Kosher and Elphaba's discussion about Church history

[Elphaba]

On another thread, Kosher and I have veered into a discussion about Church history. Therefore, I thought it best to start a new thread rather than continue a thread jack.

I will give the background posts that led to our discussion, deleting unecessary comments so you get the gist of the conversation.

Elphaba, post #49:

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

Kosher, post #51:

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.

FLDS View

Elphaba, post #54:

Blogs are not a reliable source of anything. They are opinions, nothing more.

. . . .

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.

Kosher, post #55:

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is where the discussion became serious about the Church’s history. From now on I’ll post our discussion as separate posts, mirroring those on the other thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

(Elphaba, post #56 )

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 critical thinking, only presenting his simplistic 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

[Elphaba]

(Kosher post #57: )

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.

[Elphaba]

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

No, I do not.

Mormons also say that the "Blood Atonement doctrine" is misrepresented

This is not about what “Mormons” say. It is about what your blogger friend wrote. And what he wrote was inaccurate.

Additionally, you apparently did not actually read my post, as I acknowledged the SLC-based Church was ambiguous about blood atonement

If you’re not going to actually read my posts in the future, just say so. I‘ll not be offended, and it will save us both a lot of time.

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.

Then he should have written such. He did not.

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.

This is not about the LDS Church and its apologists.

This is about your friend’s blog which you provided to me as the source of your information about the FLDS Church--a blog that portrays Church history inaccurately.

If your blogger friend does not verify his information about Church history, taking the chance he has portrayed it inaccurately, then what other claims is he willing to post without first verifying them?

It doesn't show he's ignorant of history just a good 'old Mormon boy listening to what he was taught growing up.

I see. So while he is not ignorant about Mormon history, he chooses to post inaccurate information nonetheless.

Given he is wont to post inaccurate information about Church history, even though he is not ignorant of it, how can we trust his other posts will be free of inaccurate information? The answer? We can’t.

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

Nothing. I never said it did.

I was responding to your request as follows:

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

So I did.

I respectfully demand you quit referring to this young man as my "mentor".

No problem.

However, you are the one who provided a link to your friend’s blog in response to my post asking where you learned your information about the FLDS. Notably, you provided no other source.

Therefore, I assume you have another source you rely on for your information about the FLDS. I would still be interested in seeing it.

You know NOTHING about me or my knowledge of church history or doctrines past or present

Down boy!

and I certainly haven't gained my knowledge from his blog, having read the ONE post in reference to the "Lost Boys"

Then why did you post a link to his blog, and no other, when I asked you where you got your information about the FLDS?

I did not ask you where you got your information about the “Lost Boys.“ Rather, as I mentioned above, where you got your information about the FLDS. That is a significant difference you apparently didn’t notice. However, it is not my fault you did so.

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.

Then why did you ask me to provide examples of the historical inaccuracies I discovered in his blog?

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.

Consider me forewarned.

Shall we have a go?

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

No, I do not.

This is not about what “Mormons” say. It is about what your blogger friend wrote. And what he wrote was inaccurate.

Additionally, you apparently did not actually read my post, as I acknowledged the SLC-based Church was ambiguous about blood atonement

If you’re not going to actually read my posts in the future, just say so. I‘ll not be offended, and it will save us both a lot of time.

Then he should have written such. He did not.

This is not about the LDS Church and its apologists.

This is about your friend’s blog which you provided to me as the source of your information about the FLDS Church--a blog that portrays Church history inaccurately.

If your blogger friend does not verify his information about Church history, taking the chance he has portrayed it inaccurately, then what other claims is he willing to post without first verifying them?

I see. So while he is not ignorant about Mormon history, he chooses to post inaccurate information nonetheless.

Given he is wont to post inaccurate information about Church history, even though he is not ignorant of it, how can we trust his other posts will be free of inaccurate information? The answer? We can’t.

Nothing. I never said it did.

I was responding to your request as follows: So I did.

No problem.

However, you are the one who provided a link to your friend’s blog in response to my post asking where you learned your information about the FLDS. Notably, you provided no other source.

Therefore, I assume you have another source you rely on for your information about the FLDS. I would still be interested in seeing it.

