So, I guess Michael Pearl is not strict enough

[salex]

I was out at the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page (Nathaniel Darnell's group) and ran across Vaughn Ohlman berating Michael Pearl... and why? Because, apparently, in the world of patriarchal marriage and betrothals, Michael Pearl is a wuss and a liberal apostate and probably hell bent because he allowed his 26 year old daughter input into who she would marry.   Not at all Biblical, according to this guy.

http://letthemmarry.org/articles/general-biblical-issues/the-authority-of-the-father/to-betroth-or-not-to-betroth-a-response-to-michael-pearl-part-i

What was charming, to me, is this guy is all over the idea of two fathers liking one another and their children being betrothed with no way to say no from the time the father's say "Let's have them get married." His own son apparently had not seen the girl he was going to marry until after the fathers and he agreed he would be marrying. 

The comments on this are horrifying and great. Some of it is ssdd .  Fewer divorces in arranged marriages than in self selected marriages... yeah, because the subgroups that arrange marriages don't allow for divorce without all kinds of penalties, such as being tossed out of the family, tossed out of your church (aka only social outlet) etc.   Women have no say in who they have sex with , their sexuality belongs to their father and then their husband.... 

 

The comments section also gave me some serious nuggets of wtf. 

 

Quote

 

>>But God never forbids two people from getting to know one another before marriage
Ah, you change the goal posts. We never said it was forbidden, nor would we. What we are trying to ask and answer here is what is the best way to obey what God teaches. God teaches many things outside of the dramatic form of forbidding the contrary.

>>that’s unavoidable unless the parents arrange the marriage without either of their children knowing, and then introduce them to each other at the moment their betrothal ceremony is about to begin.

Ummm, no. Having just done this I can tell you how it is done. It is done by the parents having the authority to do the betrothing. The 'ceremony' then is just making official what already has covenantal force. In our case my son's father in law didn't bring him home until he had already agreed that things 'were good'.

But they can know each other before hand. The purpose of the principles here is that they aren't supposed to be looking and considering as potential spouse. If the parents are the ones who make the betrothal, there is no reason for them to do so (not to say they won't sin in that manner).

>> But blindly agreeing to marry a complete stranger based on someone else’s description of them will lead to a lot of marriages that are unhappy from the very beginning.

Just to clarify, this is not what we are proposing. We are proposing trusting your parents to pick your spouse for you. And there is a lot of evidence that this type of marriage succeeds a lot better than the kind where the two 'check each other out'. I would encourage you to look back at what you have written and see how much you have added to God's Word. Where does God teach these principles.

 

But the last couple of comments give a basic overview of this conversation.  

 

 

Quote

 

I don't think that Sophie really does have (or that she should have) choices. I think the Bible shows us that a woman does not have the authority over her own sexuality. Her father is the guardian of it until she marries, and he decides to whom and when she will be given in marriage. Once she is married the authority and control over her sexuality passes to her husband. While there is no single passage of Scripture where this is explained and set forth, it is revealed all throughout the Scriptures. Obviously Vaughn has already written two books on the subject, and even in those he wasn't able to cover every verse where these principles are either mentioned or implied. When we say "show me the verse....!" we are demanding something we don't demand of other principles. For example, where is the verse in the law of God which commands parents to feed and clothe their children? What? There is no such command? But we see parents doing it. Is that just cultural?

