The LCS Factor

[Hope]

dj,

I spent some time searching my memory about any and all divorces that occurred in Dallas from 1971 up until today. I came up with eleven. Of course there could be more and two were the second and third of the same woman who had moved there. Three were troubled couples who picked up meeting with us after they were married and brought problems with them. Maybe that comes out to 3-5% but at worse way under 10%. If you take the entire history of OK City not just the 15, I wonder what the percent would be - 50%, 60%, or 40% or maybe even down to the level of your evangelical church, 34%. At any rate, it is a tragedy if it is 5%. Divorce is not what the Lord intended. I grieve for all Christian marriages that end in divorce. I do not agree that some marriages just cannot make it. If both spouses receive the proper care and learn to take Christ in reality as the solution to their problems then the Lord can do whatever is needed.

Here are a few informal practices and formal practices that hurt marriages and parenting in the local churches and in the church in Dallas. I would like you to reciprocate and share with us the faults in your church and ministry that you have identified that contributed to the high divorce rate of 34%. It may be a help to us on the forum.

Regarding singles who met and married in the church: Things often moved way too fast. You need to get to know a person before you enter into marriage. Often the person you see in the meetings may not be exactly the person you think you are marrying. I observed my wife for several months before I expressed any interest directly to her. By then I knew that if she would have me then I would be very blessed. Then, we had a 14 month engagement. We saw each other several times a week during this time. I visited with her parents. By the time we had the wedding we really knew each other and there were few surprises. But in Dallas singles moved very fast to be married. This was the church culture.

We had too many church related activities and it was expected that everyone would participate in as many as possible. Family time was not promoted.

The leadership in many places did not spend adequate time to get to know the members up close and personal. The leadership was often too heavenly minded to be of much earthly good.

Other than George Whitington, very few of the leaders spoke of the wonderfulness of marriage. WL himself was very negative in almost every instance in which he spoke of marriage. He had a very skewed view of marriage and family and it affected the leaders in the local churches.

In fact there was a great flat spot in teaching ministry and counseling labor regarding building up the family. The stress from Lee set up a false dichotomy between family and church.

The local churches were too legal and religious toward the children and often antagonized the children. When my son was 14, he let his blond hair grow very long. His hair was longer than any of his worldly classmates at school and really stood out in the church meetings etc. One brother (not an elder) approached me about his hair and rebuked me for not having my children in subjection. I shared with him that I was taking a long range view. While I was not happy within, I was not going to let a few inches of hair possibly lead to our estrangement. I knew he would cut it off in a short time. I wanted him to have the peace to come to me when he had some big problem to talk about.

This leads to my next point. There were codes of conduct that allegedly reflected a person's spirituality. How your children behaved was a reflection on the spirituality of the parents. There was a lot of peer pressure to be accepted and viewed as a member in good standing. Part of this was due to the excessive amount of activities and meetings. Too much of the Christian life was the meeting life. The family life was neglected since there are just so many hours in a day and so many days in a week. Dallas was probably the worst offender in having a jam packed schedule.

There was too much emphasis on the ministry of WL. He was the main staple. Whenever the local elders focused on meeting the needs in their place, someone like Benson or James Barber would come down on them. Sigh, sigh, how grieved I am for my role in not meeting the saints and their family's needs.

Finally, though if I took the time and thought I am sure I could come up with more, but finally, there was a great lack of prayer and fighting the spiritual warfare for the families and for the children in particular. No one knew how and few had any realization regarding what was happening in the unseen realm. I saw many of the children suffer injustices at school. Things that were illogical. We never knew that the demons may have been behind the harassment directed at the children. (Just an example of our need to be on the alert.) Perhaps dj this is a big shortage at your place. Based on the way you brushed this off when I mentioned it in post #13, you obviously could use some help in this area. Consider, maybe the ones you are seeking to help are suffering because you do not know these things.

Well it is now your turn. If you would share your experiences, we ex local churchers could probably get some help and see some of our shortcoming by seeing what a better family, parenting model looks like.


Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

Regarding singles who met and married in the church: Things often moved way too fast. You need to get to know a person before you enter into marriage. Often the person you see in the meetings may not be exactly the person you think you are marrying. I observed my wife for several months before I expressed any interest directly to her. By then I knew that if she would have me then I would be very blessed. Then, we had a 14 month engagement. We saw each other several times a week during this time. I visited with her parents. By the time we had the wedding we really knew each other and there were few surprises. But in Dallas singles moved very fast to be married. This was the church culture.

Other than George Whitington, very few of the leaders spoke of the wonderfulness of marriage. WL himself was very negative in almost every instance in which he spoke of marriage. He had a very skewed view of marriage and family and it affected the leaders in the local churches.

Don Rutledge

Don, you are speaking something that needs to be spoken. Regarding marriages, I believe at times there's too much credence given to what the leadership thinks of a particular spouse potential. I've been told from brothers in the past sister's they had a burden for was discouraged because the sister was considered too new to the churchlife or deemed too beautiful for the brother, etc. Instead of seeking out advice from a mature brother whose been married to the same sister for 40-60 years, fellowship is sought out with a leader who may or may not be the best candidate for seeking advice on marriage.
Some of us who grew up in the local churches may have experienced what I have. There's the teaching of not dating before you're ready for marriage. How do you know when that time is? If you do feel you're at that time, how do you get to know someone of the opposite gender whether there's compatability or not? Often there's an invisible barrier if you say anything beyond the superficial greeting in passing, you may make the other person uncomfortable or you may raise eyebrows from certain brothers. What do you do? Seek fellowship from the brothers? There's an invisible obstacle and not knowing how to proceed. In my case I considered the social situation in my locality to be indifferent so I opened my mind beyond the local churches. I took the iniative and got to know a non-lc sister as a friend first and then marriage. Of course marriage was such a crucial decision, it needed countless hours of prayer; month after month. As it is now marriage of 11 years, a son of 9, and a daughter of 8.


Terry

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Terry

Don, you are speaking something that needs to be spoken. Regarding marriages, I believe at times there's too much credence given to what the leadership thinks of a particular spouse potential. I've been told from brothers in the past sister's they had a burden for was discouraged because the sister was considered too new to the churchlife or deemed too beautiful for the brother, etc. Instead of seeking out advice from a mature brother whose been married to the same sister for 40-60 years, fellowship is sought out with a leader who may or may not be the best candidate for seeking advice on marriage.
Some of us who grew up in the local churches may have experienced what I have. There's the teaching of not dating before you're ready for marriage. How do you know when that time is? If you do feel you're at that time, how do you get to know someone of the opposite gender whether there's compatability or not? Often there's an invisible barrier if you say anything beyond the superficial greeting in passing, you may make the other person uncomfortable or you may raise eyebrows from certain brothers. What do you do? Seek fellowship from the brothers? There's an invisible obstacle and not knowing how to proceed. In my case I considered the social situation in my locality to be indifferent so I opened my mind beyond the local churches. I took the iniative and got to know a non-lc sister as a friend first and then marriage. Of course marriage was such a crucial decision, it needed countless hours of prayer; month after month. As it is now marriage of 11 years, a son of 9, and a daughter of 8.


