriocentrists the same people who talk about the blessing of dashing pagan infants’ heads against the rocks and some even liken it to abortion?

    Why, all of a sudden, are they so torn up about these children being taken out of a cult, away from psychological, sexual, spiritual and physical abuse but follow the Old Testament very closely and even use scripture verse to twist abortion of the non-elect into a good thing:

    Psalm 137

    O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
    How blessed will be the one who repays you
    With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
    9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
    Against the rock.

    What about the rights of those Babylonian parents whose little ones were taken from them and their heads dashed against the rock?
    What would be the doctrine concerning this verse?

    Why is it okay to laud that scripture but turn around and “mourn” other pagan children who have been taken away from their parents in order to PROTECT them against perverse practices? Calvin would have never allowed this cult to operate in Geneva and I am quite sure that all the patriocentrists who are decrying the Texas Government would have fully supported Calvin in his handling of such who break the laws of God! I can tell you that there would have probably been blood spilled if it were Calvin taking care of the problem with this cult. Interesting how people pick and choose what it is they get offended at? Calvin’s Geneva is lauded by the patriocentrists and many of them would love to bring back a theocratic government that functioned like the Puritan Government. They were hardly concerned about the RIGHTS of any individual if they differed in one jot or tittle from what the Bible said! Oh, the irony!

    Did we ever stop to think that maybe God is in this and using the government officials (AHEM- Romans 13) to deliver the oppressed and those “offered up to Molech” from their law-breaking captors?

    How about Psalm 146? How does this fit into this whole situation? Maybe this is how we are to look at it?

    How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
    Whose hope is in the LORD his God,
    6 Who made heaven and earth,
    The sea and all that is in them;
    Who keeps faith forever;
    7 Who executes justice for the oppressed;
    Who gives food to the hungry.
    The LORD sets the prisoners free.
    8 The LORD opens the eyes of the blind;
    The LORD raises up those who are bowed down;
    The LORD loves the righteous;
    9 The LORD protects the strangers;
    He supports the fatherless and the widow,
    But He thwarts the way of the wicked.
    10 The LORD will reign forever,
    Your God, O Zion, to all generations.
    Praise the LORD!

  498. anonymous Says:

    I came across these people from Joshuashouse in one of the Yahoo groups for Christian ladies… But instead of them closing sites down as post 129 suggests, I found they have expanded quite a bit ! They have a link list on their site with other sites they run. Anyway, just wanted to chime in to say they still seem to be alive and still spreading their personal brand of the truth.

  499. Corrie Says:

    http://helpthechildbrides.com/

    This is Flora Jessop’s site. There are some articles that tell a lot of information about the practices in these cults. “Whose your daddy?” seems to be the name of the game. If “Daddy” falls out of favor with Jeffs or his henchmen, he is ousted and the fallen man has his wives and daughters doled out amongst the men in good standing. Soon, the daughters are calling another man “daddy” and many times they will eventually be calling their new daddy “husband”.

    It certainly seems that women are property.

    Another practice is “blood atonement” which is kind of like “honor killing”. But, the patriarch of the family can shed blood if anyone rebels against his authority.

    This practice was explained in another TV interview I watched, too.

  500. Corrie Says:

    http://helpthechildbrides.com/stories/laurachap.htm

    This is a story of a former FLDS child “bride” who has escaped. “keep sweet”, “smile” and “stay pure” were the reminders that were written on papers and tucked into the female’s pockets as a reminder.

    And then this chilling quote, written in 2001:

    “Politicians have figured it out that there was no percentage in hauling these families off to jail,” he said. But dissidents bristle at officials’ liveand-let-live attitude.

    “It’s that big elephant in the living room that no one wants to acknowledge,” Tapestry’s Erickson said. “The state has treated us like just a bunch of angry women. They’ve really downplayed what we’re saying.” Rena Mackert notes that her mother was pregnant with her during the 1953 raid. Had authorities protected them then, she complains, she wouldn’t have been forced to sexually satisfy her father nor to marry her stepbrother.