 

 

Terri A year ago 

 

I had to divide up my comment because the software accused me of being "spammy"
In the case of betrothal, we not only see that it is implied as the natural and normal way of doing things, we also see that God, in his law, gives remedies to fathers and husbands when other men, or even the daughter/wife herself decide to exercise their sexuality outside their authority. We see a law wherein a man who suspects his wife of being adulterous can have the priest test her for it. If she is guilty, either by admission or by failing the test, she ends up dead. There is no such test for husbands. A husband's sexuality is not under the control or authority of his wife. He has a duty to her sexually, but it is not exclusive to her. God calls this "just". Is that cultural?
But the real convincer for me came after I became reformed. When I came to understand that the grace of God is irresistible to me. The father chose me for Christ and neither Christ nor I have any choice in the matter. God, Himself, uses betrothal for His Son. And then He created the institution of marriage as a picture of the marriage of Christ and His bride. Every aspect of the marriage, including the betrothal is pictured in how men take wives. The way we do this speaks the gospel. When we ignore betrothal we lie. We are hiding the gospel. When Christians let women choose or not choose their husbands we are using a picture of marriage that lies about the gospel. 
There is nothing about marriage from its institution in the Garden until today that is cultural. It was created for the purpose of illustrating the gospel. Not the other way around. God didn't look around the earth and try to find some earthly thing that would help him explain what He is doing, instead, He invented marriage and gave us marriage as an aid to our understanding. When we accept the analogy as created we see that election is from the beginning, we see that betrothal is from the beginning. It is a vital part of the message of the gospel and therefore should not be excluded from the manner in which God's people express marriage. 
Perhaps Sophie believes that she chose Christ? Or that she at least had the option to reject Him if she didn't like him? The Scriptures don't teach this. We are to love the God who first loved us, not just say "no" if He doesn't get our motor running. In the same way, we are to love our husbands and if we don't, the older women can teach us how. We don't "marry the one we love", we "love the one we marry". Huge difference. We have no business loving men who are not our husbands.

 

 

 

 

The more I read this, the more I see why the patriarch hates women so much.  They don't view them as wholly human, certainly not equal to men on any level.  But these attitudes lead to is 1) men are not expected to only have one woman/wife, so having affairs, sexually abusing the help or the choir members, etc is AOK.  This is why an inlaw told another inlaw years ago that men could divorce for adultery , but women could not, and why  the polygamy group is always on the sidelines of these types of believers.

Interestingly enough, this marriage specialist didn't pick up the bits about Michael Pearls rapey honeymoon to preach on, just how he sinned in letting his daughter have a say.    

This was only part one on Michael Pearl, and I've not read part 2, but these people (the  Reconstructionist Theonomists  and political patriarchists) scare the crap out of me. As a woman, I can't figure out why any woman would willingly join them, unless brainwashed since birth.

[choralcrusader8613]

Tried to read that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I sounded like the mom in A Christmas Story when they find the turkey eaten up. WTSF, people. Like God doesn't expressly say, "Thou shalt not put a cactus in thine eye," but I'm not going to find a bunch of quotes from the Bible to try and support a view for or against cacti being placed in my eye.

Also, the betrothal/courting crap is based on stuff that was done in the 1800s, only it's a lot more restrictive (which is another WTF). Women are not property; we are individual human beings just like men are.

[DomWackTroll]

"I was out at the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page..."

salex, you just made my day!!! I had no hope of it ever being public again and finally just un-bookmarked it in a very distraught state! Thank you!

ETA: It's still closed to me.    Did you join it so you could see it? 

[docmom]

If this is god's plan for me, I'm happily going off to the other side.

[Childless]

Good god!  Based on who my parents tried to set me up with when I was single, I would have been miserable in any marriage they arranged.  I love my parents, but their idea of a good fit for me and my idea of a good fit for me differ drastically.  They never would have picked the man who is currently my husband, but have grown to love him and agree that we are perfect for each other.  Besides, my parents like to treat their adult children as adults capable of navigating the world on their own.  They did their job and raised productive and  adjusted adults.  Now they are free to live their lives for themselves and don't feel the need to stick their noses in their childrens' personal lives.

[libriatrix]

Quote

I think the Bible shows us that a woman does not have the authority over her own sexuality. Her father is the guardian of it until she marries, and he decides to whom and when she will be given in marriage. Once she is married the authority and control over her sexuality passes to her husband.

