This is a subject I intend to handle with as much tact as possible, but I make no apology for treating the subject boldly as well as 100% scripturally. It is important to speak the truth on this, because the oppressive reach of church teaching extends even into the sacred realm of the marriage bed, which Paul declares to be “undefiled.” The church leaves no sacred cows, so unfortunately, neither can we.
I believe sex within marriage to be a gift of God, and something to be enjoyed without guilt or shame. The teachings of the church on sex seem to start with the premise that it is dirty and shameful; hence rules such as abstaining on Saturday night. In one instance, a woman was advised to leave her husband, and when she pressed for Biblical support for that, was accused of “just wanting to be unclean with your husband.”
Wow. This from an unmarried so-called “teacher.” I think God might be surprised to learn that something he created pure is considered “unclean.” Faulty premises always lead to faulty conclusions, as Merie used to say.
One possible response the church may have is to completely deny that these have ever been rules. They can try to argue that they have just been “judgments,” not rules or doctrines, but this is nothing short of word games and a gross perversion of the English language. The harsh reality is that judgements are opinions, and when opinions are taught, they become doctrines (teachings).
Our first clue that the church’s view of sex in marriage is wildly out of sync with the Bible is that we have an entire book of the Bible devoted to the playful sexual anticipation of a married couple. Yes, you read that right. I’m not trying to be rude or sarcastic at all, but perhaps a widowed, childless, elderly woman may not have had the most wisdom to offer on the subject of sex, marriage and child rearing.
I’d be much more inclined to listen to Paul, who by inspiration wrote about sex within marriage as undefiled…selfless…holy…sanctified…unifying. How dare we pervert something beautiful and God-ordained, and make it into something shameful with our own rules and regulations? Sex is not a necessary evil, but a powerful gift to help keep a marriage strong.
Nevertheless, the church’s man-made teachings on this subject are numerous:
- Married sex must be face to face. I’m still not certain if this is a changed teaching or not. If you know the church’s current teaching on this, please comment and I’ll provide a clarification.
- The teaching at one time was that faces should be 6 to 12 inches apart, or possibly 6 to 36 inches apart. I’m not sure what the goal of this outrageously unbiblical rule was; perhaps to keep men from enjoying the view? But that would contradict a number of verses telling husbands to, and I quote, “let her breasts satisfy you at all times.”
- No sitting up.
- The woman can’t be on top.
- A married couple shouldn’t kiss too much, because that could turn into “lasciviousness.” Excuse me? Song of Solomon 4:11 is a pretty compelling description of a french kiss. And since when is it wrong to lust for your spouse? The same writer who wrote Song of Solomon wrote in Proverbs 5:19 for a husband to let his wife’s breasts satisfy him at all times. Perhaps Solomon didn’t realize that could also “lead to lasciviousness.”
- Married couples shouldn’t have sex too much, or that would be “chambering.” First of all, read the only verse that uses this word in the KJV, Romans 13:12-13. In context, do you really think Paul is instructing married couples not to have too much sex, at the same time he’s giving out instruction against works of darkness, rioting, drunkenness, strife and envy? Any serious reading of the passage makes that interpretation laughable. Second, this definition of “chambering” is a completely fabricated definition of an archaic King James era English word that really means a male wantonly bedding females. It literally means “illicit sex,” and I haven’t found a Bible verse yet teaching how many times per week a husband and wife can come together before it becomes “illicit” (which means “against the law”).
- Married couples can’t have sex on Saturday nights because it’s too close to Sunday.
- No foreplay is allowed. Really? Since God made men to not need foreplay as much as women in order to become aroused, this is a rule that women ought to find as appalling as it is unbiblical. It reduces sex to a purely “carnal,” selfish, mechanical, biological act, mostly for the benefit of the male, instead of the beautiful act of union, and selfless expression of love God meant it to be for both partners in the marriage.
Growing up in this church, I heard many a non-member lesson on all the churches with “doctrines of men,” from Ellen G. White’s dietary rules for Seventh Day Adventists, to the Pope’s rules for Catholic priests, nuns, etc. How then can we justify making our own set of extra-Biblical rules for marital sex, travel, attire, confession, employment, and so much more? How is this not exactly the kind of rule-making Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for?
To borrow a favorite line from Merie’s non-member classes of old: “Find any one of the above rules in the Bible and I’ll eat every page.”
Thank you for another great blog. I love the last favorite line.
Can you clarify if the CoC also preaches on what color underwear a woman can wear? I remember I was only allowed to wear white or nude. I understand there are rules about thong underwear not being allowed…but is there further instruction as to the color and "prettyness" of underwear and bras?
I have never heard this taught.
Lynn is correct.
I was told not to wear thongs because they were too suggestive or whatever the word choice of the day was…. basically that they were inappropriate or gross….. or ankle bracelets because it was a stumbling block for the men of the church and something on a woman's ankle will only make the male eyes go upward from there.