Terry

Question:

Where did this stuff you referred to come from? It was in Texas also. I did some of that awful fellowshiping about spouse potential. NOT GOOD. MY BAD. I only did it a couple of times but I feel like crawling into a hole even now.

It seemed like our culture regarding coutship, marriage and family was a strange amalgum of Chinese, Puritan and anti-modern. The elder, deacons and older sisters needed to seek the Lord for direction and knowledge regarding these matters and assist the young people not lord over them.

There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

Question:

Where did this stuff you referred to come from? It was in Texas also.
In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Don, the first paragraph you quoted from me was based on Southern California. The second paragraph was my experience as a single brother in Washington state.

Terry

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Hope

Question:
It seemed like our culture regarding coutship, marriage and family was a strange amalgum of Chinese, Puritan and anti-modern. The elder, deacons and older sisters needed to seek the Lord for direction and knowledge regarding these matters and assist the young people not lord over them.

There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

I second that!!!

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Nell

Process,

You make a good point. What a complex system we were all caught into! It's a culture of extremes.

A few years ago I went to a meeting for whatever reason...I ended up there. As I looked around the room, I noticed the faces of the sisters. It was remarkable. Many had an almost a blank look on their faces. Even if they were smiling, their eyes looked hollow. Based on what you've shared, I'll call this a "Stepford" look. I think it is probably very common. I have known one sister in particular for many years, who is the wife of a dominating elder husband. She has had that Stepford look, an almost permanent pained look on her face, as long as I can remember. So you're right, not all elder families were "privileged". Many women try to cope the best they can, and that often means denial.

Nell

In most areas of my life, I have reached a pretty objective and peaceful place, but I have a couple of odd leftover issues here and there - one is how I react to the word submission. It either makes me feel angry and make an internal fist to fight back or I may have physical reactions, too. Maybe it is some odd form of post-traumatic syndrome? When I hear the word, I think about sister's that behaved just like described in this and the posts by Process. During a time when I was trying to be a good* and fine* sister, I tried to behave like a stepford wife; the shoe never fit.

Recently, I decided to talk to a wise Christian counselor to gain better perspective of my ideas of submission and so I would stop having the cringe factor. I told the doctor some of the more bizarre memories of life and marriage in the local church. He said it will take some time to be "Normalized" in certain areas like submission. I am looking forward to the Normalization process so I can submit the way God means it. I know my marriage and husband will appreciate when I have a healthier idea on this.

(note to self: walk with God is sweeter and closer when I give up and confess I am not "good" and not "fine" )

[finallyprettyokay]

Terry:

What a beautiful story of how you and you wife were married. And in the pictures you so generously share with us -- what a beautiful family.

Family -- marriage, children --- are truly the most beautiful, best gift given to us --- the divorce rate is so sad. All those broken people, lost chances. In the past 3 or 4 years, my husband had his relationship restored with 3 grown children from a first marriage. It had broken his heart for years, and having them in his life again is God's gift to him. Imagine this -- NINE grandkids came with the package. Wow, huh?

It's hard to pick out the most obnoxious doctrines/practices of the LC, but the one about 'she is too beautiful for you' (or him for her) has got to be in the top 10. At least. How completely against everything God is, and that Jesus taught. Can you imagine that being part of the Sermon on the Mount? Blessed are the ones considered outwardly beautiful, for they shall inherit each other? Obnoxious and against God.


Terry, you have written that your parents were great, and believe me, brother -- it shows. It's written all over every post from you.


fpo

[finallyprettyokay]

Hope wrote: There was damage due to the church ignorance and to our not being able to receive ministry outside of WL.

Those are two true reasons for the damage. But, Hope -- remember that people (elders) were really in over their heads. Too young, too inexperienced. When I look back, it seems like it was a grownup game of 'church'. Like when we would play 'school' or 'store' when I was kid (do kids EVER do that anymore? I am dating myself here ) -- we were playing 'church'. Only problem was that it was no game, and real people got hurt. Real bad.

It's all so sad. And so amazing that God is bigger than all of that, and we all are getting better. Anyone remember the Grateful Dead line --- What a long, strange trip it's been ? I am not a Deadhead, not at all -- never was, but what a great line that is. That sums it up for me. Walkin' with God. Amazing.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope I appreciate your last post addressed to me. To be clear the 34% is among evangelicals in general not the specific church I attend. In any event like you said even 5% is a tragedy.

I will ponder your question in more depth and answer in detail but one thing comes immediately to mind: a certain looseness in our theology i.e by overemphasizing God's acceptance, love, forgiveness this gives people the impression that they can do whatever they want including divorce and God will just forgive them. Which He will but I think the way it is taught gives license to some people esp those who are spiritually immature.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Hope

The leadership in many places did not spend adequate time to get to know the members up close and personal. The leadership was often too heavenly minded to be of much earthly good.

Don Rutledge

The key word is in many places, not every place. Some leaders had or have full time jobs while others serve as full-timers. Each brother serving in aleadership capacity are each different.
I've known some who've worked full time and still have time for people. There were others likewise worked fulltime, but I never got to know them and they never got to know me.
About 5 years ago I read an article called In Wake of the New Way. In it's content was an excerpt of Witness Lee charging elders to contact brothers and sisters in their locality. There's time during the week for people to be contacted. What happened with the time?
There is time. It's a matter of elders or deacons taking the responsibility to contact households. In the local churches, is there a real care why someone suddenly stops meeting? Do elders or deacons take the time to find out what happened? Or is there a presumption that this brother or that sister is cold towards the ministry?
Two problems here is:
1. lack of contact
2. placing value on brothers and sisters based on how one gravitates to Witness Lee's ministry instead or caring for them as a member of the flock.

Terry

[Paul Cox]

Man, this thread moves so fast, I'm having a hard time keeping up. Gotta go to bed, but just wanted to say this:

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.

However, I do not agree with arranged marriages, where one or more party really has reservations, but buries them to keep favor with "the brothers."

Buenos Noche
Roger

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Roger

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.