Holyeeeee crap. It's one thing to parse out someone else's teaching and realize that's how they think of women; it's a whole different ballgame to read someone ACKNOWLEDGING that's what they think themselves. And having no problem with it. O_O

Not to mention that the commenter's name is Terri-with-an-i so chances are high that the commenter is a woman.

54 minutes ago, salex said:

Interestingly enough, this marriage specialist didn't pick up the bits about Michael Pearls rapey honeymoon to preach on, just how he sinned in letting his daughter have a say.    

Rapey honeymoon? What are you talking about? He already married Debi at the time so her sexuality was his to control! You're talking like Michael was some stranger jumping her in the night and sinning against her father by messing with his daughter's sexuality without his consent. Crazy talk. Obviously if there was any problem on the honeymoon it would have been Debi's for not submitting enough to Michael's control of her sexuality. I mean, duh. It's so clear in the Bible!

[prayawaythefundie]

I think I'm about to throw up. How can a father not at all care about whether his children are happy and safe with their life partner? Then again, he might be one of those who doesn't consider a daughter his child. Like in some cultures when asked how many children you had, you would answer 3 if you had 3 sons and 2 daughters.

[salex]

1 hour ago, DomWackTroll said:

"I was out at the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page..."

salex, you just made my day!!! I had no hope of it ever being public again and finally just un-bookmarked it in a very distraught state! Thank you!

ETA: It's still closed to me.    Did you join it so you could see it? 

Spoiler

yes, long ago, on my fakebook page shhhh

 

[campused]

Have you read the son's marriage story?

Quote

Emails were exchanged, phone calls were exchanged, various letters of introduction were exchanged, until only one roadblock remained. Andrew, and his daughter, were paedo-baptists. Vaughn, and his son, were credo-baptists. The elders on both sides were clear: they expressed it differently, they had different objections, but they certainly did not approve.

The drama!!!! I can't wait to see how it's resolved!

[DomWackTroll]

I've seen pre- vs. post-millennialism be a betrothal deal-breaker with these lunatics, too. 

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

"I was out at the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page..."

salex, you just made my day!!! I had no hope of it ever being public again and finally just un-bookmarked it in a very distraught state! Thank you!

ETA: It's still closed to me.    Did you join it so you could see it? 

It is still closed for me too.  It used to be one of my go-to hate reads.

Spoiler

I need a tutorial on Fakepages, obviously.

 

It is very worrying that there are people even worse than Michael Pearl out there.

[K'Z'K]

1 hour ago, campused said:

Quote

Emails were exchanged, phone calls were exchanged, various letters of introduction were exchanged, until only one roadblock remained. Andrew, and his daughter, were paedo-baptists. Vaughn, and his son, were credo-baptists. The elders on both sides were clear: they expressed it differently, they had different objections, but they certainly did not approve.

The drama!!!! I can't wait to see how it's resolved!

This sort of thing always reminds me of the great Emo Philps "Man on the Bridge" routine:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Another one, which gets right to the point:

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me ... and I got it!

[laPapessaGiovanna]

My chin just fell to the floor, I am speechless. They are cavemen!

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

43 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

It is still closed for me too.  It used to be one of my go-to hate reads.

  Hide contents

I need a tutorial on Fakepages, obviously.

 

It is very worrying that there are people even worse than Michael Pearl out there.

 The CB page is pretty boring at the moment imo. All of the comments quoted above are from the website linked, letthemmarry, which you can go read. 

[onlyme]

That is Terri McAllister. We have a mutual acquaintance and I got into it a little with her once when that Catholic article came out about why a father would not send his daughters to college. Terri wrote a spoof article on why she wouldn't let her daughters be strippers, using the pro-education comments as objections-basically saying they were the same thing, moral equivalents. She supposedly got a law degree through correspondence courses and thinks therefor she is one beacon of logic in the midst of an ocean of emotional females. 

 

God, she's a special kind of bitch. 

