Praise YHWH!!! Righteous Judges still DO Exist!

[KosherXMorg]

Have you lived within the FLDS community? Where or from whom do you get your information?

Elphaba

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."

[WillowTheWhisp]

It's strange how people will more readily believe something they want to believe when it enforces a negative stereotype than believe something positive when it is presented by someone who was actually there.

[KosherXMorg]

It's strange how people will more readily believe something they want to believe when it enforces a negative stereotype than believe something positive when it is presented by someone who was actually there.

Indeed, it is.

[Elphaba]

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

This is it? You get your information from a personal blog?

Blogs are not a reliable source of anything. They are opinions, nothing more. I read a significant amount of it, including the archives, and he is as prejudiced toward anyone who speaks against the FLDS as those he, and you, claim are are wrong.

Things like the following are a dead giveaway the information in a personal blog is biased, and therefore, unreliable:

". . . . likely Flora Jessop (“How do you tell she is lying? Her lips move“).(emphasis mine)

Additionally, his understanding of a number of Church issues are wrong. They don't go toward polygamy; rather, doctrine and history. In these issues he is obviously parroting what he thinks are truths, but, in fact, are wrong.

I would say the same thing if it were a personal blog speaking against the FLDS.

Personal blogs are never reliable for anything other than the person's opinion. Surely you have something more objective?

Elphaba

[KosherXMorg]

This is it? You get your information from a personal blog?

Blogs are not a reliable source of anything. They are opinions, nothing more. I read a significant amount of it, including the archives, and he is as prejudiced toward anyone who speaks against the FLDS as those he, and you, claim are are wrong.

Things like the following are a dead giveaway the information in a personal blog is biased, and therefore, unreliable:

". . . . likely Flora Jessop (“How do you tell she is lying? Her lips move“).(emphasis mine)

Additionally, his understanding of a number of Church issues are wrong. They don't go toward polygamy; rather, doctrine and history. In these issues he is obviously parroting what he thinks are truths, but, in fact, are wrong.

I would say the same thing if it were a personal blog speaking against the FLDS.

Personal blogs are never reliable for anything other than the person's opinion. Surely you have something more objective?

Elphaba

Please... cite some examples of his misunderstanding "doctrine and history". It's easy to make a claim w/o backing it up, Elphaba.

Again, this young man is NO LONGER FLDS, he has nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.

As for Flora Jessop, her grandmother recently wrote about Miss Flora, shall I get that for you?

[Elphaba]

Please... cite some examples of his misunderstanding "doctrine and history". It's easy to make a claim w/o backing it up, Elphaba.

No problem.

1. In his post about blood atonement, he wrote: “No doctrine of Mormon theology is more misunderstood, and feared, than that of blood atonement.”

No one fears blood atonement today, unless this fear exists somewhere I don’t know about. And it is not the most misunderstood doctrine in Mormonism, because it is not doctrine, and according to the Church, it never was.

I actually disagree that it “never was,” in the sense that those in the pews during the Reformation of the 1850s certainly did believe it was doctrine. I also agree Brigham Young preached that it was doctrine, as well as Jedidiah Grant and George A. Smith.

However, in the 1990s, the Church was asked its stance on execution by firing squad. Many believe, and I agree, the notion of Blood Atonement was responsible for Utah being one of the last states to eliminate the firing squad. However, the Church clearly stated Blood Atonement had never been, nor was it now, doctrinal.

Your mentor’s greatest error about Blood Atonement is the following:

“This is mostly due to the apostate, murderous, John D Lee. Who masterminded an attack on a group of people in the southern Utah hilltop called "Mountain Meadow" It was indeed a massacre, and, although many believe John D Lee when he wrote it was sanctioned by Brigham Young through the doctrine of blood atonement, he was lying. A liar, a murderer, and an apostate, I really don’t worry much about justice for him. “

a) John D. Lee did not mastermind the MMM. He was a part of the group that planned it, and a vocal one at that, but the true mastermind was Isaac Haight.

b) John D. Lee was not an apostate. He was part of the group that committed the MMM, but he believed his actions were expeditious, as did every other Mormon involved.

c) Dee was excommunicated for his role in the massacre, not for apostasy. He continued to revere Brigham Young, and Mormonism, until his conviction. Even then, he knew he was being used as a scapegoat.

Additionally, his membership was reinstated by proxy in 1961.

d) John D. Lee was not the only “liar” involved in the MMM. Every person involved “lied” about what happened. In fact, Lee, who had always been extremely close to Brigham, and was in fact, Brigham’s “adopted son,” (a variation on family sealings), probably told Brigham the truth as soon as he saw him. So calling Lee a liar is out of context relative to the massacre.

Otherwise, Lee was no more a liar than the next man, though he was admittedly colorful, as were other Latter-day Saints of the period.