Roger

Roger,

I agree with you that young people shouldn't date. Especially among the high schoolers there needs to be education on peer pressures and a proper understanding communicated effectively why they should not dating. Of course an extreme reason why not to, is giving into temptations of the flesh which could result in children being born out of wedlock.

This teaching still leaves aun unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

Terry

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Roger,

I agree with you that young people shouldn't date. Especially among the high schoolers there needs to be education on peer pressures and a proper understanding communicated effectively why they should not dating. Of course an extreme reason why not to, is giving into temptations of the flesh which could result in children being born out of wedlock.

This teaching still leaves aun unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

Terry

Well, Terry, you are a parent and that is your job to figure out. This is none of the "church's" business. Each child is unique in the personality, needs, etc. This is why God gave children parents. He intended for each individual to be individually loved and nurtured and guided according to who they were, like He does us (when we let Him and quit looking to others for answers instead of looking to Him.)

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry and trusting in Him to lead us concerning who to marry? Who are all these other church people that they should be involved in such a decision? I don't care if they are as experienced as Methusaleh, this decision is the man's and the woman's. Their job is to find out the mind of the Lord. The stories I know where this was done have excellent results.

Whoever involves his/her self in making such a momentous decision other than the two parties and God may one day get blamed for the outcome, as they well should.

I think this is what I hate most about the LC teachings and practices. People were robbed of opportunities to have real experiences with God by looking to "the brothers" for advice and answers. God was robbed of His opportunities to teach His children about who He was and about His ways.

This is part of the harm to the second generation as Terry just (innocently) demonstrated. He was taught both verbally and by example to look to others to get His answers. I commend him for stepping outside of the LC box to find the wife God had for him.

Here is a hodge-podge of some reasons God and His children got robbed: leaders' unhealthy teachings; "body life" emphasis, i.e., don't act "independently"; saints desire to please the elders; laziness--it's too hard to learn of Christ for yourself and a bit risky; fear of violating one of those many unspoken rules; fear of following the devil--only the brothers know what was the Lord; fear of rejection; fear of offending God by being being in your soul thinking about things ... fear of being made an example of in a meeting ... fear of ..., fear of .... fear of .... etc.; elders coveting to fulfill their ambitions; elders seeking to keep WL happy and present him with an model church for their own reasons; elder's needing to control things to please Lee and also fulfill their own ambitions ... etc., etc., etc.

The LC teaching and all the dependence on "fellowship" from others was flat out unhealthy. Stick hierarchy and absolute submission into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster (one that obviously works). We should have been taught first and foremost to learn to depend on our relationship with Him. I've heard it said, "Well, it's not easy for young ones to hear what the Lord is saying and they can get deceived or make mistakes." If I knew what I know now, I would have said, "Well, if you don't get yourself and you voice out of the picture, they'll never learn the Lord's voice. Do they really need you as an intermediary? God will be there for them even if they make a mistake. Where will you be when they make your mistake?"

God is jealous for His relationship with each of us. All the getting "fellowship" practices opened us up to a world of hurt.

When I heard that Benson considered a prospective marriage in terms of the usefulness of a brother / sister--whether it would be increased or decreased, I wanted to vomit. He was definitely in the business of "using." How gross. Usurping, robbing God, playing with people's very lives and souls, using them to build his pyramids and treasure cities. Sorry, I know I'm foaming at the mouth. I'm just too close to some of the messes he made out of lives of people who followed his voice.

Back to the point: What about Jesus. What about Him being first in all things? Who are elders that they give "advice?" Instead of meddling in the practical lives of people and cheating them out of their inheritance of knowing God for themselves, they should have been laboring in the Bible for themselves to see what it really said.

They should have taught what it taught about husbands sacrificing for their wives and winning their wives love and willing submission. They should have taught about fathers spending major time to bring up their kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (nurture takes time, time, time) and made sure that they had plenty of time, time, time. (Sending children to babysittiing 6 days a week and children's meetings on Sunday, and leaving all the rest of the care of children to a wife who is exhausted from waiting hand and foot on all the "needs" of the church first, as dictated by the elders and the absentee fathers, just doesn't cut it.) They should have taught people about what how to bring every single detail of their life to Jesus because Jesus was longing to be involved with them, instead of telling them God was only interested in the church. They should have taught people they were free to follow Jesus even if that meant he led them somewhere else other than the LC.

I better quit and take a walk. Looking back, I don't see one LC "elder" that was doing the job described in the Bible. Even the very best had two minds and two masters. They vascillated between obeying Lee and his empire and their conscience. I think that's why God fired them all (see Ezek.34 and Jer. 23) and gave the sheep one Shepherd. Now if they can just ever figure out they don't have the job they botched any more.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow Me."

I am one happy little sheep who has returned to the great Shepherd of the sheep. I have been and will continue to pray that He will deliver all His little sheep out of the mouths of evil, double minded, shepherds and that He will bring them all out of all the folds of men into His pasture.

Thankful Jane

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry...

Hi Jane,

Good points all. In the Local Church we were indeed robbed of the opportunity to have a personal relationship (outside the LSM agenda) with the Lord.

However, in any church, not just an LSM church, the eldership does have the responsibility of oversight. Part of that oversight has much to do with preserving a healthy atmosphere where the saints can go on unhampered.

In our locality, the most predominant Evangelical Church does an excellent job with the youth. They even provide a youth activity center. On several occasions it was clear that without the proper oversight, it would have just become a meat market, and certainly an opening for the destruction of the Church. The elders' responsibility for oversight is very well established in the Scripture, and the writers were indeed specific on certain issues.

It is important that we have a very personal relationship with Jesus. But the right personal relationship with Jesus will always lead to a gathering of the saints (assembly/church). This is indeed the Lord's corporate expression. At least in word, Witness Lee didn't get that wrong.

I feel that the LSM model is an extreme example of how not to do things. And...I think that the way things went had more to do with the fact that Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were Chinese, than anything else.

Roger

[bookworm]

[QUOTE=Thankful Jane;2627]While I’m at it, whatever happened to praying and asking Jesus about who to marry and trusting in Him to lead us concerning who to marry? Who are all these other church people that they should be involved in such a decision? I don't care if they are as experienced as Methusaleh, this decision is the man's and the woman's. Their job is to find out the mind of the Lord. The stories I know where this was done have excellent results.

Thanks, Jane, for the word about learning to seek the Lord and hear his speaking. It helped the light go on for me regarding realizing anew that as a single person I had, indeed, “given up” so to speak and asked the Lord to choose a husband for me—and amazingly enough I had this experience in the LC! Now I see why our marriage was not coerced or arranged! The Lord did this for us in His wisdom. There have been times since during our 36+ years of marriage I admit I have asked the Lord if He was sure this was such a good plan —however, there is no doubt in me or my husband that this is His plan.