What is hard to be understood is that whatever we do we do it for a specific reason. What is the reason to wear thongs, certain under clothing, certain regular clothing, and certain jewelry? A lot of is this for the reason to draw attention to ourselves and some of it with a sexual draw. If Christianity is to humble ourselves and our lives are to be for God. When we dress ourselves to draw attention to ourselves we are taking away from God. Also, it is good not to be a stumbling stone for anybody, especially towards the opposite… Read more »
@COCchild @Lynn – No matter what human reasoning one uses to teach rules like this, they are "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" because they are certainly not God's rules. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a married woman wearing intimate clothing that would appeal to her husband sexually. As for ankle bracelets, or painted toenails, for that matter, I personally think they're classy and pretty. My wife and teen girls wear them on rare occasion, and I love it. Why in the world do we accept one person's sense of style and appropriateness? These things draw no more attention… Read more »
Lynn, I'm with you. I did a study on this and God's mind is very clear in the matter of mind and the clothing we wear. We live in a society now that is so unclear concerning the lines of purity that even fornication is not a sin. Kevin, why is council considered by you as commandments of man?
First of all, not to be nitpicky but the word is counsel, not council. A council is a gathering of people convened for some particular purpose. A May Meeting is essentially a council. Counsel, on the other hand, is advice that is offered from one person to another. I don't say this to be nitpicky, but because Stanton has changed the meanings of words, and until we go back to their proper meanings, we'll continually misunderstand each other. Giving someone counsel is not a commandment of men if it is truly just advice to be taken or left according to… Read more »
Kevin, It continues to amaze me how COC will say they are the authority on "God's mind". I can't understand why someone would claim to know God's mind. Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Come let us reason together guy – I wonder why you bring up the comparision of our culture to that of the CoC and any other church. That just paves the way for a circular argument. No one on this blog is comparing the culture or society… Read more »
Anon 4:31, good comments. Judging the heart based on outward rules and regulations is exactly what the Pharisees were guilty of. It's impossible to truly codify all sin because even something good can become sin if it's done with the wrong heart. There may be no way to know if it's truly sin without knowing the heart, and that's something only God can know.
Maybe if these men looked at women like God does, with purity and love and not lust they wouldn't ever notice an ankle bracelet as something that causes them to lust. Then maybe they'd see that an ankle bracelet is simply something some women find fun to wear instead.
Thank you ANON Sept 9 at 11:20PM. And Kevin as usual for having logical things to say. If you don't know the reason why you wear thongs under clothing is so you don't have those ghastly underwear lines that draw even more attention to your rear when it's split in 4. And who's business is it anyway what kind of underwear you wear?? I'ts not like we are parading around in nothing but our underwear. I mean really, do you think that God is judging us because of the type of undewear we are, nail polish, jewelry, or any of… Read more »
And Anon at 4:31, I just read your reply and agree whole heartedly. Instead of nit-picking at every little thing everyone does and judging them for it and telling them what they are doing wrong. Why not just pray for that person and then pray for yourself! There are probably issues you cannot see about yourself because you are too busy being the thong police. 🙂
Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Apply this to what we wear and how we carry ourselves. Yes, it is wrong to lust after the opposite sex, but if my revealing dress or alluring make up to look better then I could be a stumbling block for my weaker brethren. We have to keep in mind that my actions could be a stumbling block. Romans 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any… Read more »
Sorry for double scripture.
Lynn, if you or any other man had a foot fetish and I, being female wore sandals that exposed my feet, would you consider that sin?
That's what happens when you single out a Scripture and start making rules.
1 Timothy 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; Modesty – Freedom from vanity or conceit Ask yourself why you feel the need to wear things that helps reflect your appearance or draw attention to yourself? This is called vanity. There are lines that are drawn to what is reality and and a sickness of the mind. God looks to what we are doing to help minimize making ourselves a stumbling block for our brethren. Now, we can teach somethings… Read more »
Thanks for answering honestly. That's great you would rather err on that side -to each his own. I, personally would rather err on the side of whether or not the Holy Spirit convicts me of sin. If I wear sandals it is because my feet are hot. 🙂
I see a lot of braided hair in COC and surely that is allowed because the point of this passage is what is going on in the heart and mind of the individual. Thank you proving my point.
I did not make your point for you. You are missing the point. There is nothing wrong with wearing sandals. There is nothing wrong with braided hair. My point is like what Timothy said. Christianity is not about adorning ourselves. To many people, especially women, wear what they do to make themselves more appealing and that can become a sin. First I need to ask if I am immodest, then I need to ask myself what is the purpose for what I am wearing. Remember, two different people can do the same thing with one being right and the other… Read more »
Men need to be careful about what they look at, women need to be careful what they give men to look at
All you are teaching is body shaming and sex is dirty and as soon as the young people can get out of this cult the better. Hopefully they will be able to find a spouse that will be understanding about the sick way they were taught up in this evil cult and enjoy a normal sex life as God has planned for us.
