MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:

Haystack wrote:I thought Keystone was considered moderate?

Scott classified them as fundamental. I would argue that most other "moderate" groups are very similar to Keystone now, but that's more of a testament to how Keystone hasn't really changed in a while, and the other moderate groups have.

Yes. Every few decades, many CAs change enough that they fall into a different category.

Since the early Anabaptist days, there have always been ultra conservatives, intermediates, moderates, fundamental conservatives, and theological conservatives. These variations used to be in the same conference or characterized certain regions or congregations.
Only in the last 70 years have these characterizations been made more clear due to a proliferation of new conferences and fellowships. (Something similar has happened in the CA world as what has happened to energy companies the last 70 years.)

"Old Order" is a relatively new thing in the last 150 years. Up until the late 1800's, Anabaptists did not reject certain forms of technology for example.

Ernie wrote:

"Old Order" is a relatively new thing in the last 150 years. Up until the late 1800's, Anabaptists did not reject certain forms of technology for example.

Had to have some new name for those folks who wanted to control technology. It was probably a good time to start resisting some of the fast multiplying innovations coming on the scene in those years. Would there be any plain Anabaptists left if not for the Old Order and those similar groups who resisted? Our old order group has really only resisted technology that involved entertainment. We have not resisted technology on the farm or in the shop.

Hats Off wrote:

Ernie wrote: "Old Order" is a relatively new thing in the last 150 years. Up until the late 1800's, Anabaptists did not reject certain forms of technology for example.

Had to have some new name for those folks who wanted to control technology. It was probably a good time to start resisting some of the fast multiplying innovations coming on the scene in those years. Would there be any plain Anabaptists left if not for the Old Order and those similar groups who resisted? Our old order group has really only resisted technology that involved entertainment. We have not resisted technology on the farm or in the shop.

In Plain Catholic World we too shun the alleged "entertainment" and we assertively control our computer time. We do use farm tech but most of it is bought used and rehabbed. Mobile phones present new temptations but buying basic plans with limited data helps.

I see an interesting connection between ourselves and other plain groups with the rejection of certain mass media and other tech that emerged approximately 120-150 years ago. Mass media, consumerism and mass production tech has been key in proliferating secularist ideologies. Our group emerged with its values in Great Britain and spread to "the colonies" eventually. Interesting to me is the same "plain" movement occurred in several different faith groups at about the same time.

MaxPC wrote:I see an interesting connection between ourselves and other plain groups with the rejection of certain mass media and other tech that emerged approximately 120-150 years ago. Mass media, consumerism and mass production tech has been key in proliferating secularist ideologies. Our group emerged with its values in Great Britain and spread to "the colonies" eventually. Interesting to me is the same "plain" movement occurred in several different faith groups at about the same time.

Where can we learn more about this movement?

To address the original topic, I figure to be there.

Josh wrote:

MaxPC wrote:I see an interesting connection between ourselves and other plain groups with the rejection of certain mass media and other tech that emerged approximately 120-150 years ago. Mass media, consumerism and mass production tech has been key in proliferating secularist ideologies. Our group emerged with its values in Great Britain and spread to "the colonies" eventually. Interesting to me is the same "plain" movement occurred in several different faith groups at about the same time.

Where can we learn more about this movement?

I think you will find it right next to the Unicorns, Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Never actually seen, but there are vague legends of it's existence.

J.M.

Judas Maccabeus wrote:

MaxPC wrote:I see an interesting connection between ourselves and other plain groups with the rejection of certain mass media and other tech that emerged approximately 120-150 years ago. Mass media, consumerism and mass production tech has been key in proliferating secularist ideologies. Our group emerged with its values in Great Britain and spread to "the colonies" eventually. Interesting to me is the same "plain" movement occurred in several different faith groups at about the same time.

I think you will find it right next to the Unicorns, Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. Never actually seen, but there are vague legends of it's existence.

J.M.

I can't decide if you're trying to be funny or if you're deliberately being hostile, JM.

MaxPC wrote:I can't decide if you're trying to be funny or if you're deliberately being hostile, JM.

Seems rather ironic that someone who takes such great offense at off-topic responses in one's own threads has such little conscience about contributing to the same thing in other threads. I won't speculate about motives, but responses, if any, might be better directed to the BT thread.

ohio jones wrote:

MaxPC wrote:I can't decide if you're trying to be funny or if you're deliberately being hostile, JM.

Seems rather ironic that someone who takes such great offense at off-topic responses in one's own threads has such little conscience about contributing to the same thing in other threads. I won't speculate about motives, but responses, if any, might be better directed to the BT thread.

The Bible tells us to discern the spirits, OJ. I'm not going to derail a thread by giving a response based on incorrect assumptions. That's why I ask. Shouldn't you have set the example by posting in the BT thread?

MaxPC wrote:

ohio jones wrote:

MaxPC wrote:I can't decide if you're trying to be funny or if you're deliberately being hostile, JM.

Seems rather ironic that someone who takes such great offense at off-topic responses in one's own threads has such little conscience about contributing to the same thing in other threads. I won't speculate about motives, but responses, if any, might be better directed to the BT thread.

The Bible tells us to discern the spirits, OJ. I'm not going to derail a thread by giving a response based on incorrect assumptions. That's why I ask. Shouldn't you have set the example by posting in the BT thread?

I'm generally the one who derails the thread, not the one who complains about it.

But in this case I admit to being slightly miffed that a thread that is nominally about my Conference's conference devolves, like so many others, to discussing whether Plain Catholics exist. Regardless, you're welcome to show up in person and settle that question beyond any reasonable doubt for those of us who are there. Please wear your best suspenders.