The only item I regret is that we were talked into having a wedding meeting centered on the LC and a testimony of it. The theme was loving the Lord, but it was a wedding meeting even so and my poor family wanted to crawl under the floors. I am sorry I put them through this and wish I had not.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Terry

This teaching still leaves an unanswered question, at which age should young people date? 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30?

Not everyone needs to or should go to college. (Another worldly LC myth.) The practical point for dating is the age of maturity for each individual. A generation or two ago, that age was generally much lower than it is has been since the invention of adolescence in our culture. Growing up is not a process that can be regulated like Henry Ford's assembly line but is a matter of life and maturity. One tomato plant bears fruit sooner than another and neither plant is defective.

But I would think that, generally speaking, children should be able to be equipped as adults by the age of lawful consent. Such equipping should probably include being able to make the determination for themselves that they aren't emotionally ready for such responsibilities as marriage and family. But, I mean, are helpful parents really going to try to prevent legal adults from having their own lives?

Did you really suggest 30 as a possibility? The current trend in our culture towards later marriage and child rearing is not a healthy sign, in my opinion. It demonstrates that the general culture isn't capable of producing healthy adult human beings. I think the enemy might really like a program where the only ones deemed fit to have families are the ones too old to have them!

Just throwing in my two-bits...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Roger

I sorta appreciated the Local Church policy of no dating among the young people, and still do. I got the impression that most of the young ones were saved from falling into lust because of it.

On one hand, I agree a little. Just dating around because it's the thing to do is a potential trap. But even when we deal with lust, it is sin. And sin is sin. The problems that arise from the rapid marriages are also sin. And sin is sin.

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.) My sons have mostly been involved in group activities. That means they go do things with 4 to 8 people, guys and gals. The younger one met and dated one girl for a while. That has cooled for now, but they are still part of the same larger group from which these smaller groups continue to emerge for particular activities. Even this was discouraged in the LC. That is a reasonable alternative to the "on/off" of suddenly private dataing and then not dating.

Of course, doing much of anything that wasn't a meeting was discouraged in the LC. It would seem that the meeting schedule was designed to keep us all busy enough that having much private socialization was just hard to plan.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

On one hand, I agree a little. Just dating around because it's the thing to do is a potential trap. But even when we deal with lust, it is sin. And sin is sin. The problems that arise from the rapid marriages are also sin. And sin is sin.

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.) My sons have mostly been involved in group activities. That means they go do things with 4 to 8 people, guys and gals. The younger one met and dated one girl for a while. That has cooled for now, but they are still part of the same larger group from which these smaller groups continue to emerge for particular activities. Even this was discouraged in the LC. That is a reasonable alternative to the "on/off" of suddenly private dataing and then not dating.

Of course, doing much of anything that wasn't a meeting was discouraged in the LC. It would seem that the meeting schedule was designed to keep us all busy enough that having much private socialization was just hard to plan.

Sounds like you are doing a good job of parenting. Do the folks in your current church dictate what the dating habits of your children should be?

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Sounds like you are doing a good job of parenting. Do the folks in your current church dictate what the dating habits of your children should be?

Thankful Jane

Absolutely not. And within a congregation of beyond 4,000 there have been all kinds of things happen. However, for a congregation of 4,000, the track record is really pretty good. Far from perfect. And I obviously do not know the entire 4,000. Within that number, sometimes it's hard to find some of the 300 that were there when we started 21 years ago. They are mostly still there, but hard to find.

As for our job of parenting, we did go through a scare a few years ago. During our oldest's second year in college, he met a girl that he went mildly insane over. We met her that fall. Before the end of the semester, they were thinking about getting married. I sent some long emails to reason with him. He agreed to take it a little slower. By the end of February, it was over. A year later, she was married (already pregnant). She was excessively needy due to problems in her home (and we had seen that). It would have ended their college careers and probably not ended well for them. Now, 7 years later, we are trying to not push him to get into more social groups so that he has a "fishing hole." He is just too busy with grad school (seminary), work, church, and the little socialization he does with his friends on campus (quite a small group). In his case, waiting a little longer is probably best.

[Overflow]

I think this is something that really effected me growing up, not the dating specifically, but the fear of letting children sin. Until we sin, its hard for us to grasp the need we have for a Savior. I think LC protected children too much from making mistakes. And used one persons mistakes to try to teach the entire flock the errors of failure rather than the grace of our Savior. My prayer for my young children is that they will make mistakes and lots of them while they're under the umbrella of my husband and I's protection. And that each time we can remind them that their is forgiveness because of the cross. I pray that these little slips while they're young will protect them from the experience of huge sin when they're older....but even then, God's grace is still sufficient! I'm not saying...sin cause there's forgiveness, but the fact is we are NOT PERFECT beings and I think the LC really hoped to make us that! Woudn't need Jesus except as a bud if we were!!

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Process

I think this is something that really effected me growing up, not the dating specifically, but the fear of letting children sin. Until we sin, its hard for us to grasp the need we have for a Savior. I think LC protected children too much from making mistakes. And used one persons mistakes to try to teach the entire flock the errors of failure rather than the grace of our Savior. My prayer for my young children is that they will make mistakes and lots of them while they're under the umbrella of my husband and I's protection. And that each time we can remind them that their is forgiveness because of the cross. I pray that these little slips while they're young will protect them from the experience of huge sin when they're older....but even then, God's grace is still sufficient! I'm not saying...sin cause there's forgiveness, but the fact is we are NOT PERFECT beings and I think the LC really hoped to make us that! Woudn't need Jesus except as a bud if we were!!

Hi Process,

You are right on. As children of God we need the freedom to follow Him and make our own mistakes. I still remember saying to someone when I was beginning to wake up from my stupor (still deep in the LC), "I wish I could be free just to have a problem." I wondered why I always had to come to the meeting praising and thanking the Lord like I was in "the victory" when many times I was just plain having a hard time. I needed to be able to be sad when I was sad, mad when I was mad, struggling when I was struggling, etc. without having to perform like a monkey on a chain.

If you have a houseful of other people living with you, as I did, you had to be in performance mode 24/7. Of course, I never made that standard. I think the real help came to those sisters that lived with us when my performance ability failed. I still remember one sister who had heard one of my husband and my not too quiet "discussions" through the wall of our house, saying to another sister who was dying to get married, "If you want to get cured of that, just come live with the Andersons!" Well, maybe we did some good after all.