    “If the state had done their job then, none of this would have happened to me,” she said. Critics complain bitterly that authorities don’t crack down on Colorado City’s town councilmen and police officers, who have a stake in preserving plural marriage because they gain status by accumulating many wives and children. Apostates describe a bartering system whereby the more young daughters a man gives away, the more young wives he is rewarded. “

  501. Corrie Says:

    Another quote from that article:

    “Dissidents don’t challenge polygamy between consenting adults. Rather, they object to the practice when it involves coercing and bartering adolescent girls. “If they’re married in the eyes of their religion, it’s really of no concern to me,” said Arizona state Rep. Linda Binder of Mohave County, one of the few lawmakers besides Allen rallying on behalf of the apostates. “But they’re dealing in trafficking underage females, forcing them to marry older men, not allowing children to be appropriately educated. Then they tell them they’ll be condemned into eternity if they talk. That’s brainwashing, and that’s not OK with me.”

    Exacerbating the problem, watchdogs say, is that even women who want to flee are stuck. They own no property, have little education and no job training. They’re typically bound by several kids. Most know no one outside the community. And they believe they’ll burn in hell if they stray from the church.

    “When you try talking to the girls, they say nothing because they’re convinced they’ll die if they talk,” said Allen. “They just look straight ahead and stare, like deer caught in headlights.”

    That’s a familiar look to visitors here. Girls turn away in apparent horror when asked about their lives. A photographer’s tire was slashed and a reporter’s car keyed while parked outside homes of apostates still living in town. It’s that kind of wariness that some perceive as the community’s increasing cultishness. Warren Jeffs is so isolating the group, dissidents say they fear a Waco- or Guyana-type tragedy.”

  502. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Why, all of a sudden, are they so torn up about these children being taken out of a cult, away from psychological, sexual, spiritual and physical abuse but follow the Old Testament very closely and even use scripture verse to twist abortion of the non-elect into a good thing?”

    Why? because they are hypocrites. They don’t give a hoot about the FLDS or their children. What they are concerned with is that if the government can take action against a cult like the FLDS, they will be next in line.
    Their thinking is so “out there” that the don’t realize the difference between merely being a countercultural heretic who is breaking no laws, and being a countercultural cultist who advocates aids and abets statutory rape.

    Too, they may be doing a little law-bending of their own. I remember looking a “courtship” site a couple of years ago that advertised Christian matchmaking, and advised prospective clients to consioder the idea that “spiritual marriage” is good enough, and that it it best not to bring the state into the process by getting a marriage license.


  503. Posting this online every chance I get:

    Douglas Wilson

    “Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology”

    Published by Canon Press., 2001
    P.O. Box 8741
    Moscow, ID 83843

    Excerpt from

    Chapter X: “The Life of the Church”

    Moving Beyond Pro-Life (sub-title in Chapter X)

    Pgs 245 – 246

    In the hard providence of God, He sometimes allows His enemies to destroy themselves. When the pagan nations outside Israel sent their children into the fires of Molech, Israel wasn’t called to blockade the fire and rescue the babies. And when Israelite kings followed Molech, the people were not commanded to revolt. Israelites were to make sure they didn’t kill their own children (Lev 20), but God-haters were left to destroy themselves (Is 57:13; Jer 5:19; 6:19, 21)…

    Let them kill themselves, for “God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Rom 1:28), even “murder” (Rom 1:29). This is the wrath of God…

    [W]e must take up arms to defend God’s covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical.

    We must remember the antithesis. Scripture always remembers that deep chasm between those seeking to honor God and those who hate him. But this has not been a part of contemporary pro-life rhetoric.

    The unbelievers are destroying themselves in a frenzy of child-murder and fruitless sodomy. Let them go. These are hard words. But Christians must learn to say them. Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are “foul” or “unclean” (I Cor 7:14). We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are “without natural affection” and say –

    “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen.”

  504. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Another practice is “blood atonement” which is kind of like “honor killing”. But, the patriarch of the family can shed blood if anyone rebels against his authority.”

    This sounds like Jonestown all over again. IMO, any religion that advocates murder has just lost its Constitutional protection. We have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion, but our Constitutional rights are only valid to the degree that our exercise of them doesn’t violate someone else’s Constitutional rights.

  505. Cynthia Gee Says:

    [W]e must take up arms to defend God’s covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical…..Paul taught us that the children of God-haters are “foul” or “unclean” (I Cor 7:14).

    If this is what he believes, it is Doug Wilson who is foul and unclean.

    The scripture reads,
    1Cr 7:14 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.

    It means that the MARRIAGE is valid as long as one person is a Christian, if it were not so, then the children would be illegitimate. It doesn’t that the unbaptized children of unbelievers are any more foul that ANYONE is, before he becomes a believer.

    So the HyperP’s are no longer anti-abortion. How predictable. Respect for human life and fascism are incompatible, and this had to happen sooner or later.