No, unfortunately I am not able to shed any light on rules for intimate apparel. Being a male, those were apparently "above my pay grade." 🙂
You know what is really terrible about this? So many members of this coC are women. Their husbands are either not members by choice or they were withdrawn from. Consider what God says about how men are the spiritual leaders of their home (Ephesians 5:23-33) and see that these men have been shoved to the side by their wives. Even if this church was the "one true" church, what kind of example is this to their men? Its as if they are saying, "Yes, God says you are the leader but since you aren't doing it right I am going… Read more »
Excellent points. Yes, the topic of a man leading his family is sorely missing in this church. I recommend every man read "Point Man" and learn to recover his sense of mission and manhood in the home. With sacrificial leadership like Jesus showed, the husband can in fact lead the family lovingly, humbly and effectively. On the other hand, I've seen Christian women dominating their husbands, totally emasculating them, even to the point of publicly rebuking them for private sexual addictions. Perhaps if there was a little more going on in the bedroom, Satan wouldn't be able to have a… Read more »
That is so true Kevin Harper, and anonymous. The church has demonized men for their sex drives. It is to be confined to marriage and one woman no doubt, and God certainly doesn't endorse promiscuity, but when a woman fails to nourish her husband, well. "when there is no love in the home, there will be love out of the home". And by emasculating the men, their drive and ambition is gone, and the church has not, is not, and never will grow like this.
Anonymous you are right on. I grew up in the coc. When my father got "withdrawn from" I saw the change in our family. My mom rules the house hold. She say's what can and cannot happen. Her way is thee way. She has emasculated my father. This has left an awful example of what a marriage should be like. To think that because I am the only one in the marriage going to heaven then I will make the rules is belittling God. God is all knowing, His word says to honor our husbands to respect them as head… Read more »
I remember an older couple who wanted to get married, why? Cuz they apparently they found love for each other. They were NOT allowed the privilege because they were too old to probably have children, so they were judged to only want to have "sex" and that was being what???? lascivious? So it was understood that marriage was for the purpose of having children! Really! Ok, so this is an eros type love, but thank you God that you gave us eros type love! That we desire our spouse! Sadly, I do believe many (not all) marriages that took place… Read more »
Wow, Teresa, so often I'm shocked at some of the doctrines of the past. I don't know why anything surprises me anymore. So an elderly couple can't get married because they can't have children? Who are these people to make up rules like that? Oops, you actually looked up a Greek word for love, eros? For shame!
For those who have never explored Greek, there are three words generally translated "love" in the KJV:
Eros (erotic love, like that written about in Song of Solomon)
Phileo (brotherly love, as in "Philadelphia," the city of brotherly love)
Agape (Godly, self-sacrificial love)
FYI; I believe it's important to eliminate the totally ridiculous accusations, such as people not permitted to get married because they can't have children. That was never taught. Kevin, lets be more of a detective in eliminating the ridiculous so it doesn't discredit nor distract us from the correct info we need to have accurate judgment in these matters.
Anon 12:58, are you saying that Teresa is lying? The problem is frankly that I don't know what's ridiculous anymore. I've seen too many things that clearly happened yet clearly are ridiculous. Perhaps someone can verify. I'm certainly not wanting to make or promote false accusations, but this one certainly seems plausible, given the church's teaching about marital sex being exclusively for procreation.
Kevin, I heard the same thing taught; sex is for pro-creation (only).
Not to say that Teresa or anon 1:24 is lying but I honestly have never heard that sex was for pro-creation only; quite the contrary. I was always taught that sex could be enjoyed by married couples regardless of whether they were able to have children or not. There have been restrictions placed on couples, some which have been lifted and others which are still in place (for a different discussion), but the notion that sex is only for procreation has never fallen on my ears and I go back to the late 70s. I can however understand why it… Read more »
Yes, and it would seem a logical conclusion then that marriage without the possibility of procreation would be frowned upon.
Well, it's honestly good to know that someone was taught at least a moderately Biblical view of the holiness of marital sex, even if there were some extra rules and regulations thrown in for good measure. Obviously, there are different experiences across the spectrum, which only belies the inability of any group to maintain complete uniformity of doctrine.
This was shouted at the congregation by a male preacher in the 1990's (sex is for procreation only), but he had been in the sect since Merie's time.
I never heard sex was for procreation only, but know Kellogg advocated this. Since I was a child raised in the church, had never heard this position. But I'm also single…
It was never taught
Obviously, some people are saying it was taught in their congregations. Perhaps it was taught in some churches by some teachers, but not universally.
The only way a person could confirm that something NEVER happened would be to be in all places at all times. Impossible. So for you to say NEVER is really not a logical statement and it can't be proven. Its kind of funny if you think about it like that, isn't it?
It was never taught.
Anonymous, Oct 6, 10:31. I don't want to beat this subject to death but didn't you read the comment above yours? To say that it was never taught would mean that you would have had to hear absolutely everything that was ever taught and there are people who have commented that remember it being taught. I personally was not taught that but I would not be able to say 'it was never taught' because I didn't personally hear everything taught and I have now heard that it was taught at least a few instances.