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Process

I think this is something that really effected me growing up, not the dating specifically, but the fear of letting children sin. Until we sin, its hard for us to grasp the need we have for a Savior. I think LC protected children too much from making mistakes. And used one persons mistakes to try to teach the entire flock the errors of failure rather than the grace of our Savior. My prayer for my young children is that they will make mistakes and lots of them while they're under the umbrella of my husband and I's protection. And that each time we can remind them that their is forgiveness because of the cross. I pray that these little slips while they're young will protect them from the experience of huge sin when they're older....but even then, God's grace is still sufficient! I'm not saying...sin cause there's forgiveness, but the fact is we are NOT PERFECT beings and I think the LC really hoped to make us that! Woudn't need Jesus except as a bud if we were!!

I have to agree. And agree with Jane's comments on this as well.

I also think it goes deeper. We need to let our children encounter the opinions of the world. They do not need to be ignorant of the popular culture of the day, whether it is the trend to immorality, or efforts to define God our of existence through science and other academic pursuits. They need to have had a serious consideration of evolution, postmodern's "no absolute truth," and even many of society's ills before they leave the home. While there are valid reasons for home schooling, I have always tended away from it for this reason. It is better to send them to a Christian private school.

If we have an open relationship with our children, they can come and talk about anything. And even when we butt heads, they will know that we are not just being mean and controlling. The best way to prepare for life in the world is to begin that experience with an adviser. Who better than the ones who managed to keep you alive to age 5 and beyond.

(On the Christian private school suggestion, I remember someone (I think it was Ray Graver) talking about his daughter's experience with the girl's basketball team at the little Christian school she went to (Baptist, I think). It was not some "protected" environment, even if the adults and teachers thought it was. They stopped at a convenience store on the way to a tournament and most of the girls were shoplifting.)

[finallyprettyokay]

Roger said this is a fast moving thread. Boy oh boy. Some of us need to be getting more sleep!

So, there are a couple of things I would like to add to, and I think I am not going to take the time to find the quotes -- most of them have several places and people to quote, anyway.

About dating: Not dating does go some distance with avoiding falling into lustful sin. Unfortunately, I think the very quick marriages are one of the results of not having any sort of natural contact and situations with each other. So there has to be something in the middle. Girls on one side of the meetings, boys on the other just doesn't give young people a chance to learn about the other gender and about themselves in those situations. What kind of person you like and what kind you don't like, who would be a good lifetime partner and who wouldn't. I was shooting in the dark with this stuff, had no idea how to know a good partner when I saw one.

So the idea that several people have put forth about group situations, 6 or 8 people hanging out doing something together is a great idea. Or the very innovative idea I wrote about somewhere, where the parents said yeah, you can 'date' -- in the front yard.

But if you are not 'allowed' any contact with the other gender, those fast marriages are one result. My husband and I knew each other across the meeting hall for two years, but really I barely knew his name, we certainly didn't know each other at all. One day, the thought occurred to both of us and it might have been 3 weeks later that we were married, but I think it was two. Strangers married to each other. Next month will be 35 years for us, so I think we are going to make it.

Here's something I'll throw into the mix, see what comes of it. Regarding arranged marriages, I know of 2 or maybe 3 marriages that were arranged after the brother had gone to the 'elders' and shared that he was gay, or thought maybe he was. The 'fellowship'? Get married. That will solve the problem. One of the instances I am thinking about, the elders went to the brother and told him they thought he was gay, and that he should get married ASAP. In none of these cases were the sisters in on the discussion or given any information. Interestingly, the marriage where the elders were the ones who thought there was a problem worked out pretty well. At least, they are still married. They seem happy, I assume they are what they seem. (I knew that brother well, and am here to tell you that all the sisters liked him lots. He treated women well. He was kind and very much a gentleman.) But the cases where the brothers had self-identified as gay --- a disaster. And what a devastating thing for both the brother and the poor sister that had no idea she was supposed to be a 'cure'.

Anyone else know of similar cases? Tragic.

And, as I have written before, alot of the problem was young, inexperienced, untrained 'elders', in way over their head.

This thread has traveled over many paths, but I think it is still on topic -- how does the LC influence effect children, families.

[blessD]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have to agree. And agree with Jane's comments on this as well.

I also think it goes deeper. We need to let our children encounter the opinions of the world. They do not need to be ignorant of the popular culture of the day, whether it is the trend to immorality, or efforts to define God our of existence through science and other academic pursuits. They need to have had a serious consideration of evolution, postmodern's "no absolute truth," and even many of society's ills before they leave the home. While there are valid reasons for home schooling, I have always tended away from it for this reason. It is better to send them to a Christian private school.

If we have an open relationship with our children, they can come and talk about anything. And even when we butt heads, they will know that we are not just being mean and controlling. The best way to prepare for life in the world is to begin that experience with an adviser. Who better than the ones who managed to keep you alive to age 5 and beyond.

(On the Christian private school suggestion, I remember someone (I think it was Ray Graver) talking about his daughter's experience with the girl's basketball team at the little Christian school she went to (Baptist, I think). It was not some "protected" environment, even if the adults and teachers thought it was. They stopped at a convenience store on the way to a tournament and most of the girls were shoplifting.)

The successes I have seen in this area (both mine and others) seem to have these key factors irrespective of the culture, background, or church community:

1. Unconditional love & open, unselfish communication
2. Early and continuous training & consistency in teaching
3. Prayer & Faith
4. Staying calm
5. Trusting your kids & helping them to know they can trust you
6. In the area of teaching the virtue of abstinence, follow steps 1-5.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.)

While I totally agree, I do know of a couple of blessed marriages of GLA leaders that had courtships of literally only days. The couples just met and fell in love and got married, and still love each other to this day. While they are not secretive about their short engagement, they don't recommend it as a pattern for others.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by OBW

On one hand, I agree a little. Just dating around because it's the thing to do is a potential trap. But even when we deal with lust, it is sin. And sin is sin. The problems that arise from the rapid marriages are also sin. And sin is sin.

I really don't think that 2 months from "my name is" to "I do" is wise in any way. (That is a little overstated, but virtually true.) My sons have mostly been involved in group activities. That means they go do things with 4 to 8 people, guys and gals. The younger one met and dated one girl for a while. That has cooled for now, but they are still part of the same larger group from which these smaller groups continue to emerge for particular activities. Even this was discouraged in the LC. That is a reasonable alternative to the "on/off" of suddenly private dataing and then not dating.

Of course, doing much of anything that wasn't a meeting was discouraged in the LC. It would seem that the meeting schedule was designed to keep us all busy enough that having much private socialization was just hard to plan.

