KosherXMorg

It's like you gals ignore everything I post that doesn't support the party line This blog post is from a FORMER FLDS young man who has nothing to lose. Heck, he's be better off supporting the story he'd get free land and money from the UEP. The blog below is written by a young man who is a former FLDS member. It is quite good and is worth subscribing to. The address is below. "http://fldsview.blogspot.com/ THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008 Lost and Found "Boys" Beginning late 2002 to mid 2003 there was a split in the FLDS church. Winston Blackmore, the Bishop in Canada was demoted, and his brother Richard was asked to be the Bishop. Winston then held a gathering in Canada announcing he would not step down and his brother and about half of the residents joined his new church. There was a few from the Colorado City area who also agreed with Winston, and among them was Doug Cook. Doug Cook was a tile contractor who had just recently split up with his wife. Doug had a few young men working for him when he left the FLDS, among them were two of my brothers. They were all at least 18 except Doug’s own sons. He rented a house in the town of Hurricane, about 20 miles from the FLDS towns of Hildale and Colorado City. This became the first “Lost Boy” party (safe?) house. Literally dozens of boys, some as young as 13, would catch a ride down to this house every night. I don’t know what they were doing to gain such recognition, but the Hurricane police department got rather tired of going over there. Although this was not the only place to disappear to, it was well known by many parents who drove down there every night looking for their sons and sometimes daughters. If a girl leaves, she “escapes” If a boy does he is “kicked out” Over the next few months I went there twice to pick up my sister Fawn, and look for some of my minor aged nephews who had caught a ride with my brothers and their friends. Later Doug moved his house and crew to St George. Other older guys got thier own place, but my brothers nephews, and their friends lived at Doug's. The “Lost Boy” term was invented by Dan and Shem Fischer. Dan Fischer a wealthy dentist and former member, and his younger brother Shem who had just recently left the church, paid these guys to come to Salt Lake for a party, and on July 31, 2004 they all gathered on the steps of the Capital building. Most of them, including my brothers, were rather embarrassed and to this day refer to being called a “Lost Boy” as an insult. One month later Dan Fischer got six of the young men to sue Warren Jeffs and the United Effort Plan (the trust the people of the FLDS held their homes and property in) I am really grateful that my brothers refused to be a part of the lawsuit even when their friends were. Thanks for not hurting your parents more, guys! The Six “Lost Boys” were: (ages in 2oo4) Richard Gilbert (19) – Whose parents had left the FLDS several years earlier Richard Ream (21) – Who joined the church headed by Winston (truck driver) Walter Fischer (2o) – Who was asked out of the house for advances to his step sister Don Fischer (18) – Walters’s younger brother, both worked for Doug Cook Dean Barlow (18) – (Can’t remember him, lots of Barlow’s :>) Thomas S Steed (18) – Whose parents had left the church several years before There were quite a few minor boys in the news articles about the “Lost Boys” but none were included in the lawsuit because their parents would have made them come home. Most of the underage boys I saw were living with their older brothers. One of my sisters did give custody of her 15 year old son to one of my uncles who had left the church long ago. I am sure there are others like him, but I don’t know them. She got tired of chasing him home, and let him go. I want to address the ridiculous story that these guys were “kicked out” to reduce competition for brides. I am sorry, I am laughing just to type this. If it wasn’t all over the news I would think it was a cartoon. If these guys wanted to compete for the girls, they sure didn’t try very hard. All you had to do was obey the doctrines of the church. I am sure some men in the FLDS have as many wives as they do because there weren't enough young guys who would settle down and obey the church doctrines. Two of my brothers are now married to young ladies who left the FLDS, and one (I hope) is getting married soon. Be a man, Brig! Now I don't have any criticism for the Diversity Foundation that Dan Fischer has created, nor the charity schooling that he is doing for some of these guys, but the lawsuit was like suing their own parents. I think that was awful, and led (among the other three lawsuits paid for by Dan Fischer) to the siezure of the UEP Trust and all of the homes on it."

Too bad they only think "the hearts of conspiring men" only exist in tobacco and beer companies.