The Stanton Churches are so tightly woven together 'teaching' is very transparent. It isn't autonomous but rather closely connected by the center; Gary Preman, Tom Cornforth, Paula Preman and Kim Smith. Around these are the teachers and preachers for each congregation who are in close communication with the evangelists. That 'kind' of teaching would have been heard from the rafters, believe me. If someone went off script and taught that sexual intercourse is ONLY for procreation it wouldn't take long for the drip down factor to take effect. And when I say it wasn't taught, I mean it wasn't part… Read more »
Anon Oct 7, 2013. I agree, the teaching was not part of the central doctrine and had it been exposed to the main teachers would have been corrected. Rather than saying 'never taught' let's just say, 'that teaching has not been an overall doctrine accepted or taught by the churches main teachers' since I do believe some may have heard it taught incorrectly in exceptional instances. Rarely can one ever say never and be correct in every instance. Enough said.
Amen, enough said.
I heard on one of Meries' tapes answering a question about sex in marriage and she stated that it could be a wonderful thing shared by the couple.
No one at any time can regulate who gets married, unless they are divorced by reasons other than infidelity or death. Remember, Paul wrote, "Let them marry".
I think the problem here is in the "unless" statement. In trying to interpret those conditions for everyone, they do just that…they regulate who can and can't get married or stay married. There is a clear history of the church teaching rules (interpretations) regarding Jesus' instructions on marriage, then having to go back and re-interpret them in light of new church teachings (conveniently re-termed "understandings").
Kevin, lets be fair on this one. The Stanton Churches worked hard to be in unity on Matt. 5:32. How many May trips were devoted to this subject? It wasn't aimlessly bounced around to cause pain. 'Save for the cause of fornication' was very important to understand correctly for the sake of the brethren that it would effect. Merie did ultimately leave the judgment to the Christians effected. I said ultimately.
I never said the subject was aimlessly bounced around "to cause pain." Obviously, no one intended to "bounce" the subject around or "cause pain." Stanton instead thought it had the correct "rule" based on their reading of Jesus' words. And equally obviously, they changed their mind later, and this affected real people, real marriages, and real children who grew up in a split home as a result of these doctrinal "mistakes." The damage done to these real people in the name of God is egregious and it is shocking how callous people are to that. Responsible parties should instead be… Read more »
This is why the quit interfering with Christians lives. Remember, the congregation is empowered with keeping the church clean and without reproach. This is why God instituted "withdrawl". Since the time of Merie they have gotten better understanding, thanks to May week, and have realized that interfering with their lives at these levels can cause a lot of problems. Yes, they may have made those mistakes in the past, but isn't more glorious that they have figured it out and fixed it? Remember, we are all human. We are not omnipotent nor have direct knowledge. I think there should be… Read more »
Jesus said if anyone offends "these little ones" it would be better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were thrown into the sea. Little ones have indeed been "offended" and "sinned against" by the previous teachings on marriage and divorce. Their lives have been permanently scarred by the experience, in some cases turning completely away from God. Think about it…the only representation of God these kids had in their lives was "the church" and it destroyed their family and split up Mom and Dad. You don't think that's going to have real consequences and turn them… Read more »
Once again I agree with Lynn. Ezra 10th chapter is a principal carried over into the new. If they married strange wives God told them to separate because God commanded the separation. In the new the same principal applies in regard to divorce. Matt 19:9 says if you marry a divorced person or your divorced (save for fornication) you are in adultery because God does not recognize it as a marriage. I find this to be simple.
As far as I know, people separated for the correct reasons. I.e. Dianne White. I knew her and heard Merie state that since she had married and divorced before she became a Christian that she could not remarry, yet after the church decided that they can't interfere with other Christians decisions she remarried. So did Kerrie Ellege (sp). She moved from WA to CA. All of a sudden there were a lot of remarriages. Some I don't think I agree with, but that isn't up to me. God will judge. When it comes to situations, like this, it is up… Read more »
Lynn you said, "The churches realize they made mistakes…" I believe God will hold those people accountable for their ignorance and that it is no excuse. If you review Leviticus God does hold people accountable despite their ignorance. As Christians we have even less excuse claiming ignorance because He has revealed His whole word to us. Leaders and teachers in this sect, from both pride and fear of man or “man pleasing” create and follow laws that you can’t find in the bible. I believe most if not all of the leaders and teachers deliberately ignored scriptures that would have… Read more »
I believe that God's mercy and forgiveness are on those who seek to worship him in spirit and in truth. Colossians 1:9-10 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; The new law is based on faith. If you truly and wholeheartedly seek the will… Read more »
@Lynn, you say you believe that "God's mercy and forgiveness are on those who seek to worship him in spirit and in truth." Don't you see that everyone believes that? What makes the Stanton sect any different? Oh, that's right…they actually HAVE the truth. Except when they don't, then they'll excuse it and call it a "judgment" not a "law." All of this is just an arbitrary way to excuse Stanton's hypocrisy of claiming to have the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" while making excuses for errors in doctrine. I have no need to leave Christianity just because… Read more »
I'm not leaving Christianity and I'm not confused of the two. I believe people can have the whole law, teach the whole law, and yet practice it unlawfully. We are told to conduct ourselves in certain ways, but what do you do when a congregation is not doing that so much that it alienates certain members that don't live up to personal expectations? Tom Cornforth said in a talk that he holds a class to help members who miss a lot of classes due to infirmities and for those who are having trouble understanding scripture and to help them catch… Read more »
Thanks for sharing. Interesting.