Yeah this is a tough one because the Bible portrays fornication as like the worst thing a person can do almost. "sin against their own body." Ok, but is jumping into a bad marriage better? Which is more harmful? I'd argue that a bad marriage, particularly if children are involved, is much more harmful than fornication. Fornication can be over quickly, a bad marriage can shave decades off someone's life

I know brother Lee loved to joke around about marriage in his sermons. He would say "oh another marriage, another 'funeral' har har" and joke like that. But if you've lived through a dysfunctional marriage you know it's the furthest thing to joke about. It's horrible, and can quite literally ruin your entire life and everything about you can become shambles through a bad marriage. You could come out of a bad marriage a completely different person. Lee would likely sardonically turn that somehow into a positive saying something like "well you'll gain the Lord har har." Which he often did in his ministry. He loved to take horrible twisted things and use them as an opportunity to plug transformation and sonship or whatever the flavor term for the week was. And all the front row brothers would heartily below out "AMEN!" as he did so. Which clearly gives precedent to just shuck off family dysfunction as if it's somehow a normal part of our transformation

I went through my parents ugly dysfunctional marriage. They weren't right for each other, but they fell into lust and felt the pressure of getting married because they were in the local church. And they were a terrible fit and it ruined everything. I'm in my 40's and still recovering from what I went through as a child with their bad marriage. Certainly nothing to joke about

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jay

I know brother Lee loved to joke around about marriage in his sermons. He would say "oh another marriage, another 'funeral' har har" and joke like that. But if you've lived through a dysfunctional marriage you know it's the furthest thing to joke about. It's horrible, and can quite literally ruin your entire life and everything about you can become shambles through a bad marriage.

After leaving the LC, I looked back on my years watching marriage counseling, sometimes close up and sometimes from a distance. I concluded that, for the most part, no LC leader really had any idea what he was doing. Nearly no leader in that program ever learned to actually be discrete. Advice coming from our regional leader was perhaps only applicable in early 20th century China. Some of the counsel was just naive at best, illegal at worst, and none of it valuable in the long term.

It wasn't until I left the LC that I learned there was a brother in Ohio was who actually schooled and practicing Christian marital and family counseling. What a blessing to the body of Christ that could have been. Unfortunately he is no longer with the LC. I doubt if his ministry would have any place in that system, though I'm sure they would object.

Originally Posted by Ohio

After leaving the LC, I looked back on my years watching marriage counseling, sometimes close up and sometimes from a distance. I concluded that, for the most part, no LC leader really had any idea what he was doing. Nearly no leader in that program ever learned to actually be discrete. Advice coming from our regional leader was perhaps only applicable in early 20th century China. Some of the counsel was just naïve at best, illegal at worst, and none of it valuable in the long term.
It wasn't until I left the LC that I learned there was a brother in Ohio was who actually schooled and practicing Christian marital and family counseling. What a blessing to the body of Christ that could have been. Unfortunately he is no longer with the LC. I doubt if his ministry would have any place in that system, though I'm sure they would object.

I spent a lot of years in LC, and I can attest that all of their past and current attempts to somehow make it sound that they ever did value families and honored marriages is just that, an attempts to cover their heads and wash their hands of their own failures. In my time there, which is well over a decade, there wasn’t a single one conference, training, or any of theirs seven years reinstituted feasts dedicated for families, young couples or marriages.

Furthermore, I truly believe that these issues go further than just surface mundane things that all families and marriages deal with, there is absolute lack of knowledge and abilities to offer any constructive advice, tangible and genuine support. All of these coworkers and the blended bros, only have one agenda: to make sure the name and the image of Lee is upheld to the highest of standards. They have no idea on how to shepherd or care, and possess no knowledge or abilities on how to tend to a broken, hurt people and marriages. Their best assets are the writings of Lee, and their best practices are those that he instituted, and if anyone has had a chance to just search out what Lee said about marriage and how to deal with true realities - it’s some of the worst advice one can give to anyone, let alone a brother or sister in Christ.

Here is some samples of the advice we got from Witness Lee: (all of these are available online, you can find it with very little effort)

-Every parent, regardless of how smart or foolish he is, has a talent for raising children. Child raising is not a special talent; it is a talent given by birth.
-We are here not for our studies, not for the family, not for raising children, not to care for homes, and not for doing business. We are here for the service.
-If the service in the church is functioning properly, we will be fully occupied by all the new ones that we bring forth. If we do not bear new fruit and our numbers are the same year after year, there will be no need for raising children.
-Today we do not hear much truth in Christianity. The saddest thing is that in the chapels in the United States we hear of nothing but marriage, careers, or other things such as raising children, none of which is the pure and deep truth.
-If we care for the church, then our marriage, education, job, and future will all be covered. Some people have condemned me for being too much for the church.
-Strictly speaking, God is not interested in our marriage, education, job, health, family, husband, wife, children, or parents. God is interested in the church.
-Marriage life is an example of this kind of imprisonment. In a good sense, our marriage does not usher us into a banquet but into a "prison”.
-Have you seen God, Christ, the Church, and the Churches? The sisters must forget about their husbands, and the brothers must forget about their wives. We must forget about our preoccupations and see God, Christ, the Church, and the churches. Hallelujah!
-Likewise, if our marriage is only for ourselves, we will miss the mark of God's will, but if our marriage is for the building up of the Body, it will be according to God's will. Furthermore, in relation to migration, our primary concern should not be our job or our house but should be the building up of the church as the Body of Christ.
-Our marriage, education, living, and whatever we do must be for the unique will of God, that is, for the Body. If a young brother prays about marriage, he may say, "Lord, which sister is most suitable for Your Body?" When he prays about his education, he should say, "Lord, which line of study best fits with Your Body?" When he considers buying a house, he may say, "Lord, what kind of house suits Your Body?" If we care for God's will, we will know whom to marry, what line of education we should pursue, and what house we should buy.
-As long as we come to Him and seek His will, He will paint us; that is good enough. He cares not for our marriage or schooling but for this painting.

I always wondered why there is extremely rare cases in LC of true marriage relationships, where it’s a types of Christ and the church. After I left, and dug around for archaeological roots, and there they are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Roger

However, I do not agree with arranged marriages, where one or more party really has reservations, but buries them to keep favor with "the brothers."

Somehow we saints had the impression that if the elders "endorsed" a relationship, then God's "blessing" would be upon the marriage. Whether the marriage was "arranged" or not then became difficult to discern. With the belief that His coming was soon, and that marriage was only a means to "transformation," it was compelling indeed to many dedicated young people to have such a "blessing" from the leaders. In those days we could not believe that divorce could ever occur in the LC. We believed that God's grace was sufficient for any problem we might encounter.

