Brother Arnold Hadd: The Last Shakers

[@bigdanbear]

My friend. I am a Quaker. I am happy for your story.

[@Stephanie-SageFox]

Fellow Quaker. 👊🏼

[@micheleemcdaniel389]

If I could meet one person from the past it would be Mother Ann. What an amazing person.

[@booggett]

To me, the Shakers are a wonderful people. Their beliefs strike a chord of harmony in my soul.

[@husq48]

😱

[@robertnewman464]

Hello Arnold love to hear from you.

[@jamiewilson1687]

I teach A Day No Pigs Would Die, a novel by Robert Newton Peck, and I would really appreciate getting your permission to use this in class. Thanks you.

[@johninjersey]

Is this the same Brother Arnold that does the "Repairer of the Breach" radio program on WWCR? I

[@mojostephen]

I met brother Arnold today for the 2nd. time as I attended the Shaker meeting. He is a wonderful man and should be an inspiration to us all. If possible, I urge you to visit the last active Shaker community at Sabbathday Lake in New Gloucester, Maine...

[@peterforrest3424]

I think you have to see them as a kind of mixed monastics,also there were shakers who were married and lived outside of the community.I am not a bible literalist but Christ and Paul seemed to say a celibate life was good

[@oldtimeway1]

You do realize Peck used the term "Shaker" incorrectly. The Shakers did not marry so the book makes no sense using that term. I saw that as an eleven year old kid when I read the book. Too bad Peck's editor didn't see through that, but it's an otherwise good book.

[@adriansalinas7374]

im a sufi and the shaker way was the only way you can experience faith , live faith

[@karlakor]

Father Joseph Meacham stated "order is heaven's first law", but from where did he derive his knowledge of heaven's laws? I think he just pulled this dictum out of thin air. His claims of divine revelation are hollow. Couldn't I justify any dictum or position by claiming that it came to me through divine revelation? Did the Shakers ever question these "revelations"?

[@dnaak]

onemarktwoyou Catholicism never taught that the act of intercourse is sinful.

[@dnaak]

onemarktwoyou It's really easy to throw around objections like machine-gun fire, and it can take pages to respond to them all. But 90% of what you say is wrong and/or misguided. I am knowledgeable about my faith. Just to keep on what the first claim was, cite to me any Catholic document of official teaching capacity that ever claimed sex as sinful.

[@onemarktwoyou]

dnaak Everything I said is true. I can't help you reject your faith. In the catechism "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive [between spouses] purposes". Fancy words to mean only for purpose of child baring. This is one of many examples, but what does "morally disordered' mean to you??? It means sex is 'sinful' if not for purpose of baring more catholics. How the catholics love to play semantic games!

[@dnaak]

onemarktwoyou You are showing on one hand a complete lack of context and on the other blatant mischaracterization. Yes, sex is to be ordered toward children. That is why God created sex. But sex is good. Sex is always seen through the lens of marriage, which is ordered toward procreation. If people are using each other purely for pleasure, or in the words of the Catechism you quoted "sought for itself," then yes it is sinful. Not every sexual act has to result in children, but to physically prevent the natural course of action as God deigned it to be, is sinful. So, to repeat, sex is good. Sex, sought for pleasure alone, is sinful. Having sex and preventing the natural fruit of children is like saying to your spouse, who you are supposed to lay down your life, "I give my entirety to you ... except THAT." It's divisive. The availability of contraception and the widespread acceptance of it in the conscience of America has coincided with an astronomical increase in divorce. Coincidence? I think not.

[@onemarktwoyou]

dnaak Semantics and misdirections are not altering the facts. It literally said to have sex for the enjoyment of sex is sinful. Medically humans are NOT driven by the same chemical necessities as animals therefore to say we were not design to enjoy sex for itself actually contradicts the purpose of creation of mankind.

[@dnaak]

onemarktwoyou Well, there you have it Pope onemarktwoyou. You get to decide the truths of the human race. Luckily Jesus set up a Church that has been around since Pentecost and they (along with excellent philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas, et al.) have much more insight than myself into the nature of human beings and God's design for sex. We aren't going to agree, and you clearly know more than me about everything, so I bid you adieu. May the unfathomable and inexhaustible mercy of Jesus envelop you in His most merciful heart for as long as you live.

[@onemarktwoyou]

I never did figure out how they stuck to the idea from catholicism that the act of intercourse was sinful. I really don't believe G_d would approve of a self defeating religion. The part I like is that they were decent loving people and gave of themselves to others.

[@husq48]

They were nuts! 🤪

[@micheleemcdaniel389]

The Secular World is nuts!

[@husq48]

@@micheleemcdaniel389 Different kind of nuts. The Shakers were so far heretical that they could not be considered Christian.

[@carolynfuller777]

God is the loving author of the family.......... so how could the shaker life be a better way than what God ordained in His Word? God made the woman to be a helpmeet for the man.......... and God created all of us, so He knows best!

[@raymondmonsour7507]

Well, Arnold, just about everybody's out of your way now. If you had one iota of foresight or legitimate interest in the life you speak so historically about - you would not someday soon be sitting alone in 9 or so empty buildings waiting for the next tour group to come through.

[@nobishops4084]

Amen.