  506. JohannaS Says:

    “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen.”

    That makes me sick to my stomach. I really am speechless in what to say, other than it just makes me sick.

  507. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Cindy, the more I read Doug Wilson’s essay, the more aghast I stand…

    ” We must come to the day when the Christian can truly rebuke those who are “without natural affection” and say –
    “The ancient psalmist blessed the one who would take little ones of those who hate God and dash them on the rock (Ps 137:9). We see by your pro-abortion position that you clearly agree with this kind of treatment. And we in the Church, in a way you cannot truly comprehend, are now prepared to say amen.”

    [W]e must take up arms to defend God’s covenant children (Neh 4:14). But we may not use violence until they come after authorities or to defend the lives of Molech worshipers and their children. This is far more secular than biblical.

    IMO, any Christian who could say such a thing is without natural affection himself, let alone Christian charity.
    MY GOD, have mercy.. to not care about the fate of babies and little children, simply because their parents are unbelievers…!
    Mat 18:10 ¶ Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

    This is move to pull the wagons into a circle and to defend or care for those who belong to the “covenant” is antithesis of the Great Commission. Not only does it cut off unbelievers, but it condemns as unclean any CHRISTIANS who do not espouse covenant theology!

  508. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “That makes me sick to my stomach. I really am speechless in what to say, other than it just makes me sick.”

    Johanna, it makes me sick in my heart. And, there seems to be no denomination that is completely free of this way of thinking — it is growing. All I can say is, Come, Lord Jesus, come soon.

  509. Lin Says:

    Doug Wilson, for a long time, has thought he was ‘god’.

  510. RichardD Says:

    “Can you say “The Family Toledoth”?

    Isn’t that spelled, “The Phantom Tollbooth”?

  511. thatmom Says:

    “Too, they may be doing a little law-bending of their own. I remember looking a “courtship” site a couple of years ago that advertised Christian matchmaking, and advised prospective clients to consioder the idea that “spiritual marriage” is good enough, and that it it best not to bring the state into the process by getting a marriage license.”

    This was taught at the homeschooling workshops done by Kent Hovind.

  512. thatmom Says:

    Cindy, I am so glad you posted that quote. I was wanting to post it here yesterday and couldn’t put my hands on it. Chilling.

  513. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “This was taught at the homeschooling workshops done by Kent Hovind.”

    Yes, that’s the name I was trying to remember! Thanks, Karen!

  514. Corrie Says:

    The similarities between the patriocentrists and the FDLS are striking.

    Another way they are similar is that they both scare their children and fellow followers with stories about the “outside world” and how the government is out to get them. The government is pure evil, in spite of the fact that the Bible tells us to SUBMIT to them and to RESPECT them.

    If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny but the patriocentrists are telling others that they should be afraid that the government is coming for them next because they dress modestly, homeschool, eat healthy food, don’t watch MTV, don’t date and promote family worship. And, don’t forget, watch out for the FEMINISTS because they are truly the reason why America is the way it is today. They are the real enemy. They get everyone whipped up into a frenzy, give them the solution for their problem and then everyone starts to follow the ones with the “answers”. Problem is that no one really looks too closely at their lives or business practices or else they would be concerned.

    The FLDS tell their followers that the outside world/government is evil and the “beast” and that they have to stay away from them and don’t listen to what they say because it will stain their purity.

    I wonder if some are very afraid because they often get remarks in the public square from curious onlookers about being Mormon?

    I wonder how the advice that I got about the “shoe fitting” fits here? Or the advice about the woman who wears maternity clothes means she is pregnant?

    And then add to this the very real concern that people have that the children trapped in this cult are not being educated, especially the females, and this could cause some very real problems.

  515. thatmom Says:

    “And then add to this the very real concern that people have that the children trapped in this cult are not being educated, especially the females, and this could cause some very real problems.”

    Reminds me of the post I wrote on my other blog on the patriocentric views of women being a threat to homeschoolers. Now THAT is the real threat, IMHO.

  516. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Here’s an interesting article I just found tonight, written by Carl and Joni Holm, a former FLDS couple who left the faith 27 years ago. Carl and Joni explains why the FLDS members dress the way they do: (remove the @@)

    http@@://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3092303

    ” The different pastel-colored dresses identify wives of the same husband. The long sleeves and skirts cover white religious garments. “Actually long-sleeved, it goes all the way down to their ankles, so they’re to cover their garment,” Carl said.