Down boy!

Then why did you post a link to his blog, and no other, when I asked you where you got your information about the FLDS?

I did not ask you where you got your information about the “Lost Boys.“ Rather, as I mentioned above, where you got your information about the FLDS. That is a significant difference you apparently didn’t notice. However, it is not my fault you did so.

Then why did you ask me to provide examples of the historical inaccuracies I discovered in his blog?

Consider me forewarned.

Shall we have a go?

Elphaba

OMFH...This should be fun....Elphaba and Kosher in a "debate"...Somewhere, I'm smirking...."Two wrongs trying to make a right"....:roflmbo:

[Iggy]

Two wrongs trying to make a right"....:roflmbo:

For my birthday my dearest friend sent me a card- on the front are two old people walking towards the beach. Both are fat, bumpy and wrinkly and husband and wife are both wearing thongs. On the inside it says: Two Thongs don't make a right.

MDSkip- your comment conjured up a vision of that card!

[Moksha]

OMFH...This should be fun....Elphaba and Kosher in a "debate"...Somewhere, I'm smirking...."Two wrongs trying to make a right"....:roflmbo:

Elf is somehow wrong to correct inaccuracies or are you just sending her a zinger?

[Guest User-Removed]

Elf is somehow wrong to correct inaccuracies or are you just sending her a zinger?

Zingers....??????........I've got Ringside seats for this one...Not since the "Thrilla in Manila"...or the "Rumble in the Jungle"...we we see this much action...and it's FREE...no PPV...

BTW...Checked with Guido on the Strip at lunch...he says the smart money is on Elphaba...clean KO by the seond round....:roflmbo:

[wa1den]

I gotta wonder if perchance people walking the extreme fringes and beyond (of legitimate doctrine)

make it a point to zero in on places such as this "gathering place" online, for the sake of trying to

promote their cause and lead away any that they can possibly influence, to follow down their mis-

guided paths. When I see so much focus on groups such as the RLDS, and when I see claims that

they are in fact actually mormon/LDS, in spite of official statements the LDS church makes that they

are not, it becomes obvious that these people here have ideas that definitely lie outside of the range

of LDS doctrine.

While it is true that they have a right to believe what they will, supposedly this is LDS.net and not

FLDS.net, or any other splinter group's bully pulpit. I truly have to suspect that this gathering place is

being subverted for the sake of trying to influence and lead off those who might be willing to listen to

such notions. The internet is full of places where such notions are quite welcome, and shared by most

of those participating (for those who can't resist getting off on that tangent). But it is troubling to think

that some of that is "leaking" into a place that was supposed to be LDS, and that these elements are

now attempting to use an LDS gathering place to try to undermine the faith of LDS folks who come

here thinking they are coming to a place where they can enjoy the company of like-minded brothers &

sisters, and now are finding that they are surrounded by folks with some really out-in-left-field ideas

that they are trying to promote to anyone who will listen.

Again, when you have folks hanging around who clearly state a disbelief in what the LDS church is

teaching and proclaiming publicly (and when you state that the FLDS are in fact "mormon" regardless

of what the church says to the contrary, what else could you possibly expect to be communicating???),

and you engage in presenting lengthy expositions on these splinter groups which have deviated from

the live branch of the church, it then becomes obvious that there is an agenda - it isn't like the case

of an investigator who comes here because he/she has some doctrinal questions they want to under-

stand better, or a member who is struggling with some aspect of the gospel and wants to hear some

counsel and support from fellow brothers & sisters - rather you are getting into recruiting mode and

making an attempt to win folks over to doctrinal positions which are contrary to those that the church

(the LDS church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City) officially

teaches, and what place has that got in a gathering place labeled "LDS.net"???

In so doing, you are essentially putting your self in a posture of "criticizing the bretheren", which we

are taught is the first step towards apostacy. I feel compelled to warn that it is not a sound decision to

go down that road. Anyone here who actively counsels us not to accept what the leadership of the

church teaches us is on extremely unsound ground, and we should realize that we are dealing with

folks coming in from the outside who have designs of leading some of us off or at very least planting

the seeds of doubt regarding the legitimacy of the calling of our prophet and the leaders that have

been called to preside over us - and that is an extremely questionable thing to find going on at a

gathering place that is supposedly for LDS folks.

