Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

by **albion** » Tue May 23, 2006 4:12 pm

Here's an 1988 article that narrates MWS's experience with substance abuse. According to this, his wild years were 1976-1979. It's an all-American story of sin and redemptionn, although I suppose one could read between the lines in places. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Michael W. Smith Looks Back The pop prodigal looks back By Jim Long The linoleum was probably brown and tan, he says, but Smitty doesn't recall exactly. Nor does he recall how he got there, face down on the kitchen floor of his Nashville apartment, crying. What he does remember—vividly so—is what led to that uncomfortable evening in November, 1979. After all, it had taken three years to wind up there, sprawled across the cool, hard linoleum. A lot of misspent effort had gone into this brokenness. That evening, alone with his depression and regret, Michael W. Smith was certain of one thing: He could not go on as he had been. There had to be a change. A change he was powerless to bring about on his own. [...] To hear Michael describe it all now, childhood, right up through his high-school years, was happy. Secure in his parents' love. Involved in church. Close to God. So what went wrong? Why'd Smitty go off the deep end? It began in his junior year, 1976, this radical, negative change. How can you describe it? Michael simply flipped out. First, he drifted into a hypocritical, double life; then he ran from faith altogether. It didn't help that Michael lost his "support group." Those older Christians moved away, went off to college, took jobs, got married. As that group changed, Michael struggled to find support; he simply did not have the strength to stand alone without that circle of stronger, helpful friends. He felt a growing loneliness. And he slipped away from faith. "I started kind of 'going out to lunch.' When I graduated, I don't know if I was mad at God or what. I don't know. But I just lost touch." This about-face put his parents' values, his church's beliefs, God himself, behind him. Smitty soon turned from it all and walked away. But walked away to what? Michael had only three aspirations over the years: When he was 8, he figured he should be either an astronaut or a professional baseball player. With a few years of maturity, he dumped both of those ideas in favor of a career in music. One year of music studies and goofing off at a local college only bored him, and put him in closer touch with the wrong kind of influences. Yet his musical interests—writing and performance—continued to grow. A friend, Shane Keister, a session player in Nashville, had encouraged him, "If music's really in your blood, you should probably move to Nashville." [...] "I really started losing touch when I moved to Nashville, around April of '78. I was smokin' marijuana, drinking, doing some other drugs; just being crazy, you know. My mom and dad knew what I was doing. Mom later told me that she had found a bag of pot under my mattress when I was still living at home. But they never hassled me, they just prayed for me. And I felt convicted by God. Every time I'd wake up I knew: This isn't me. But I couldn't change myself." [...] "On one of my visits home—soon after my move to Nashville—Dad took me aside, out on the front porch, and talked to me about smoking pot. It was really strange. A very simple, direct message: 'You're going to have to quit smoking this marijuana. You know it's not right.' He wasn't hard; he was just so gentle, and all I could say was, 'I know, Dad. I know.' "What could I say? I couldn't defend myself. What was there to defend? Dad was right." Nevertheless, Michael returned to Nashville unchanged. Within a few months, things were looking brighter musically. Opportunities were coming up to do some club work. His parents had signed a promissory note so he could buy his first synthesizer, and he was busy polishing his keyboard skills. Then Smitty received a particularly significant call from a band that was looking for a keyboard player. Here was the chance to play five nights a week, promising about $1,200 a month. "I went over and met the guys in the band. They were all long-haired rock 'n' rollers. Somebody had a joint lit, but I didn't think anything of it. These guys were really good musicians. I liked them and they seemed to like me. I thought, This is the ticket! Three hundred dollars a week, no slaving away to plant shrubs. I'm finally going to get to do what 1 really want to do. So I joined the band. I moved in with one of the band members and his wife; they needed help paying the rent. That's when I found out this guy was a drug dealer. There were all kinds of drugs coming in and out of this place. I still can't believe that all of this happened to me. "I was at a crossroads: If this guy got busted, I would get busted, too. And I was also feeling this heavy conviction from God. It was like, here he was, protecting me, but I felt so unworthy. So guilty. But I stayed there for two or three months, doing the club thing. Then I moved out. And I felt so relieved to put that behind me. "A month later, one of the guys called to let me know that Red, one of the drug contacts who was always coming over and bringing two, three, 400 hits of LSD—all kinds of stuff—had been found on the interstate with four bullets in his head. And I'm thinking, I lived over there! What's going on? It really flipped me out. And I just kept thinking, Oh, God, what am I doing? Get me out of this thing. That's what I begged for every night and every morning when I woke up." This prayer, calling out, flailing to reach God, was not new to Michael. Less than a month into his "crazy mode," he had started praying: "God, get me out of this . …" But he went on in his guilt-stirring ways for three years. Three years, as he now describes it, of "just floating out there, not quite able to grab onto God, yet feeling Satan really had a grip on me." [...] That November night in Nashville, 1979; that night in the kitchen of his apartment; that night on the linoleum floor, the full weight of his wasted living fell on him. He buckled under the burden of his guilt and restlessness. And he cried: "Lord, I can't do it. I am really going to commit my life to you. I want you to intervene in my life." Sounds familiar. Wasn't this what he'd been crying to God about for three years already? Not quite. "Up to that point, I would pray, 'Oh God, get me out of here. Do whatever you've got to do. Break my legs, whatever, just get my attention.' Then I would kind of leave it all alone and say, 'Where's the joint, man?' But that night was different. That night I just got sick of it. I knew I was never going to be happy until I got myself right with God. That night I finally said, 'OK, God. I'm yours.' "I prayed that prayer, and when I woke up the next day, I felt refreshed. I felt like it was a new day." more: <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/cl/1988/003/1.56.html">www.christianitytoday.com.../1.56.html</a> <hr></blockquote> According to Wikipedia, he was born in 1957. During the above-mentioned period he would have been about 18 to 22, so it's not really unusual that he was a bit wayward at that age. And FWIW, according to his own account, he didn't meet GHWB until 1989, when he was about 32. But yes, one could certainly read between the lines...