    They are forbidden to wear red or black. “Jesus is to wear that. He’ll come, he’ll return in a red-colored robe, so that’s off limits. And black, and the dark is also off limits because that is the sign of Satan,” Joni explained.

    The women’s hair swept up over their foreheads relates to their spirituality. “It looks like a goose thing on top of their heads, the higher they can get that, the more righteous they are, so that’s a trademark for them. They really are proud of that,” Joni said.

    The couple cannot visit Carl’s family. Joni said, “They were told and counseled by Warren not to associate with any of us.”

  517. Lin Says:

    ” The different pastel-colored dresses identify wives of the same husband. The long sleeves and skirts cover white religious garments. “Actually long-sleeved, it goes all the way down to their ankles, so they’re to cover their garment,” Carl said.”

    And, of course, they have to live in Texas heat with all that on!

    The pastel dresses identify wives of different husbands? Wow, they need a ‘color’ to do that. I wonder if CPS knew that?

    I guess you are in real trouble if you have flat straight hair. I assume hair spray is bought by the gallons. :o)

  518. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I guess you are in real trouble if you have flat straight hair. I assume hair spray is bought by the gallons. :o)”

    Isn’t it amazing how people pick and choose what they want to follow from the Scriptures? They won’t wear makeup or jewelry, because of 1 Timothy(“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;”) but they puff out that hair, and even attach a spiritual aspect to their hairdos, LOL!!!!

    Can anyone say, “make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments” ?

  519. TulipGirl Says:

    “April 30, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    “Too, they may be doing a little law-bending of their own. I remember looking a “courtship” site a couple of years ago that advertised Christian matchmaking, and advised prospective clients to consioder the idea that “spiritual marriage” is good enough, and that it it best not to bring the state into the process by getting a marriage license.”

    This was taught at the homeschooling workshops done by Kent Hovind.”

    Also by Michael and Debi Pearl.


  520. Cynthia Gee wrote: but they puff out that hair, and even attach a spiritual aspect to their hairdos, LOL!!!!

    There’s a whole chapter in a Kinky Friedman book about aquanet and big hair.(a Jewish guy who was raised in the Texas Hill Country town I lived in where there’s not a synagogue for at least 50 miles). He now lives in Kerrville, TX, I think.

    Anyway he has a couple of recipies for the big hair fixative, one of which includes KY jelly or something. I can’t remember… I’d like to forget about Texas big hair.

  521. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I wonder if putting a cushion or a “rat” under the puff is seen as false spirituality? 🙂


  522. Okay, I looked it up. The book is Kinky Friedman’s Guide to Texas Etiquette: How to Get to Heaven or Hell Without Going Through Dallas-FortWorth.

    There’s a subtitle called “Big Hair for Jesus”

    Very funny if you’ve spent any time in Texas and worth leafing through if you come across a copy.


  523. Alright, more humor to brighten your day

    Quoting from Kinky’s book:

    Many non-Texans have tried to imitate the Texas Big Hair but few have succeeded. An entire generation of heavy metal artists coveted the sheer majesty of the Texas Big Hair, but none was able to successfully re-create it successfully in all its glory.

    Fortunately, for anyone reading this, I have become privy to an old family recipe for molding the perfect big hair, hair so big you would need KY jelly to wear a hat. Even the family cat will hiss at it. Be forewarned however, this is not for amateurs. Make sure someone you trust is nearby just in case anything goes wrong.

    Ingredients:

    One case of hairspray, preferably Set and Spray lacquer (Aqua Net will do in a pinch)

    One teasing comb, extra large curlers (or you can use empty Coke cans)

    A Styrofoam cup

    One bag of bobby pins (at least 100)

    One pony tail rubber band

    ……

    That’s all amazon reader will let me see…

  524. RichardD Says:

    Can anyone say, “make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments” ?

    If they were using broad phylacteries, these young ladies would not have gotten pregnant would they? Oh – I guess phylacterie are not 100% effective.

    (Sorry … I couldn’t help myself)


  525. Please add a post-post “s” to the word “phylacterie” up there. It’s too early and my fingers have not yet come to full alertness.

  526. thatmom Says:

    “36) Prairie Muffins are happy to be girls—they rejoice in the distinctives which God sovereignly bestowed on them which make them feminine. They are also happy that their husbands are masculine, and they do not diminish that masculinity by harping on habits which emanate from the fact that boys will be boys, even when they grow up. In addition, Prairie Muffins are careful not to use their feminine, hormotional weaknesses to excuse sinful attitudes and actions, but learn to depend more and more on God’s grace and strength in the midst of any monthly trials.