Can't say it wasn't taught in that back in the day, judgements would be made all of the time that wasn't neccesarily teaching, they were just one offs based on the circumstance and "best judgement" which often times was horridly flawed.
I'm the one that backed up the person who said they'd heard it taught that sex was for procreation (only) by a male preacher because I'd heard it taught in one congregation. That was not the teaching from the congregation I'd come from so I had no idea if it was a new teaching/understanding or just one man's idea of the only "pure" reason that you should have sex with your spouse. I've heard "added" oppressive rules taught in a few congregations I'd been to so they all had that in common; inconsistency. You were expected to follow what was… Read more »
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. As of May week 2000, I believe, this scripture is no longer used to support the "defiled marriage bed" teaching. It was concluded on that this is speaking of the bed being defiled with whoremongers and adulterers. The teaching has been rectified that the church cannot interfere with it's members marriage or sexual relationship. Where the bible does touch on having sex is in excessive sex as laid out in Romans 13:13 "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in… Read more »
Thank you for your insight into current church teachings, Lynn. Respectfully, can you provide sources to justify the teaching on "excessive" marital sex? Merie is the one that taught that "chambering" was "excessive" marital sex, and that seems to me to be a completely fabricated definition. Thanks!
I have in front of me eight translations of Romans 13:13. To get the exegesis different from the other seven I'll quote the RSV Bible. Because we all have Bibles I will just address the word in question and leave it up to you to read it in context. "….not in debauchery and licentiousness. So I believe the word chambering is also translated debauchery. In the Websters archaic it is seduction from virtue or duty. They used the word chambering. Shall we say too much sex? Now what does the preacher teach about the word chambering/debauchery if he is to… Read more »
It's an old definition, but it is coupled with "wantonness" which is defined as unrestrained, lewd, reckless, etc.
This passage was not intended to limit sex to reproduction. It was meant to tell people there really is a line that can be crossed from a natural relationship to one that is fed by lust. If my heart is filled with fulfilling this desire then am I not carnal?
God gave us this carnal act, but doesn't want it running our lives. That is all that scripture is saying.
How is a natural marriage relationship as God created it, not, at times, filled with carnal desire for one's spouse? It's a sad marriage and completely unnatural for it NOT to have times of intense passion and desire. That's why God created and sanctioned the marriage bed, not as a "necessary evil," but as a beautiful union of two people at their deepest emotional, physical and even spiritual level. Read Song of Solomon. Not to get too graphic in a public forum, but let me just say that this book is not "An Allegory of Christ and the Church" as… Read more »
Kevin, think of it this way, eating can turn to gluttony, having a drink can turn to durnkeness, etc. The whole part that is trying to conveyed here is that there is a time when these things can be done with lust. There is nothing wrong with a loving physical relationship with your spouse, but when it turns to where that becomes a driving factor in your life you have become carnally minded towards it. God allows us to eat to stay alive and has said that the elderly can have a drink of wine for their stomach's sake. We… Read more »
OK, I see your point and I can agree that there is a line at which any good thing, be it sexual expression in marriage or a drink of wine, or good food, can be indulged in excess. In other words, if anything becomes an obsession to the exclusion of other important things in life, it is wrong. However, this is true of any behavior at all–even studying the Bible (gasp). For instance, if one spends 10 hours a day studying the Bible and as a result has no way to support the family and no time for a meaningful… Read more »
Kevin, how can you be so sure you are correct in this judgment of chambering? And why was merie weiss so sure she was correct on the same subject?
Kevin, studying is a carnal act. It is feeding ourselves spiritually. Gluttony, drunkeness, and lust are acts of carnality. We are told to seek for knowledge as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasure, but also told not to be a lover of pleasures more than a lover of God. We are told not to be carnally minded because it is death and the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
It comes down to what our heart desires more.