by **rothbardian** » Tue May 23, 2006 8:31 pm

blanc-- Again, did I misunderstand something there? I'd really like to think I misread you somehow. albion-- Wow, I knew none of that drug stuff. Still haven't got to all the other material.

by **Dreams End** » Tue May 23, 2006 10:36 pm

Calm down, Roth...there's nothing at all insulting in blanc's post. He was talking about how "innocent" media are used by perps to mess with kids heads...as in the makers of the Smith album...or cover artwork...not as in you. You were mentioned in that you pointed it out...that's all. He was suggesting that you had pointed out <blockquote>Quote:<hr> use of incorporating symbols associated with one set of rites into presentations ostensibly linked with another<hr></blockquote> i.e. sticking an eye of Horus on a Christian album. He can speak for him/herself but you've misread the post so thoroughly blanc may just decide to jump off this thread. Considering the parties involved in this thread, I think it's quite good we've kept it going with no acrimony...coming from such different positions. Hate to see it thrown off by such a misinterpretation. I think others will agree that there was nothing malicious about Rothbardian in that post and no case of "Christian persecution".

by **DBtv** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:11 am

ALL post Nicean "Christianity" is Luciferian. (Reaching its low point in the christofascism of jingoistic, xenophobic 21st century ameriKKKan Pharisees.)

by **Sepka** » Wed May 24, 2006 3:03 am

It's not really relevant to the discussion, but it strikes me how fragmented popular culture has become anymore. I'd never even heard of this fellow until this thread, yet some segments of society apparently consider him a major (and long established) recording artist. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **blanc** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:21 am

There is no way I wrote that comment in order to 'insult', or indeed attack you or your credibility in anyway. I thought I was making it clear that I think that one reason, and just one of several, that popular culture is used by perpetrators is that it it is primarily accessed by the young. Therefore, the supposition you started the thread with, that this recording artist may be embedding satanic imagery intentionally into his album covers, titles etc, would fall in to that general hypothesis - that imagery which has to the general public no import, may be given a dual meaning and purpose by perpetrators . that those purposes may be 1. to inculcate the symbols used in a wider young population as being harmless and desirable 2. to trigger constantly survivors.I wrote about the fact that it was mainly your children who viewed this stuff to emphasise this point, because the idea that people can be 'brainwashed' on a wide scale comes in for criticism because it is genearally assumed that we are talking about a cross section of the population, that is mainly adults with a relatively sophisticated defense mechanism. Of course adults can be brainwashed too (many cult histories to demonstrate this) but putting art work with brainwashing intent on video covers would not be the method of choice.