2. Your young mentor's post on The First Amendment.

“The teachings of this church never sanctioned violence, disputations, or intolerance. It only taught that those who choose to be members abide by the strictest of laws, and those who didn’t to leave.”

As already evidenced by his previous post, the Church, in its earliest days, did sanction violence, disputations and intolerance. It was made up of flawed human beings dedicated to their cause and their God, but human beings nonetheless.

While the Missouri settlers who had been on the land before the Mormons arrived were easily stirred to violence, the Mormons engaged in several destabilizing activities themselves that included violence.

There were definitely Mormons who tried to head things off and impart some sanity to the situation. There were also members who later were used as scapegoats by Mormon authorities, in order to somehow justify how things could have gone so badly for inspired leaders.

There are a good number of examples of disputes and intolerance. I am not going to pull them together for you. A good start would be the book “The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.”

Your mentor writes:

“Still people hated and persecuted the people of this church. All manner of lies and slander and vicious accusations were heaved at this church, many lawsuits were filed, and many criminal accusations were charged, and not one of these was true. It is historical fact.” No, it is not historical fact. It is simplistic hogwash.

These erroneous, and mistaken beliefs among Church members about its religious persecution lasted until Mormon historians and scholars started to put together more comprehensive images of the Mormons and non during these volatile times.

Mormons who lived during and for decades afterward were understandably angered by what they perceived to be only religious persecution. They were not able to look at the situations with objective eyes, and I think that is understandable.

Your mentor: “No person has ever been injured by living this religion. No person who left the religion was ever persecuted by those who were obeying the religion. The facts are there, and easy to see. Never was anyone stopped from doing good, but those who did wrong became nonmembers.”

I am not going to waste my time explaining how outrageously wrong this is. It is purely propaganda, which should be obvious by its simplistic "us vs. them," mentality plus its lack of critical thinking.

I will say one thing that I personally believe. The Saints did have a First Amendment right to practice polygamy, and the federal government was wrong not to guarantee their right to do so.

I think they had good reason to believe Woodruff was a fallen prophet, and that God would never have commanded an end to polygamy.

I believe this is why they traveled to isolated areas where they could live their religion in peace. Unfortunately, I also believe, 150 years later, this isolation is what created the corruption that is evident except to those who will not see.

Having said that, I assume your mentor is still alive today, because his parroting of the old historical beliefs sound like he is living in 1908, not 2008.

Again, this young man is NO LONGER FLDS, he has nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth.

I don't care what you or your young mentor say, his beliefs mirror the fanaticism of the FLDS, and not the SLC Mormon Church, to which he claims he has converted.

But this means absolutely nothing. Again, this is your mentor's PERSONAL BLOG. It is completely his personal opinion, nothing more. It is not an objective treatment of Mormon history, whether of the FLDS (who are Mormons, despite the Church's insistence they are not), or the SLC-based Mormon beliefs.

As for Flora Jessop, her grandmother recently wrote about Miss Flora, shall I get that for you?

You just don't get it.

There is a great deal of manipulation and corruption within each of the polygamous churches, in this case Jeffs' Church. No one's personal account is ever going to be accurate. They are all going to be colored by their beliefs, as is everyone else's.

You prove it rather than dispute it, providing me a personal blog of someone who lacks any criticial thinking, only presenting his simplistics posts that, when put to the test, are subjective, bigoted nonsense.

The only thing I would consider reliable is a historical and scholarly approach to the FLDS. Anything else is subjective, including your mentor's blog, which is frankly, one of the most juvenile I've ever read.

I realize there is no way you could present a scholarly or even historically accurate portrayal. But is your mentor the only person you rely on for doctrine? Is there no one else who has a less-biased and simplistic treatise of FLDS beliefs and practices?

And are you really so gullible you rely on your young mentor's meanderings to found your religious beliefs upon?

Elphaba

[KosherXMorg]

No problem.

1. In his post about blood atonement, he wrote: “No doctrine of Mormon theology is more misunderstood, and feared, than that of blood atonement.”

No one fears blood atonement today, unless this fear exists somewhere I don’t know about. And it is not the most misunderstood doctrine in Mormonism, because it is not doctrine, and according to the Church, it never was.

I actually disagree that it “never was,” in the sense that those in the pews during the Reformation of the 1850s certainly did believe it was doctrine. I also agree Brigham Young preached that it was doctrine, as well as Jedidiah Grant and George A. Smith.

However, in the 1990s, the Church was asked its stance on execution by firing squad. Many believe, and I agree, the notion of Blood Atonement was responsible for Utah being one of the last states to eliminate the firing squad. However, the Church clearly stated Blood Atonement had never been, nor was it now, doctrinal.

