Interested in learning about Holdemans

[mike]

As to the terms I used such as 'most' and 'vast majority,' I will let you have the last word as I am not interested in spending time here defining just who all must be considered conservative Anabaptists in this context.

I think it's important to speak truth. What is a conservative Anabaptist and who they are isn't some giant mystery. If you want to exclude large populations of conservative Anabaptists, you can go right ahead and do that, but wouldn't it just me more fruitful to speak about your own constituency and those you are actually in fellowship with?

Maybe "conservative Mennonites" would be more precise, as that would exclude Amish, Apostolic, and some of the others mentioned without also excluding Holdemans.

But the Amish are a large, growing, and important group of conservative Anabaptists who do not hold to the Holdeman view.

[mike]

As to the terms I used such as 'most' and 'vast majority,' I will let you have the last word as I am not interested in spending time here defining just who all must be considered conservative Anabaptists in this context.

I think it's important to speak truth. What is a conservative Anabaptist and who they are isn't some giant mystery. If you want to exclude large populations of conservative Anabaptists, you can go right ahead and do that, but wouldn't it just me more fruitful to speak about your own constituency and those you are actually in fellowship with?

As I said, I am fine with you having the last word on this. You've done a great job explaining why you think my statement is wrong, and I'm fine with leaving it at that.

[JohnH]

As I said, I am fine with you having the last word on this. You've done a great job explaining why you think my statement is wrong, and I'm fine with leaving it at that.

Okay. I hope you can appreciate what I say comes out of a place of not wishing to keep repeating falsehoods.

One of the reasons I ended up with the Holdemans in the first place is, after visiting them for a bit, finding out most what I thought about them (and had heard from others) was outright lies. It does not bolster one's position at all to promote falsehood.

[justme]

One of the reasons I ended up with the Holdemans in the first place is, after visiting them for a bit, finding out most what I thought about them (and had heard from others) was outright lies.

i would guess that is a true statement.
i would also guess that knowing they would allow a person to get remarried after that person's divorce is also one of the reasons you chose them.

[JohnH]

i would also guess that knowing they would allow a person to get remarried after that person's divorce is also one of the reasons you chose them.

It was not, although there is a large contingent of people who claim that is, including several people I thought I was friends at my former congregation with who (falsely) claimed I went to my current congregation because I had a girlfriend. (I didn't, and my current wife isn't from there.)

I still held certain beliefs about D&R when I started attending and put off joining for a while because of them until my views were changed. I had a "detour" through the CMC, where I was (correctly) counselled to stop considering myself married to my ex wife who was now married to someone else, and dated a Pentecostal girl for a period of time. Amongst the more interesting rumours are the people who claimed she was a Holdeman, and that I went to the Holdemans so I could date/marry her.

This goes in the list of "lies plain people tell about each other".

[justme]

JohnH,
Did i call you out by name? I did not. I specifically said they allow a person to get remarried after that person's divorce. I know how you dislike your personal life discussed on here.
The fact that you called yourself out, is not my concern.

[Soloist]

JohnH,
Did i call you out by name? I did not. I specifically said they allow a person to get remarried after that person's divorce. I know how you dislike your personal life discussed on here.
The fact that you called yourself out, is not my concern.

person's divorce is also one of the reasons you chose them.

[ken_sylvania]

You keep saying "most", but by numbers, "most" should include Holdemans and Apostolic Christians, whose numbers rival the rest of the conservative Anabaptist world if we exclude the Old Order groups. And let's be frank: the Old Order groups don't exactly fellowship and commune with the non-Old Order groups. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate sphere.

that most plain Anabaptists are horse and buggy, even though the small fraction that are conservative Mennonites etc. do drive cars.

Most conservative Anabaptists don't use Medicaid or state aid at all. I am in one of the very few conferences that does do so.

[justme]

That would be correct, soloist..
I did say that.
I or anyone, can choose a group based on what they believe in, whether or not i intend to take advantage of it.

[JohnH]

that most plain Anabaptists are horse and buggy, even though the small fraction that are conservative Mennonites etc. do drive cars.

Yes, by numbers, they are, across both Swiss and Russian Mennonites.

I don't know the Russian Mennonite position in general (Old Colonists in Canada seem comfortable with using the state health care system, but then again so do many other plain groups). In Mexico the government health care system isn't desirable and most people prefer to pay (the government one effectively requires you to pay, too). I do know that Apostolic Christians would, in theory, use Medicaid and state aid, but in practice they tend to be wealthy enough it's not an issue. So yes, Holdemans are a minority group here and do not represent the "norm" of plain Anabaptism, and I would want to be very cautious not to mis-represent that. If a family needs state aid to survive, then pastoral counsel would be called for to help them navigate that if they were to enter a plain group.

I wouldn't advise people to just pick the Holdemans because it makes their D&R or government-benefits situation "easier". I don't really think that's the right way to navigate Christianity. We should try to follow where Jesus leads us, and sometimes he leads us into a place that isn't easy. It was certainly that way for me. The attitude of some other plain groups to "refer" D&R'd people to Holdemans can concern me a bit in this regard.

Both Holdemans and other "conservative Anabaptists" who are car-driving (fundamentally we are the same bloc of people) need to face the fact that they are in the minority compared to the overwhelming mass of non-car plain Anabaptists.