General Handbook of Instructions

I don't know if he can have "legal counsel", but I do believe he is entitled to call witnesses on his behalf if he says or is not guilty of what he is being accused of. Ask Skip, he seems to have the whole GHOI memorized.

See we can agree on something Speaking of the sundress issue we just discussed it at facebook, check out this interesting exchange by a couple LDS mothers... Feng Xinxin (Seattle, WA) wroteon May 25, 2008 at 11:49 PM I dress my kids in sundresses and tank tops. They are 2 and 4 and I don't see it as immodest. I let them go to church in sundresses too. I personally don't see a problem with it. At this age there is nothing immodest about it. When they start sprouting body parts that need covering up more I will enforce a more strict dress code. Reply to FengReport Post #18 Latter-day Patriot replied to Laura's poston May 26, 2008 at 12:43 AM Well said. Thanks for that great post! Reply to Latter-dayReport Post #19 2 replies Hannah Moore (Texas Tech) replied to Feng's poston May 30, 2008 at 8:43 PM I agree. A baby wearing a sundress with no sleeves and being called immodest would be like ridiculing an infant for running around the house naked. Obviously, this behavior wouldn't be appropriate past a certain age, but honestly...a 16 year old isn't going to argue that wearing a tank top is alright now because it was "alright then", just like they aren't going to go streaking just because they once ran around the house without a diaper. Reply to HannahReport Post #20 Feng Xinxin (Seattle, WA) replied to Hannah's poston May 31, 2008 at 11:24 AM Very well said! Reply to FengReport Post #21 1 reply Alie Anderton (Weber) replied to Hannah's poston May 31, 2008 at 9:17 PM Good point. I have never thought about that before. That makes me feel better about the clothes my mom buys for my daughter, since my parents aren't LDS. Reply to AlieReport Post #22 1 reply Hannah Moore (Texas Tech) replied to Alie's poston May 31, 2008 at 9:20 PM I don't think there is anything wrong with either way. I guess it's something each family has to establish. You'd also have to decide at what age it is necessary for them to wear a t-shirt underneath their dresses. Reply to HannahReport Post #23 1 reply Alie Anderton (Weber) replied to Hannah's poston May 31, 2008 at 9:26 PM Very true. I think my little girl is a little young for t-shirts under dresses (she's 2), and she's like my hubby, a human heating pad. So wearing too much wouldn't be a good thing. And I think wearing a t-shirt under a dress in the summer would be wearing too much.

" 1 There are two kinds of beings in aheaven, namely: bAngels, who are cresurrected personages, having dbodies of flesh and bones— 2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not aflesh and bones, as ye see me have. 3 Secondly: the aspirits of bjust men made cperfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory." I'm lost at how the above verses prove me wrong or you right.

Where does it say anywhere they were mortal men? What about the angels that appeared to Nephi, Lehi, Jacob and other Book of Mormon prophets long before the resurrection of Yahushua for us? LDS condemn folks like me and say we pick and choose what of Joseph's revelations and statements to believe, you guys do the same thing.

That's LDS restoration tradition, but I don't know that it is anywhere in scripture. The scriptures are clear that satan and those who followed him were angels, and those who follow him into his Kingdom will be his angels, the scriptures are equally clear there is a difference between angels and us. It even says Yahushua was made "a little lower then the angels" when he became mortal like us. VofLehi, gave the scriptural definition of what an angel is vs. a ministering spirit. We all have to draw our own conclusions.

Hold on a second, following LDS theology wouldn't they become "unhandicapped" upon death and thus be responsible to learn the gospel and have to have someone proxy baptized for them? Where does it say that "handicapped" folks pass straight to Celestial Glory? I thought everyone had to be taught, accept the gospel, and get baptized at some point or another. Disclaimer: I believe little children, handicapped folks, and those who never were taught the gospel go to the Kingdom of God, without needing baptism.