by **blanc** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:38 am

a kind of ps. in speaking of perps using pop imagery/films/culture i was referring to specific instances of perpetrating groups making sadistic second copies of mainstream films and embedding sadistic acts into such images. faced with this knowledge, at first I struggled to 'explain' this. the fact that same groups or other groups did the same things with for example Christian rituals, words from the Bible etc seemed at first to me to be baffling. On better understanding the mechanism of triggers, i thought I had come up with one explanation of this - a second possibility to me arose because of observing the smokescreen effect of talking about abuse embedded in this material - police had a tendency to put this in the mental file marked fantasy because it used pop culture. If police do this, don't we all, don't we all assume we know what any given film, video cover, song is about? young children must incorporate these harmless/harmful images into their internal iconography and assign meaning to them, we must have all done that too.If there is any danger in an evangelical pop monger using satanic imagery wouldn't it be in whitewashing it? If its just there as an injoke - who cares? Could be an injoke played on him by the art department.

by **rothbardian** » Wed May 24, 2006 11:58 am

If I misunderstood, I beg your pardon. I must say though that, my mind being constructed the way it is, I have a fairly difficult time understanding what you're saying, even in your last two posts. That's just my problem. For all the world, I thought you were somehow describing me as a de facto ritual abuser because I had allowed my children to watch a certain music video. Again, my apologies. Now..I believe you're raising the issue as to whether this could all be a joke being played on Smith: I believe he may very well be unaware on a conscious level, of what he is doing. Other mind-control victims have reported that their 'core persona' has no knowledge or memory of what their alters are doing. Pretty mindboggling stuff.

by **yathrib** » Wed May 24, 2006 12:57 pm

As my brother in law--a Christian pastor and a very wise man in most things, even if he is a Republican and a dittohead--says that if you look hard enough, life itself has pagan/satanic origins. That's what I think you've done here. Quite convincing if you want to be convinced, I must admit. I've been there... I'm no huge fan of MIchael W. Smith or CCM generally, and his friendship w/ you-know-who in the Oval Office is enough for me to write him off. But did you think that maybe he used runic lettering because he thought it looked *cool?* Or maybe he's of Norwegian descent? Or maybe he likes Lord of the Rings? Who knows? You certainly don't. Sorry, don't mean to be harsh. Like I said I've been there. There are gazillions of legitimate conspiracies out there w/o the need to make stuff up.

by **blanc** » Wed May 24, 2006 4:53 pm

Rothbardian, ra is horrible - how on earth could you imagine I confuse someone letting their kids watch a movie with abuse? btw - I don't intentionally insult complete strangers - or even people I know but don't get along with - what would be the point? and er ... my toothpaste tube turns out to have the word blanc on it - do you think there's a message for me? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **Col Quisp** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:18 pm

I can't believe all you eminent scholars are spending so much time over-analyzing this ridiculous subject. I read this entire post and still don't know what is meant by the supposed runic figures on the album cover. A "t" and an "m?" Trademark? Transcendental Meditation? Or is it the reverse: MT: mass transit? money talks?

by **thoughtographer** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can't believe all you eminent scholars are spending so much time over-analyzing this ridiculous subject. I read this entire post and still don't know what is meant by the supposed runic figures on the album cover. A "t" and an "m?" Trademark? Transcendental Meditation? Or is it the reverse: MT: mass transit? money talks?<hr></blockquote> That's a pretty succinct explanation of what I see as the artwork's intended purpose. Mystery sells, and the fundamentalists are starting to catch on to that fact by looking at their "enemies" tactics and appropriating mysterious imagery and metaphor, regardless of how it's perceived. If people think it's "evil", then more the better for them -- free publicity from the fire and brimstone gang. Also, giving Crowley any credit is exactly what he would have wanted. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 5/24/06 3:27 pm