I followed a link to get here that indicated a discussion of "church history", and the main thing I find

in the discussion is instead the FLDS group - I find the labeling of the topic of discussion to be

bordering on disingenuous. If you are going to get off on such an unfruitful tangent as a discus-

sion of the FLDS, then at least label it as such, rather than suckering in folks who simply have

an interest in the topic of LDS church history. Again, I find that the probable motive for not doing

so would be a desire to lure if possible a few such unsuspecting souls off with doctrines at odds

with what the church teaches.

This is how I see the matters being discussed here. It frustrates me to have to speak out in such a

bold fashion, which I know will not exactly cultivate warm fuzzy feelings with those making these posts,

and most of us come here to enjoy good company and to re-enforce each other in the gospel, so it

hurts to have to do this. However, I think there comes a point when things going on have to be pointed

out. When you actively promote ideas contrary to LDS teachings, it must be pointed out, and particu-

larly when it is going on at an LDS gathering place. So - I have had my say on the matter. Those of

us who enjoy membership in the LDS church have raised our hands to sustain those leaders that we

recognize as having the keys, of having the calling to be the mouthpiece for the Lord to clarify for us

the path, and to point out the doctrine that is sound and acurate, and which we should accept and prac-

tice in our lives. When anyone comes along who would undermine our commitment to do so, we can

know that they are on a wrong track. While we strive to help clarify for any sincerely seeking to under-

stand the teachings and doctrines of the kingdom, I do not think we owe anyone a forum here for the

purposes of recruiting and promoting for another cause at odds with the true and living church.

[lilered]

Amen!

[Guest User-Removed]

I gotta wonder if perchance people walking the extreme fringes and beyond (of legitimate doctrine)

make it a point to zero in on places such as this "gathering place" online, for the sake of trying to

promote their cause and lead away any that they can possibly influence, to follow down their mis-

guided paths. When I see so much focus on groups such as the RLDS, and when I see claims that

they are in fact actually mormon/LDS, in spite of official statements the LDS church makes that they

are not, it becomes obvious that these people here have ideas that definitely lie outside of the range

of LDS doctrine.

While it is true that they have a right to believe what they will, supposedly this is LDS.net and not

FLDS.net, or any other splinter group's bully pulpit. I truly have to suspect that this gathering place is

being subverted for the sake of trying to influence and lead off those who might be willing to listen to

such notions. The internet is full of places where such notions are quite welcome, and shared by most

of those participating (for those who can't resist getting off on that tangent). But it is troubling to think

that some of that is "leaking" into a place that was supposed to be LDS, and that these elements are

now attempting to use an LDS gathering place to try to undermine the faith of LDS folks who come

here thinking they are coming to a place where they can enjoy the company of like-minded brothers &

sisters, and now are finding that they are surrounded by folks with some really out-in-left-field ideas

that they are trying to promote to anyone who will listen.

Again, when you have folks hanging around who clearly state a disbelief in what the LDS church is

teaching and proclaiming publicly (and when you state that the FLDS are in fact "mormon" regardless

of what the church says to the contrary, what else could you possibly expect to be communicating???),

and you engage in presenting lengthy expositions on these splinter groups which have deviated from

the live branch of the church, it then becomes obvious that there is an agenda - it isn't like the case

of an investigator who comes here because he/she has some doctrinal questions they want to under-

stand better, or a member who is struggling with some aspect of the gospel and wants to hear some

counsel and support from fellow brothers & sisters - rather you are getting into recruiting mode and

making an attempt to win folks over to doctrinal positions which are contrary to those that the church

(the LDS church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City) officially

teaches, and what place has that got in a gathering place labeled "LDS.net"???

In so doing, you are essentially putting your self in a posture of "criticizing the bretheren", which we

are taught is the first step towards apostacy. I feel compelled to warn that it is not a sound decision to

go down that road. Anyone here who actively counsels us not to accept what the leadership of the

church teaches us is on extremely unsound ground, and we should realize that we are dealing with

folks coming in from the outside who have designs of leading some of us off or at very least planting

the seeds of doubt regarding the legitimacy of the calling of our prophet and the leaders that have

been called to preside over us - and that is an extremely questionable thing to find going on at a

gathering place that is supposedly for LDS folks.