Will this be sufficient (especially D&C 76:25)? II Nephi 6:21 And our spirits must have become like unto him, And we become devils-angels to a devil-to be shut out from the presence of our God and to remain with the father of lies, in misery like unto himself; II Nephi 6:39 Wherefore, they which are filthy are the devil and his angels, Jacob 2:65 And loose yourselves from the pains of hell, that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Mosiah 11:135 And then will I confess unto them that I never knew them; And they shall depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. # D&C 76: 21, 25, 33, 36, 44, 67, 88 21 And saw the holy aangels, and them who are bsanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who cworship him forever and ever. • • • 25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an aangel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who brebelled against the Only Begotten cSon whom the Father dloved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, • • • 33 For they are avessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; • • • 36 These are they who shall go away into the alake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels— • • • 44 Wherefore, he saves all aexcept them—they shall go away into beverlasting cpunishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to dreign with the edevil and his angels in eternity, where their fworm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—

Moroni 6:8 (RCE) "And if they repented not and confessed not- Their names were blotted out and they were not numbered among the people of Christ; But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven."

Yes, 7, which is talked about in the article about the Lost Boys from the EX-FLDS member I posted. Where are the hundreds upon hundreds of others supposedly kicked out that we hear about all the time??? 7? Big Deal. It is a shame the LDS members in an effort to distance themselves from the very practices their prophets engaged in have become the deaf-eared persecutors.

Remember when the Olsen Twins hit about 14 and the count down until there 18th birthday started? This truly is a "hypocritical nation".

Please quote me the verse that you believe supports your position.

Uh, yeah, I know. Did you not read my first post? I don't believe satan and those who followed him were preexistent spirits like us, like you do. I believe they are either a separate class of created being or those who received exaltation from a former sphere (we NEVER lose our agency) and fell from that.

And the "Lost Boys" story is a myth as I have pointed out before, even posting an article by an EX-FLDS young man disputing the story.

Many of the men who had their families reassigned and were told to "repent from a distance", where guilty of the things that the FLDS are being accused of now. Have you noticed that most of the men have never raised a fuss, and many who have been found and interviewed won't say why they were kicked out? Either way the wives have the agency to stay with the man or be reassigned, and most go with the reassignment. Ever wonder why?

So we can believe what scripture actually says about angelic beings or we can believe someones opinions about the physical makeup of angelic beings? How to decide, how to decide?:confused:

No, it would make me feel better if they didn't march them into a doctors office days after ripping them from their homes and families and force them to undergo physical exams without their consent. That's what would make me feel better but, oops, too late.

They were acting inappropriate and unprofessional. Now many girls which never had before experienced outside contact with their vaginal area have been traumatized by having complete strangers, in a cold hospital environment, touching the body they have been taught to safeguard until marriage shortly after being torn from the arms of their parents and ripped from their homes. Inappropriate and unprofessional? YES!

I would have to disagree with Bro. Peterson's speculation. The scriptures say satan and those who followed him were in fact "angels", in the D&C we learn that angels are beings with perfect bodies and that they are different then ministering spirits. Having bodies they could have easily cohabited with mortal women, until the justice of YHWH was poured out on the earth in the flood and they were either removed from our dimension or extinguished from physical existence. Where do you think all the "myths" of evil, sinful multiple g-ds comes from?

At least you intellectually honest enough to try and sort through all the information and misinformation out there. Many just want to condemn. Most likely Elissa approached her step-father Fred Jessop, who from all accounts I've heard of him was a very gentle kind man (even the mighty Flora Jessop loved him and was concerned when he went, as she says, "Missing") who would've never forced his wives children (they were all step children because Fred couldn't have children) to marry, after she said she was ready to be married they approached Warren Jeff's. But the one thing happened she didn't count on, she was told to marry the one geeky cousin she never liked (which she admitted in sworn testimony and in her book she said she thought he was "boorish"). When she committed adultery with an ex-FLDS man twice her age with a chip on his shoulder, she saw her chance to get out and has been used as a pawn for FLDS apostates since.

Hmmmmm, would that be Carolyn Jessop? Shocker!

Neither you nor you feminist sister-in-arms, Elphaba, have yet shown that any of these problems you point to are existent within the FLDS community. If they were, surely TX would have leaked the information by know, since they had their good doctors feeling them up checking for "abuse".

I will address you, her , or anyone however me da las ganas. What are you going to do come beat me with a wet noodle?