Your mentor’s greatest error about Blood Atonement is the following:

“This is mostly due to the apostate, murderous, John D Lee. Who masterminded an attack on a group of people in the southern Utah hilltop called "Mountain Meadow" It was indeed a massacre, and, although many believe John D Lee when he wrote it was sanctioned by Brigham Young through the doctrine of blood atonement, he was lying. A liar, a murderer, and an apostate, I really don’t worry much about justice for him. “

a) John D. Lee did not mastermind the MMM. He was a part of the group that planned it, and a vocal one at that, but the true mastermind was Isaac Haight.

b) John D. Lee was not an apostate. He was part of the group that committed the MMM, but he believed his actions were expeditious, as did every other Mormon involved.

c) Dee was excommunicated for his role in the massacre, not for apostasy. He continued to revere Brigham Young, and Mormonism, until his conviction. Even then, he knew he was being used as a scapegoat.

Additionally, his membership was reinstated by proxy in 1961.

d) John D. Lee was not the only “liar” involved in the MMM. Every person involved “lied” about what happened. In fact, Lee, who had always been extremely close to Brigham, and was in fact, Brigham’s “adopted son,” (a variation on family sealings), probably told Brigham the truth as soon as he saw him. So calling Lee a liar is out of context relative to the massacre.

Otherwise, Lee was no more a liar than the next man, though he was admittedly colorful, as were other Latter-day Saints of the period.

2. Your young mentor's post on The First Amendment.

“The teachings of this church never sanctioned violence, disputations, or intolerance. It only taught that those who choose to be members abide by the strictest of laws, and those who didn’t to leave.”

As already evidenced by his previous post, the Church, in its earliest days, did sanction violence, disputations and intolerance. It was made up of flawed human beings dedicated to their cause and their God, but human beings nonetheless.

While the Missouri settlers who had been on the land before the Mormons arrived were easily stirred to violence, the Mormons engaged in several destabilizing activities themselves that included violence.

There were definitely Mormons who tried to head things off and impart some sanity to the situation. There were also members who later were used as scapegoats by Mormon authorities, in order to somehow justify how things could have gone so badly for inspired leaders.

There are a good number of examples of disputes and intolerance. I am not going to pull them together for you. A good start would be the book “The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.”

Your mentor writes:

“Still people hated and persecuted the people of this church. All manner of lies and slander and vicious accusations were heaved at this church, many lawsuits were filed, and many criminal accusations were charged, and not one of these was true. It is historical fact.” No, it is not historical fact. It is simplistic hogwash.

These erroneous, and mistaken beliefs among Church members about its religious persecution lasted until Mormon historians and scholars started to put together more comprehensive images of the Mormons and non during these volatile times.

Mormons who lived during and for decades afterward were understandably angered by what they perceived to be only religious persecution. They were not able to look at the situations with objective eyes, and I think that is understandable.

Your mentor: “No person has ever been injured by living this religion. No person who left the religion was ever persecuted by those who were obeying the religion. The facts are there, and easy to see. Never was anyone stopped from doing good, but those who did wrong became nonmembers.”

I am not going to waste my time explaining how outrageously wrong this is. It is purely propaganda, which should be obvious by its simplistic "us vs. them," mentality plus its lack of critical thinking.

I will say one thing that I personally believe. The Saints did have a First Amendment right to practice polygamy, and the federal government was wrong not to guarantee their right to do so.

I think they had good reason to believe Woodruff was a fallen prophet, and that God would never have commanded an end to polygamy.

I believe this is why they traveled to isolated areas where they could live their religion in peace. Unfortunately, I also believe, 150 years later, this isolation is what created the corruption that is evident except to those who will not see.

Having said that, I assume your mentor is still alive today, because his parroting of the old historical beliefs sound like he is living in 1908, not 2008.

I don't care what you or your young mentor say, his beliefs mirror the fanaticism of the FLDS, and not the SLC Mormon Church, to which he claims he has converted.

But this means absolutely nothing. Again, this is your mentor's PERSONAL BLOG. It is completely his personal opinion, nothing more. It is not an objective treatment of Mormon history, whether of the FLDS (who are Mormons, despite the Church's insistence they are not), or the SLC-based Mormon beliefs.

You just don't get it.

There is a great deal of manipulation and corruption within each of the polygamous churches, in this case Jeffs' Church. No one's personal account is ever going to be accurate. They are all going to be colored by their beliefs, as is everyone else's.

You prove it rather than dispute it, providing me a personal blog of someone who lacks any criticial thinking, only presenting his simplistics posts that, when put to the test, are subjective, bigoted nonsense.

The only thing I would consider reliable is a historical and scholarly approach to the FLDS. Anything else is subjective, including your mentor's blog, which is frankly, one of the most juvenile I've ever read.