I think you meant to say that "studying is NOT a carnal act" but I'm not real clear on that. I'm actually agreeing with you regarding the potential for there being a line beyond which a couple can be too obsessed by sex, even in marriage, although I don't believe it's any of the church's business. If the sexual portion of a couple's relationship is to the exclusion of other important things, I can agree that there can be "too much" of a good thing, however, that's based not on sex being a carnal desire, but on the principle of… Read more »
Because I Was There – You ask how I can be so sure that my opinion of chambering is correct, and why was Merie so sure that her opinion was correct? This is not an opinion of chambering, I am simply looking at the definition of the word and it means basically illicit sex. This matches with the context of Paul's letter to the church at Rome, where he advises them: Romans 13:12-13 – The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour… Read more »
Kevin, because I was there I have to defend Merie's position on sex in Marriage. I do want to say though I believe Merie was surrounded by young zealous people that she loved very much who ran away with judgments that were wrong. That led the Church away from what she had intended. She was also in her late seventies and because of lack of physical strength was leaving more and more to this young and inexperienced group of Christians.If you could talk to Freda about this she would have to agree. But anyway back to Merie Weiss's view of… Read more »
You asked me why I believed Merie felt the way she did about the word chambering, and that's my opinion. It could be right or wrong, but she's no longer with us, so we can't ask her. Nevertheless, we are all influenced by the culture we live in (how could we not be?), and knowing this about the human experience, I believe it's safe to say that the culture of America in her formative years probably played a big role in how she came to (mis)interpret certain scriptures. That definition of chambering in that verse (Romans 13:13) is not exegesis… Read more »
Kevin, with no disrespect intended, where did you ever get the idea that Merie believed "children were a nuisance to be tolerated at best"? On the contrary, she often taught that the future growth of the Church would primarily be through the children raised by its members, more so than through personal work.
Ah, but you see, she viewed children through the lens of how they would be useful in growing the church's numbers. She was not a "kid person," as I recall. She didn't have any children, and I don't think she related well to either babies or teens at all. Maybe she was comfortable with kids in between, I don't remember. I do recall she was pretty abrupt (okay, rude, sometimes) about asking young mothers to keep their kids quiet. There were very clear expectations that kids were generally to be "seen and not heard." I'm not saying she disliked children,… Read more »
From Kevin: Similarly, if a man spends an inordinate amount of time studying the Bible (which we can all agree is a "good thing" in itself) to the exclusion of other things like being engaged in a deep albeit time-consuming loving relationship with his wife and kids, even that "good thing" can be a sin.
Do you agree?
Yes, I do
I am curious Lynn about your position on child abuse. If you saw a man named Steve at 350lbs beating a boy named johhny would you do nothing like a bump on a pickle or would you step in and save the child?
Yes, I would try to save the child, but what point are you trying to make?
Mistaken Identity on my part so sorry. As far as being heard please realize that the church is guided and directed by Gary Preman and while different churches have different personalities the controlling authority is the same. As far as being discredited and not listened to realize that what separates the insiders from the outsiders is obedience. You can be 100percent correct in your judgment and still not be listen to because you have been labeled as disobedient. Your first act of obedience is to repent then be baptized then one by one you will be given the commandments to… Read more »
I agree. A very wise teacher once told me that I have the HS, the Bible, and know the difference between right and wrong.
Could you elaborate on what you said about Gary giving the order to persecute, please?
Sure as I was standing next to Gary in his Spring Valley home as he was talking with a teacher from montana about a situation there. His words were to the effect of "if they don't submit you know what to do, there are certain things that the human spirit can't stand" until you reach the level of teacher/enforcer you will not have heard this as yet. If you do not submit and obey your teachers you are persecuted until you do submit or leave the church. As horrible as this sounds it is the method of church discipline in… Read more »
I've noticed the sect was very protective and secretive about information. Does anyone know how much Gary Preman earns in the way of donations from various congregations on a monthly basis? Last I knew how church funds were administered were fairly open except when this topic arises.
I am curious Mr. Lynn what response have you received to the information I gave you?
Anon 9:05 PM I believe what you say is true. Not only has it happened to me, but I have seen it done to others. Remember what the Pharisees were doing in omitting the weightier matters of the law and enforcing their own judgements. This is what is happening. If I don't do it the way I am being told then I am not receiving teaching and it is spread that way in that I am not listening to the teachings. I am not stupid. I am not a novice. I have a lot of years behind me and I… Read more »
Been there done that too. I find that like the oppressor described in Isaiah 14:6 that my congregation was ruled by anger as well. Merie Wiess was a very angry woman. Angry teachers and were common and I found that you were groomed to accept this harsh treatment by the hersey "Christians are not emotional people" as taught by Merie Weiss. When emotional suppression is used then anger is not anger but anger becomes righteousness. To become a teacher you had to get angry and stay angry. As children when our parents were angry it meant we did something wrong… Read more »
I agree that members are groomed to put their heads down and follow the orders of this totalitarian church government they've created. I witnessed it many times growing up, and see it so clearly in the stories here in the blog comments. And it's so clearly anti-scriptural. Not one elder in 45 years of existence? Really?
Anon 7/23 @ 5:55AM – You nailed it! It's a perfect description of the Merie Weiss congregations all the way. One of the first things they teach you is to ignore your emotions as they pompously state "Christians are not emotional." Excuse me? Look at Paul, David, John. Look at Job. Would Jesus say "Christians are not emotional!"? No way! Emotions are given to us by God and are an integral part of the experience of joy and love but also emotions serve us when we see injustice, pain, or unfairness. Emotions should not be ignored but explored because they… Read more »
Well its worse than that. I found while I was told that Christians are not emotional people the teachers were! Dominick was constantly angry and anger is an emotion, Teachers could be happy and express joy but I was to be contrite for my sins, the scripture says by the sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken! (and I was told this shortly after I was baptized and I was wondering what sin? wasn't I just baptized to have my sins washed away?)A double standard on the teaching of emotions, all for me and none for you. I also… Read more »
Oh yes, I've witnessed or experienced the tirades over presumed guilt whether real or imagined for things that don't even make any sense and cannot be found anywhere in the bible! Many times I don't even think they know what they are saying! Just like you said, the leaders are entitled to emotions but everyone else is beat down. It's just plain cruel. It's oppression at its worst and a terrible thing for children to witness their parents enduring. This type of governing instills fear of man which oddly enough they used to teach against.