I remember, as a young single brother in Cleve-ville, watching from "a distance" a time when TC "fellowshipped" with a group of single saints who were "marriage ready," but had no particular "interest" in any other brother or sister. Apparently all the other saints knew that TC had "one of those talks" with the group of singles, so I somehow found out too. I watched those saints, and right away they were all "paired up" and setting marriage dates. Everyone was happy for them. Life is so good! I somehow thought this was "God's way" for marriage in the church. It was so contrary to "the world," that it must be "of God." And ... it saved the young people from all the dangers of promiscuity. "Everybody's a winner," as they say. Right?

Years later, I learned that at least two of those specific marriages had ended poorly, with strange news indeed reported about them. Things too strange to repeat. Theirs were not the only marriages that were to fail either.

I must admit that the early days had many strange concepts that fueled off the "no dating" command. There were also strong forces compelling young ones to marry "inside" the LC. Think of the O.T. curses on "mixed marriages." Due to all the marriage failures, some saints I know decided it was far better to marry "outsiders," and some of them even married unbelievers. Church increase, right? While I wouldn't recommend this, they had to find someone they really loved and "connected" with, trusting God to work out salvation at a later date. Thus the dangers of control and legalism -- many will do just the opposite.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember, as a young single brother in Cleve-ville, watching from "a distance" a time when TC "fellowshipped" with a group of single saints who were "marriage ready," but had no particular "interest" in any other brother or sister. Apparently all the other saints knew that TC had "one of those talks" with the group of singles, so I somehow found out too. I watched those saints, and right away they were all "paired up" and setting marriage dates.

Ohio,

Here's another TC story but with a different interpretation.

A young sister from southern California, born and raised in the LC, came to stay with us. She was a student at Purdue and stayed with us in the summer. Anyway, she went to one of TC's college summer schools (or whatever they called them). TC had a question and answer session. Someone asked about marriage. TC answered, "Marry the one you love." He talked at length about romantic love, falling in love, and just being with the one you love. This young sister was floored. She came back and told us, "I've never heard anything like that in California."

I know you, Ohio, have some issues with TC and I understand where you're coming from. But have you ever considered how the brothers that were "trained" by him are so much more interesting a people than those coming out of the BB boot camp? Compare the speaking of Peter Debelak's father with any of the BB: is there any doubt who's better? The same could be said for most of the brothers TC trained. JM and TM (Tom McNaughton) could make a living as standup comics. Spend a weekend with a group of these guys and I guarantee you one thing: you won't be bored.

I'm not a TC apologist despite how this post may sound. I do know this though about him and it is a crucial point which I think needs to be made: he never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of "oneness." A lot of the negatives I'm reading on this thread came out of situations where that was done.

There. I'm done.


SC

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Ohio,


I'm not a TC apologist despite how this post may sound. I do know this though about him and it is a crucial point which I think needs to be made: he never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of "oneness." A lot of the negatives I'm reading on this thread came out of situations where that was done.

There. I'm done.


SC

Thanks SC.

"He never sacrificed his humanity on the altar of 'oneness'." As a result the LSM body spit him out. Regardless of what faults you can find in him, that is a wonderful example for us to follow.

I have listened to some of the recent audio of brothers from the Midwest. I was compelled, impressed, kept awake, and fed. Compare that with the current speaking of the "Blendeds." Unless you are under the hypnotic trance, and blending into the incessant drone of "amen," you are either bored, or can't wait to turn it off.

I have suffered through many of their messages in recent years, simply to be able to know what I am talking about when speaking of them. But, believe me, it was a suffering.

Roger

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Roger

I have suffered through many of their messages in recent years, simply to be able to know what I am talking about when speaking of them. But, believe me, it was a suffering.

Roger,

That's my biggest beef with them, bigger even than their idiotic quarantine. They're boring, incredibly, utterly boring. Sure, occasionally we're all boring. But the BB have perfected it to an art form. They ought to have a class in that at their seminary: "Lifeless Speaking 101." They could have one unit on how to cheerlead: EM could teach that. Then another on how to threaten and warn: MC could teach that. Another on how to use jargon no one understands: they could team teach that. And maybe a unit on long speaking: again, a team project.

The semester exam could be to have students give testimonies that never end. The rest of the class could pick up points for every rote Amen they uttered (one point per Amen) and the speaker would get an A if and only if he could put them all to sleep. He'd get an extra credit point for every Amen uttered from a sleeping soul.

I'm too hard. But hey, if the shoe fits ...


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I know you, Ohio, have some issues with TC and I understand where you're coming from. But have you ever considered how the brothers that were "trained" by him are so much more interesting a people than those coming out of the BB boot camp? Compare the speaking of Peter Debelak's father with any of the BB: is there any doubt who's better?

SC, I totally agree. And I have come to believe that both types of reports are true. All the good reports and all the bad reports about TC are true ... hence the dilemma -- some love him and some quarantine him.

You mentioned PD's dad ... but don't forget that he, like many others, can't work with TC any longer ... and not for messages like "marry the one you love."

Let me say this too ... did TC share that "marriage gem" just because she was from SoCal ... knowing that could heighten the contrast between him and the blendeds?

I have said this repeatedly ... I love brother Titus and appreciate his ministry, but can no longer accept the pattern of mistreatments he displayed, and often got duplicated in his workers. He never needed to do this. He was "shooting himself in the foot." He learned bad things from WL.

.................................................. ................................................

I see that this thread has really moved on ... again ... now to idolatry ... what's next? ... I can't keep up! ... kind of like the old Bereans "cry room" thread ...

The good thing is, they're not "beating up" on Hope any more ... the bad thing is that SC is now "getting it" ...

Hey SC, I'll ask Hope to Fedex that 2x4 back to you ... I had passed it on to him ... maybe he don't need it any more!

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see that this thread has really moved on ... again ... now to idolatry ... what's next? ... I can't keep up! ... kind of like the old Bereans "cry room" thread ...

The good thing is, they're not "beating up" on Hope any more ... the bad thing is that SC is now "getting it" ...

Hey SC, I'll ask Hope to Fedex that 2x4 back to you ... I had passed it on to him ... maybe he don't need it any more!

Ohio,

I get the fact that I am in the extreme here. I'm going to stay out here in the extreme for a while and really backup what is being said. The main reason why is because it is one of the root causes of the destruction of families and something that has had a lot of impact on the 2nd generation. I really can back this up. I know that not everyone will buy it. That's fine with me and I will defend my position rigorously on this issue. I'll also challenge the likes of SC and Hope when the defense that is attempted is subpar.

And yes, there is a Cry Room of sorts on this forum. I can Leed the way over there and show it to you.