I realize there is no way you could present a scholarly or even historically accurate portrayal. But is your mentor the only person you rely on for doctrine? Is there no one else who has a less-biased and simplistic treatise of FLDS beliefs and practices?

And are you really so gullible you rely on your young mentor's meanderings to found your religious beliefs upon?

Elphaba

As I read your posts it is more and more apparent you purposely misrepresent the words of others...

1) Mormons also say that the "Blood Atonement doctrine" is misrepresented.

One he meant "fear" as in regular Christians fear learning about the restored gospel because of misrepresentations by antis about things like "Blood Atonement", not fear that they will get blood atoned. But I suspect you know the meaning of his words.

Funny, you are condemning this young man for using the same arguments the LDS church and apologists used for years in reference to John Lee and the MMM. It doesn't show he's ignorant of history just a good 'old Mormon boy listening to what he was taught growing up.

What does this have to do with his experiences and knowledge concerning the so-called "Lost Boys"????

I respectfully demand you quit referring to this young man as my "mentor". You know NOTHING about me or my knowledge of church history or doctrines past or present and I certainly haven't gained my knowledge from his blog, having read the ONE post in reference to the "Lost Boys". My purpose in posting his blog about the "Lost Boys" was to show there is another side to the story, not to argue about his knowledge of historical facts.

Elphaba, if you want to get into a pissing match about my knowledge of church history and past and present doctrines we can do that. But be forewarned you might find me a little more then you anticipated, sweetie.

[Snow]

Elphaba, if you want to get into a pissing match about my knowledge of church history and past and present doctrines we can do that. But be forewarned you might find me a little more then you anticipated, sweetie.

Uh, yeah. I'm thinking that the gender condescension is probably not going to work to your advantage.

[Moksha]

Elphaba, if you want to get into a pissing match about my knowledge of church history and past and present doctrines we can do that. But be forewarned you might find me a little more then you anticipated, sweetie.

Didn't Joe Palooka once say something similar to Muhammad Ali?

[Fiannan]

[WANDERER]

[RachelleDrew]

LOL at that Fian^.

One thing I have to say is, I apologize for some of my heated remarks in this thread and another one concerning the FLDS. I don't always think before I type and I certainly don't care to hurt anyone's feelings or insult their thoughts or ideas. For this I specifically direct my apology towards Fian and Kosher.

I'd say that 95% of the people in my family are lawyers, police officers, social workers and judges. Due to this, I often exhibit overconfidence in our judicial system. So when I see people like Warren Jeffs in jail I often think "well, he must have done something to deserve being there." Of course we all know that often people are targeted due to race, religion, etc and are sometimes falsely accused or imprisoned. I sometimes forget my bias for our government officials and quite often jump to conclusions due to it.

I think that controversies like the situation at YFZ ranch are especially talked about in this community because we are LDS. Lets face it, as Mormons we get nitpicked a lot and when something so controversial is even remotely linked to us we jump to defenses and perhaps judge even MORE harshly than others . Like the missionaries who reportedly desecrated church property, a good number of us were quick to start stoking the fires for the witch burning.

Because, god forbid, we don't want anyone thinking we are like THEM and make our "normal" church look bad. It is a severe error to think in this way.

Are the members of the FLDS guilty of abusing children physically, sexually or emotionally? I don't know, and I certainly hope they are not. Every community harbors the occasional abuser, no matter what religion they prescribe to. I'm sure the YFZ ranch is no different in that regard. But is the entire community one of promoting abuse? I cannot say for sure.

I can say one thing, in my mind this is a great example of why consenting polygamy should just be legal in the first place. This probably would have never happened if it were just legalized so that the government could regulate it in such a way that would assuage their fears. Like many other things that have been banned in the past, people will just find a loophole and do it anyway. Then the government REALLY has no control over the situation and becomes suspicious of other illegal activities.

Until it is legalized (which I believe it eventually will be) people just need to be content with one wife. I understand that these men aren't LEGALLY married to more than one woman, but mocking the law by finding a loophole and just shacking up with a bunch of them and calling them "spiritual wives" is typically not a good idea. It simply draws unwanted attention to yourself from the government. Perhaps they can't arrest people for polygamy, but if the chip on their shoulder is big enough they will certainly dig for evidence of other crimes to smack you with to make up for it.

Edited June 11, 2008 by RachelleDrew

[Fiannan]

Gotta ask Rachelle, you ahve heard the phrase "South Park Republican" right? Are you a "South Park Mormon"?:)

Personally, I did love "Team America".

[RachelleDrew]

Gotta ask Rachelle, you ahve heard the phrase "South Park Republican" right? Are you a "South Park Mormon"?:)

Personally, I did love "Team America".

I'm afraid I own the first six seasons on DVD. If I didn't have to tithe, i'd own all of them.