[Marian the Librarian]

The Reconstructionist Theonomist FB page is closed to the non-elect, but anyone can scroll through its list of 691 members. I just did, and found a few names we know well here at FJ:

Nattie Darnell, Administrator

Zimmerman, Tait and Lauren

Noor, David and Daniel

McDonald, Stacy

Shupe, Bob

Leclerc, Phillip

Botkin: Audri, Elizabeth, Anna-Sofia, David

Reins, Andrea and Kelly

Rushdoony, Mark

Roach, Chad and Bill (brother and father of Heidi Roach Botkin)

Seppi, David

Morecraft, Becky Belcher

Serven, Cheryl

Strackbein, Wesley

Allison, Ben (newly-betrothed to Kimberly Fambrough)

I'm sure I've missed a few - feel free to take a peek and add your own faves!!

ETA: I almost forgot the best member's name I found! Someone calling himself "Levator Labii Superioris" has made his way into the inner Reconstructionist Theonomist sanctum. I, naturally, thought it stood for something dirty - but research reveals that the Levator Labii Superioris is known as the "Elvis muscle," as it dilates the nostril and elevates the upper lip, allowing one to sneer. I ask you, how appropriate is that?? 

[onlyme]

John Stoos-isn't he some California legislator? Or tried to be? 

 

Israel Wayne

 

[ViolaSebastian]

Aw, what a beautiful story.  Dad meets Dad.  Boy calls and Skypes with Dad.  Boy writes long essay about theology.  Dad gives boy his daughter's ring size.  Boy meets girl and they are both too nervous to talk to one another.  Two hours later, they're sealed permanently with two rings to represent that there's no going back on this.  True love!

Quote

In the days that have passed everyone’s biggest complaint seems to be the couple’s foolish grins and the fact that they are both forever on the phone with each other.

No shit, I'd be forever on the phone desperately trying to get to know the man who had authority over me as well.  

[DomWackTroll]

But Stacy just said on Facebook that she only recently became aware of hyper-patriarchy! It's all so very new and appalling to her, because she's "so naive"!

[Marian the Librarian]

2 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

But Stacy just said on Facebook that she only recently became aware of hyper-patriarchy! It's all so very new and appalling to her, because she's "so naive"!

Yes, well, I'm sure Stacy also has a bridge or two in Brooklyn she'd like to sell us. Essentially oiled, of course.

[nickelodeon]

Read a paragraph or two and nope, I can't deal with this level of butthole and birdseed, NOT TODAY SATAN.

[CherylV]

8 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

It is still closed for me too.  It used to be one of my go-to hate reads.

  Reveal hidden contents

I need a tutorial on Fakepages, obviously.

 

It is very worrying that there are people even worse than Michael Pearl out there.

Yes. This is very worrying.  

[CyborgKin]

9 hours ago, KZK said:

This sort of thing always reminds me of the great Emo Philps "Man on the Bridge" routine:

<snip>

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

 

I've told that one, to Baptists.  But with different flavours.

[prayawaythefundie]

You sure made me fall down one deep rabbit hole, salex! This guy's whole ministry is to marry people before they are twenty. The more weddings, the better. What kind of person is your kid's spouse? Doesn't matter as long as they are christian and their dad wants to go for it.

[picklepizzas]

On January 9, 2016 at 11:07 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

You sure made me fall down one deep rabbit hole, salex! This guy's whole ministry is to marry people before they are twenty. The more weddings, the better. What kind of person is your kid's spouse? Doesn't matter as long as they are christian and their dad wants to go for it.

From his "about" page: There are thousands of godly young men and women who are ready to be married but aren't... this is not good.

i would love to hear his thoughts on the maxwells...or the arndts...

 

ETA: also the phrasing in each of the 'about me' paragraphs is odd. "Husband to one, father to six..." "Husband to one, father to two..." Are they supportive of plural marriage, too?