For years, you listened to Lee castigate the RCC and didn't have a problem with that. Why do you have a problem with this?

I'm wondering if you realize that your stance has completely changed based on one apparent factor.

When you thought that these issues are pointed only at the Leedership then you didn't have as much of a problem with it. However, when it changes to possibly apply to everyone (Leedership and Leemen), then you interpret it differently. I'm not 'beating you up', just making a pretty simple observation for consideration.

No one, including me, likes it when the topic points homeward.

Matt

P.S. Couldn't resist a few Leeisms in memory of Reuben.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Somehow we saints had the impression that if the elders "endorsed" a relationship, then God's "blessing" would be upon the marriage. Whether the marriage was "arranged" or not then became difficult to discern. With the belief that His coming was soon, and that marriage was only a means to "transformation," it was compelling indeed to many dedicated young people to have such a "blessing" from the leaders. In those days we could not believe that divorce could ever occur in the LC. We believed that God's grace was sufficient for any problem we might encounter.

I remember, as a young single brother in Cleve-ville, watching from "a distance" a time when TC "fellowshipped" with a group of single saints who were "marriage ready," but had no particular "interest" in any other brother or sister. Apparently all the other saints knew that TC had "one of those talks" with the group of singles, so I somehow found out too. I watched those saints, and right away they were all "paired up" and setting marriage dates. Everyone was happy for them. Life is so good! I somehow thought this was "God's way" for marriage in the church. It was so contrary to "the world," that it must be "of God." And ... it saved the young people from all the dangers of promiscuity. "Everybody's a winner," as they say. Right?

Years later, I learned that at least two of those specific marriages had ended poorly, with strange news indeed reported about them. Things too strange to repeat. Theirs were not the only marriages that were to fail either.

I must admit that the early days had many strange concepts that fueled off the "no dating" command. There were also strong forces compelling young ones to marry "inside" the LC. Think of the O.T. curses on "mixed marriages." Due to all the marriage failures, some saints I know decided it was far better to marry "outsiders," and some of them even married unbelievers. Church increase, right? While I wouldn't recommend this, they had to find someone they really loved and "connected" with, trusting God to work out salvation at a later date. Thus the dangers of control and legalism -- many will do just the opposite.

I gotta chime in on this one because it's such a big and kinda terrible issue in a lot of ways. Where the "elders giving the blessing on marriage" thing came into play I don't know....how or why, but obviously it's rife with problems. I know of at least three marriages that didn't work out (just in general, I don't think they were "arranged"), and I have a sibling who knows of two in particular that never got off the ground because the elders intervened based on their own opinion or "feeling" regarding the compatibility of the couple in question. One of those instances caused the sister to leave the LC forever because she was so heartbroken. Hard for me to think of a more horrible thing than for someone to step in like that and control the outcome of the rest of two young people's lives, based on what? I have no idea. How is this not like super similar to the Catholic church or the like? How would an elder have that much power and control over saint's lives? Yet it happened and was a large part of the LC culture for decades and decades. Just unconscionable

But I do think this fits right in perfectly with this entire thread on the damage of the control and culture that the LC fostered in its fear of the world etc. Divorce is pretty much 50% in the world. I would venture to say it's less in the LC, people have done studies on Christianity divorce and it's very high, similar to the world I think, but the point is it's not uncommon. But how much pressure is put on young people surrounding this issue?

I know growing up in the LC I wanted a wife at a young age. Probably around 21. I didn't realize that I needed to be a "gung ho brother" to get one. I needed to appear as if I was in the running for rank of elder and I needed to have a college degree and I needed to go the full time training as is the culture in the LC. Mostly I think this pressure is put on young people from their parents. Or I should say the parents of the would be bride. It's funny how loving and graceful saints are up until it comes to who their daughter marries. And then it's standards through the roof. The culture of marriage in the LC is very very sketchy to say the least. It kind of "just happens" sometimes too, like they go off to camp and all of a sudden someone's getting married in a few months. Probably because they fell into fornication and got pregnant or felt guilty like they would lose their millennial reward if they didn't consummate the sex with marriage. I've seen that happen. But this is one of those subjects that is really really something that is subtle and low key a big problem, mostly for the parents of the would be bride

Even with all of that culture and pressure you have elders coming in and giving their uninformed opinions on the "blessing" of the couple. Which is just highly weird and aside from the example of Isaac and Rebekah, I don't think it's biblical at all. Even Isaac and Rebekah wasn't quite done how it's done in the LC. But I see no precedent for it. It's just a unique random OT story that doesn't give us any indication that that's how it should be done in today's church. So aside from maybe like an older brother sort of playing matchmaker, which does happen, but is different than an elder giving a blessing, I don't see how it could be rationalized as normal or even God-ordained

btw all my experiences with this subject happened from 2005 and on. The ones my sibling encountered happened in the 90's. I'm not sure if they still give blessings or arrange marriages or not to this day. I really don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I wouldn't be surprised if members still go to the elders and try to hook up a marriage or ask for a blessing on a marriage. Which is just so silly and wrong. If I was an elder I would absolutely turn someone away and say that is none of my business, nor is it anything I could possibly ever know what's right for the person. Which would be a normal rational response to such a silly scenario. If elders actually did that thinking they are giving God's blessing I can't even fathom how narcissistic that is. I've been to the elders and asked for healing and for them to lay hands on me and they joked around, balked, and just ended up not doing it thinking it was all a joke, laughing as they walked away. Yet the laying on of hands is quite literally right there in the Bible. But I see no such thing in the word when it comes to giving blessing for a marriage. It sounds like a mafia mobster thing or something. Just so so weird. The elders are supposed to be slaves of the saints, not overlords intervening and interposing themselves into saint's personal lives. How that culture got fostered I have no idea but it's bizarre to say the least

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Hope

I spent some time searching my memory about any and all divorces that occurred in Dallas from 1971 up until today. I came up with eleven.

Don,

I came up with a clear 10, and another that showed up at my mother's funeral with a different wife and no explanation (which he was not obligated to give). And I have had suspicions about a couple of others that I never heard anything about. At least a couple of the ones I know of happened years after we left but were married during our tenures in Dallas if not before. I know little concerning any marriages since.

Now I doubt there were some large number above that, but we are probably ignorant of a few. Still, that is not so terrible statistically. Spiritually, one is a tragedy. But in that number, there are a couple that really bothered me in terms of how it played out.

I also kept running into a brother at IBC that was in Dallas, as was his former wife. They married in OKC, then moved back to Irving later, and eventually divorced. (He has now moved to New Jersey.) They may be among BlessD's 14.