Let persecution be the soil in which your faith grows. The more injustices one endures, the more you should pray to your god for help. In Psalms David says princes have persecuted me without a cause. The princes were some of his own sons like Absalom. It is difficult to take a wound from such a close personal friend but that is exactly what Christ had to do from Judas. God is merciful to the weak and lowly. It was a difficult thing for me to accept the fact that some of the worst people I have ever known were… Read more »
Thank you 8/20 @ 4:47AM. True words and wisdom. So encouraging.
God puts in my heart to minister to the prodigal, to call the wayward Christians back home. I read in Proverbs 9 how two women are calling to men: wisdom and foolishness. I read how virtuous wisdom is with her preparations and her recruitment and how wicked foolishness is with her laziness and living by theft. I understand how when two different women are calling you as a Christian must make a choice: whom will you follow? I choose to follow wisdom and I find all of Gods commandments are in wisdom and benefit those who follow them. I see… Read more »
There are certain things the human spirit can't stand means that you have no hope. No hope for a better future, no hope of salvation. The church gave you your hope of salvation and when you are disobedient the church will take away your hope of salvation. With no hope you are empty and without direction, a wandering star. Your church baptized you and was love bombing you until you displeased them then they turned mean started subtlety condemning you at first then stronger if no results. It starts with indirect criticism of your life: example would be "people like… Read more »
Psalms 3:2 Many there be which say of my soul, There is no help for him in God. Brethren please read in 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you" and realize that when they teacher that you have no hope of salvation that it is just persecution and meant to be ignored and rejected. Many false teachers have been exposed and removed from the brotherhood and more will be exposed and removed as time goes on. When someone teaches you that you have no hope, or… Read more »
Okay lets be frank there are some Christians who truly have no hope of heaven. Some get baptized then depart and join the marine corps. Military service is just like the murdering whore spoken of in proverbs 7. The military puts on the make up, the fancy uniforms, goes out and recruits young men and then takes them to war and kills them or they kill other people. Do fallen away Christians who join the military and go out and kill people go to heaven? I don't think so. Some brethren were marine corps drill instructors and they lifted up… Read more »
I would like to add to the Marital Bed teaching that was enforced the entire seven years that I attended. Although the sexual positions rule was lifted, foreplay was NOT allowed after the woman was ready, aka wet. Penetration was to occur immediately in order to avoid having an early climax. Apparently, if a women is to climax, the penis must be in the vagina or it is sin.
Oral sex with your spouse was also forbidden and was worthy of withdrawal. Needless to say, "coming together" while in the church was more trouble than it was worth.
Interesting article and comments. I was never told anything about Saturday's or Sunday mornings. When I was first got wet and thought I was a member I was told there was 3 no no's. Never given scripture to back up what they taught. At some point I'm guessing 10 years or so ago the present preacher in Portland came back from a May meeting excited to say one of the no no's was going to get some leeway. I was told what was acceptable. Great. It was 2 or 3 years later that my wife was told by the present… Read more »
Can u imagine sitting around a May meeting discussing what is a no no and not a no no.. Men know nothing about a woman's body and some women have no clue themselves how things work..each individually is different… LOL! Opinions! How pathetic this is! And letting the preachers and teachers dictate all of this.. Shaking my head here!
Exactly pathetic is a good word to use. When I was told the no no's and the positions that should of been the clue to never come back. Those who taught the ridiculous rules concerning the marriage bed and then their doctrine was changed. Did these preachers and teachers take care of their sins of false teachings. Did they reach out to the smart ones who left the cult because of the idiotic teachings?
Craig, no they did not reach out.. One lady had an unscriptial withdrawl.. they never went out looking for her.. They waited until another withdrawn member returned to the church and then asked that person to let her know for them.. What a joke
Anon 1:36 how sad seems to be a problem in taking ownership to there own mistakes. A joke is correct which this entire cult is ran by four jokers. Problem is there is nothing funny about it. They do not seem to care about the destruction they have and are causing. Can they even prove scriptually what the three no no's in the marriage bed are? All three now jokers. Book, chapter and verse.
After reading this on Marriage my only comment is "Really? Who does this? No wonder there are so many health issues in the sect!