I followed a link to get here that indicated a discussion of "church history", and the main thing I find

in the discussion is instead the FLDS group - I find the labeling of the topic of discussion to be

bordering on disingenuous. If you are going to get off on such an unfruitful tangent as a discus-

sion of the FLDS, then at least label it as such, rather than suckering in folks who simply have

an interest in the topic of LDS church history. Again, I find that the probable motive for not doing

so would be a desire to lure if possible a few such unsuspecting souls off with doctrines at odds

with what the church teaches.

This is how I see the matters being discussed here. It frustrates me to have to speak out in such a

bold fashion, which I know will not exactly cultivate warm fuzzy feelings with those making these posts,

and most of us come here to enjoy good company and to re-enforce each other in the gospel, so it

hurts to have to do this. However, I think there comes a point when things going on have to be pointed

out. When you actively promote ideas contrary to LDS teachings, it must be pointed out, and particu-

larly when it is going on at an LDS gathering place. So - I have had my say on the matter. Those of

us who enjoy membership in the LDS church have raised our hands to sustain those leaders that we

recognize as having the keys, of having the calling to be the mouthpiece for the Lord to clarify for us

the path, and to point out the doctrine that is sound and acurate, and which we should accept and prac-

tice in our lives. When anyone comes along who would undermine our commitment to do so, we can

know that they are on a wrong track. While we strive to help clarify for any sincerely seeking to under-

stand the teachings and doctrines of the kingdom, I do not think we owe anyone a forum here for the

purposes of recruiting and promoting for another cause at odds with the true and living church.

AMEN and AMEN...Although, you'll find many here...who profess to be LDS, would rather slag the Church, than support it...I found an interesting quote from Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert Millet...I think it hits the nail on the head...

"One of the signs of moral decay, of apostasy and corruption within a society, is an emphasis on technicalities of law. This comes about when, in order to advance their cause, people seek to play the letter against the spirit of the law and in effect to legalize chicanery"

Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 3:72

As you reads the various threads on this site, you'll find those who call good, evil and evil, good...

Thanks for you post...I look forward to reading more!!!!

[pushka]

Wow! I'm amazed that this thread has stirred up some controversy already!! Perhaps I shouldn't be tho.

I know that Elphaba doesn't have an agenda to lead any LDS member off to another cause. I know that Elphaba is most concerned that LDS Church History is documented correctly, backed up by references.

The title of this thread is not exactly misleading...the OP explains the background to where Ephaba's and Kosher's debate re: Church History began, it began in a thread already devoted to the FLDS..therefore the FLDS needed to be mentioned in the OP.

Elphaba explained the origin of the thread and the reason that she was making this separate thread, in order to not take the original FLDS thread off at a tangent.

Please don't be so suspicious, okay Elphaba may have been slightly off course when she suggested that the FLDS were Mormons, in spite of what the 1st Presidency said on the matter, but I suppose she was just suggesting that this is another group of Mormons which state that they have the correct idea rather than the standard SLC LDS do..

Anyway, I hope that this little upset doesn't lead to any banning on the site.

[Guest User-Removed]

Wow! I'm amazed that this thread has stirred up some controversy already!! Perhaps I shouldn't be tho.

I know that Elphaba doesn't have an agenda to lead any LDS member off to another cause. I know that Elphaba is most concerned that LDS Church History is documented correctly, backed up by references.

The title of this thread is not exactly misleading...the OP explains the background to where Ephaba's and Kosher's debate re: Church History began, it began in a thread already devoted to the FLDS..therefore the FLDS needed to be mentioned in the OP.

Elphaba explained the origin of the thread and the reason that she was making this separate thread, in order to not take the original FLDS thread off at a tangent.

Please don't be so suspicious, okay Elphaba may have been slightly off course when she suggested that the FLDS were Mormons, in spite of what the 1st Presidency said on the matter, but I suppose she was just suggesting that this is another group of Mormons which state that they have the correct idea rather than the standard SLC LDS do..