by **albion** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:58 pm

I gotta say, I'm intrigued by this whole thing, but as far as conspiracies go, the closer I look at it, the thinner it gets. At this point, I can't help but wonder if this little kerfuffle from the 1998 Gospel Music Awards has anything to do with it: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Michael W. Smith song is canned from Dove Awards Terry Watkins, Dial-the-Truth Ministries The lyrics of Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) has gotten so bad, for the first time in the 30-year history of the Dove awards, the Gospel Music Association (GMA) Awards and Criteria Committee has created criteria for eligibility of Dove Awards based on lyric contents. The definition states:  "Gospel music is music in any style whose lyric is: substantially based upon historically orthodox Christian truth contained in or derived from the Holy Bible; and/or an expression of worship of God or praise for His works; and/or testimony of relationship with God through Christ; and/or obviously prompted and informed by a Christian world view." The only previous requirement for Dove Awards was simply — Christian retail store distribution. In other words, if it was sold in so-called Christian stores it was eligible. [...] GMA President Frank Breeden stated, the new "lyric definition" would help the GMA to "put up our guard against music that might be contradictory to Scripture. We want to make sure that 'spiritual' or 'inspirational' music in the broadest definition is not mistaken for 'gospel' music. . . we cannot have a song nominated for a Dove Award that is clearly a secular song . . . we were concerned about the integrity of the awards process; not only our telecast, but the integrity of the award itself." And what were some of the songs the GMA deemed not "Christian"? What were some of the songs the GMA "canned" because they did not qualify for a Dove Award? How about Michael W. Smith's song "Love Me Good"? What's so ironic about the GMA's "canning" of Smith's song "Love Me Good" as the coveted Dove "song-of-the-year" is that it was the best-selling CCM single in 1998. It was Number One on AC and CHR Christian radio. And get this — Smith opened the Dove Awards last year with guess what song — You guessed it — "Love Me Good"! It should be canned (along with about 99% of CCM) as being non-Christian! Here's some of non-Christian "Love Me Good":  Sometimes I feel like this world Is just one big, gigantic merry-go round You gotta hold on tight Or you get hurled thru the air Yea, life is a 3 ring circus With clowns and freaks and camels and such And you never know when you might be attacked by the bears Give me love, give me love Love me good [...] Before some of you get excited and think CCM and the GMA is "cleaning up their act", of over 1600 entries only 13 were disqualified. Not only that Michael W. Smith, received 10 other nominations that were not "canned". Only the highly-visible "song-of-the-year". Breeden also made this statement about the wonderful name of Jesus Christ: "I would caution people not to assume that this is a restrictive force. I hear these debates saying, 'Do you want us to put Jesus every other word?' Of course not." Of course not! We don't want too much of the Lord Jesus Christ in the lyrics! As we have documented many times, one of CCM's mission is to remove the Lord Jesus Christ from Christian Music! Wayne Kirkpatrick, co-author of Smith's "Love Me Good", (among many other CCM's songs like Amy Grant) says, "he fears the criteria will have a chilling effect. From a creative standpoint, if they keep this box going, the creative side of music will suffer,. . . People will write within this parameter that the industry has set, and the music is going to be stale and uninteresting." So according to Kirkpatrick, if you write about the Lord Jesus Christ and His wonderful grace "the creative side of music will suffer" and you'll produce music that is "stale and uninteresting." "Stale and uninteresting music" like "Amazing Grace", or "Jesus, Lover of My Soul", and the thousands of other Christian songs that came from a heart overflowing with the "love and grace" of the Lord Jesus Christ. etc... <a href="http://www.av1611.org/crock/smithcan.html">www.av1611.org/crock/smithcan.html</a><hr></blockquote> Now, that person doesn't call MWS "Satanic" but I wouldn't be surprised if s/he knew some people who have. I'd be curious to see anything else anybody has on MWS, and I find the topic of corruption in the music industry pretty interesting in itself. But for the moment, I'm out... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 5/24/06 4:01 pm

by **Gouda** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> And you never know when you might be attacked by the bears<hr></blockquote> You never know which VP chief-of-staff may be writing dirty books either. Has he read Libby??

by **albion** » Wed May 24, 2006 6:06 pm

Hey, as any fan of Stephen Colbert knows, bears are the #1 threat to America's National Security.

Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

Smith and substance abuse

Smith

Re: Smith

IMNSHO

Re: Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

rohbardian you read it wrong

use of popular culture

I read you wrong. Sorry about that.

"Do you see it!!!??" Well, no.

eh?

Wow

Re: Wow

Re: MWS

Re: MWS

Re: MWS

Who is online