One doctrine of cults is called the "hot seat." A member is made the center of attention by describing behaviors the members is known for then the member is publicly shamed and criticized, essentially reducing the member to nothing psychologically. Most cult organizations after reducing a person to nothing then will offer kindness and their way of living life which most people will readily accept to get out of the shame and humiliation. The SCOC does practice the "hot seat" doctrine but when it comes to the point a person is reduced to nothing psychology (and is in self criticism… Read more »
Thank goodness they refuse it. Sounds as if they have more common sense than the adults. This is so sick I cannot stomach it! How these poor deceived people follow these creeps is unbelievable. They must be exposed. There are many who only have either the wife or the husband attending with their children. Somehow exposing the non attending spouse may cause a blowup but at least they would have some grounds as to why the children living under their roof should not attend. This one family has the mother attending and all the non member siblings and family ignore… Read more »
Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of any of the members. I used to be one. But mine was short-lived. I don't understand what is in a members mind to follow man like this and to believe they are correct in what they are teaching them. I will never have that understanding. I have two boys. Full grown. I have already told the youngest one that if he ever goes into the church I will take his child away from him (well make sure his wife takes him away from him) And that is a horrible thing for… Read more »
Anon 10:02 I'll speak for myself you get sucked in by the which I now see as love bombing. If you are not educated religiously and you are shown a few scriptures that you are on your way to hell then the fear factor comes in. For myself I kick myself for remaining for 20 years because I saw plenty of red flags that should've had me walking out the door. I just told my wife who is a member a week or so ago as we were discussing her cult. I told her I know more about her church… Read more »
I just watched a movie about cults called Ungodly Acts. Since members of the church do not watch movies they probably would not watch it. I must admit it was hard to watch and I never would have watched it prior to finding out about this cult this year. According to what a I know now they used some of these tactics which is so sad. Reading a post today I must say my son and grandson seem much happier than I have seen them. My son's personality and sense of humor is back now that they are both out… Read more »
In the SCOC you learn very quickly that the negative is the most important. Most members develop a negative filter that is their world view is one of doom and gloom. God is spoken of only in the negative such as when a hurricane or tornado or other natural disaster strikes. God is not spoken of for his many blessings which he gives both to the righteous and unrighteous. You have to teach the correct perspective that both good and evil happen to both good and evil people. Life is not all bad and neither is it all good. To… Read more »
Hope some of this spam gets deleted. Everyone ignore these fake posts.
Kind of sad this happens. Perversion in response to truth. Prolly a kid raised in Stanton who has no idea what the truth is, but has been trained to attack opposing ideas.
I wouldn't go that far. I doubt anyone in the SCOC is taking the time to make posts about Erectile dysfunction and "powerful spell-casters" helping their marriage problems. Just seems like fake advertisements which happen all the time on blogs and forums.
Spam removed. Y'all can email me exact links to any true spam, or a snippet so I can search keywords in the backend, and I'll do the best I can to delete them. No promises—with over 8,000 past comments in its short history and counting, I simply can't police it all.
Advocate for Peace, I doubt it as well. It was the Boise May meeting 2013 that TC addressed the group that was attending concerning different ways couples were attempting to stimulate their marriages. TC was not happy with what was taking place. He spent the most part of the last day Friday morning going into it. If married couples are having issues performing in their marriage bed the solution just may be the schedule they keep. Men working 40 hours a week plus the cult work. Maybe putting some stress on them. The preacher in Portland MM you know what… Read more »
Hello Craig, this is something I've noticed as well. You're not wrong that a busy schedule can disrupt intimacy and communication in a marriage. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching against sin and the negative effects of it, in my experience that's usually where it stops with them. Rarely is there any practical advice or teaching given to help people overcome certain sins or handle situations the right way. I'm sure they meant well by all the rules they came up with surrounding marriage, but that wasn't the way to handle it as they have found out. Romans… Read more »
I hope no one listened to that ridiculous rule list . How sad if they did!
I agree.. I really wonder how many stayed partially dressed or brought out the ruler. .Haha.. each one of these things had to have been thought of from just one mind and spread from there.. I want to know who the person was that thought this crazy ridiculous stuff up.. They obviously had some sort of sexual hang up to begin with.. Smh here.. .Crazy lol
The part about the rulers was just a joke. I seriously hope nobody actually got out the rulers either. It's both funny and sad trying to imagine such a situation. Wife: Your face is too close, move back some. Husband: I can't bend that far, it makes my back hurt. Wife: Why are you pulling my shirt up? Husband: Well it's kind of long and in the way. Wife: But you're not supposed to see my body, it's too lewd! Husband: Let's just do this tomorrow, I'm tired and my back hurts. Wife: We can't because tomorrow is Saturday, and… Read more »
Anon 9:15. Totally agree. Probably from their founder Merie but maybe Concerned knows the answer. Just teaching such nonsense proves what a false religion they are. Concerned and Monte Cristo or whatever name he is using on the blog today may have some input as they seem to be on the slippery slope of pro or anti Merie Cult backers or not.
Well I know it was a joke about the ruler.. But still! They may not teach it anymore, but they DID.. People had to live through that stupidity! It makes me literally sick inside knowing I was even married to someone in the church.. It really does!