    37) Prairie Muffins may go against the flow, but they also know how to roll with the flow. Living moment by moment, day by day, season by season, they don’t depend on present circumstances to dictate their direction in life. Circumstances change constantly, so Prairie Muffins hang tightly onto the Father’s hand while they ride out the waves of life that ebb and flow past their doors.

    38) The chief end of the Prairie Muffin is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Because she is not her own, but belongs to her faithful Savior Jesus Christ, she understands her responsibility to please Him in all she does, looking to His holy, inerrant Word for guidance in everything pertaining to life and godliness. As a Berean, she measures all she reads and hears against that plumbline, and she purposes to gratefully obey God’s law, in His strength, because Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, said, “If you love Me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). We understand that nothing we do will merit our salvation—that is only given through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us—but serving our Lord is part of our sanctification. The Bible has some very specific things to say to women regarding their God-given role, and Prairie Muffins take those divinely-ordained distinctions very seriously.

    39) Aware that they are being watched, rather than becoming paranoid—or annoyed—Prairie Muffins are employed* in setting a good example for those who have their eyes on them. We in no way wish to endorse adopting masks to hide the real “you,” but we firmly believe that what is on the inside will show through, so we suggest remembering that there is no hiding the real you from those who know you best, i.e., your family. By God’s grace we will continue to work on cleaning up our act, being that good example, knowing that “more attention our children pay to what we do than what we say.”

  527. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “……looking to His holy, inerrant Word for guidance in everything pertaining to life and godliness. As a Berean, she measures all she reads and hears against that plumbline…..”

    I thought that doing that made you a white washed feminist? The patriarchal paradigm teaches that women are not to read the Bible for themselves, but are to ask their husbands and pastors what it means, and filter everything through the writings of whichever patriarchal/dominionist guru their family happens to be following, be it North,Phillips, Wilson, or the tried and true Rushdoony.

  528. RichardD Says:

    The patriarchal paradigm teaches that women are not to read the Bible for themselves, but are to ask their husbands and pastors what it means

    Cynthia – I had no knowledge of the claims of the patriarchy prior to about a month ago. My wife came home from her ladies bible study about two months ago completely bowled over by a comment from one of the women there. This woman had made a statement based on her reading of scripture and then followed it with a comment to the affect of, “go home and check with your husbands to see if this is true.”

    My wife was appalled that she would have said this and asked me if I found it as offensive as she did. I told her that I didn’t really understand why the church would have a “Ladies” Bible Study if the women were too stupid to read the bible and understand it on thier own.

    I thought that was just an aberration, but now see that this is actually taught. It’s pretty disgusting.


  529. Well, Richard,

    If you had just listened to the words of Liesl in The Sound of Music, you would understand that us wimmin need to be taught by men:

    “Sixteen Going On Seventeen“ by the real Rodgers and Hammerstein (lyrics: “[Rolfe]: You need someone older and wiser telling you what to do, I am 17 going on 18, I’ll take care of you. [Liesl]: I am 16 going on 17, I know that I’m naive; Fellows I meet may tell me I’m sweet, and willingly I believe …. Totally unprepared am I to face a world of men; Timid and shy and scared am I of things beyond my kin. I need someone older and wiser telling me what to do; You are 17 going on 18 I’ll depend on you.”)

  530. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I visited an interdenominational “ladies” bible study years ago (in 1990) which was held in a Lutheran church. The pastor, who had just jumped onto the patriarchal bandwagon, stood up in front of the group and read a chapter from the Bible, and then TOLD us what it meant. I raised my hand to ask a question at one point, since what he was saying did not agree with waht I had been taught in my college theology classes, and from the reaction I got, you would have thought that I had just grown another nose or something. He answered me politely enough, but the room got all quiet, and afterwards one of the ladies took me aside and said that women are not to question the pastor, we are just supposed to listen to him.
    I asked why, and she explained that women can’t understand spiritual things in the same way as men do, and that pastors are granted special understanding that even ordinary men don’t have, so we should just listen to the teaching and not question what the pastor said, and be grateful to the pastor for teaching us.
    I did not go back.


  531. Cynthia,

    I’m appalled and shocked you dared to appply your brain (in a quiet and submissive sort of way, though).

    Gaston to Belle:

    “It’s not right for a women to read; soon she gets ideas and ‘thinking'”<