Anyway, I hope that this little upset doesn't lead to any banning on the site.

Who's upset????...Not I....

I'm in my seat waiting for the rumble...Hoping for the Sharks and the Jets...

[Snow]

Please don't be so suspicious, okay Elphaba may have been slightly off course when she suggested that the FLDS were Mormons, in spite of what the 1st Presidency said on the matter, but I suppose she was just suggesting that this is another group of Mormons which state that they have the correct idea rather than the standard SLC LDS do..

The FLDS are Mormons in the same way that people that don't belong to the Republican party, don't vote for Republican candidates or contribute to their campaign, don't espouse the values and platform of the Republican Party, but liked the original Republican Party platform 1856 opposing "the twin relics of barbarism" (polygamy and slavery)... but call themselves Republican.

Maybe the came themselves that - Republicans or Mormons - but that bears little relationship to actually being Republican, or Mormon.

[Guest Xzain]

I think it would be most respectful to let Elphaba and Kosher continue their discussion, should they so choose. Elphaba started a new thread to avoid thread hijacking- an admirable move.

I don't agree with the FLDS viewpoint (or claims) either, and the 'LDS Gospel Discussion Board' isn't the best place for this- but they both have the right (and should have the safety) to say what they believe- even debate on the matter- and not have others start hounding them immediately (or mocking them).

[rameumptom]

I think defining terms is an important thing. But we need to be careful on our demand to define terms. For example, many LDS seek to be called "Christian", even though we are very different in our beliefs from the rest of Christianity. For some to insist that a belief in the Trinity, which has been a mainstay Christian belief, is required to be called a Christian - is IMO the same as LDS insisting that FLDS and RLDS cannot use the term "Mormon" to describe themselves.

In this way, they are Mormons. They just do not belong to the major sect that is normally called Mormon (LDS).

As it is, I agree with Elphaba that history needs to be viewed with accuracy, and that many groups tend to sanitize their histories. This seems to be very true of the FLDS.

[Guest User-Removed]

I think defining terms is an important thing. But we need to be careful on our demand to define terms. For example, many LDS seek to be called "Christian", even though we are very different in our beliefs from the rest of Christianity. For some to insist that a belief in the Trinity, which has been a mainstay Christian belief, is required to be called a Christian - is IMO the same as LDS insisting that FLDS and RLDS cannot use the term "Mormon" to describe themselves.

In this way, they are Mormons. They just do not belong to the major sect that is normally called Mormon (LDS).

As it is, I agree with Elphaba that history needs to be viewed with accuracy, and that many groups tend to sanitize their histories. This seems to be very true of the FLDS.

I think you need to read and re-read President Hinckley's comments concerning the Jeff's Cult and other Polygamous Cults and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

As for the label Christian...again, I think you'll be assisted in formulating your view point on whether or not Latter Day Saints are Christian or not, by reading and re-reading the comments and talks of not only President Hinckley, but other GA's too.

I for one...am not a big fan of the "Rodney King" view of interfaith relations..."cacacan't we get along....cacacacan't we get along"

I frankly like the difference in Doctrine we as Latter Day Saints possess thanks to the Restoration of the Gospel and continuing revelation from the Lord.

Many tend to scream...let's view history accurately...not because they give a fig newton about accuracy...but, rather as a another arrow in their quiver to attack the Church.

I'm still awaiting the rumble between Elphaba and Kosher on their respctive views on "Church History" Alas...everyone (including myself) has been commenting on this thread, instead of the person who started it...and the person she directed it towards...

As some comedian once said on TV...."Veeeeeeeeeeery interesting"

[Guest Xzain]

I think you need to read and re-read President Hinckley's comments concerning the Jeff's Cult and other Polygamous Cults and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Question- do you mean the LDS church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; to which you and I belong) or an offshoot of it (many which spell it 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints')?

As for the label Christian...again, I think you'll be assisted in formulating your view point on whether or not Latter Day Saints are Christian or not, by reading and re-reading the comments and talks of not only President Hinckley, but other GA's too.

I think the main difference between the 'Christian' title we wish to be known by, and the 'Mormon' title that we do NOT wish offshoot churches to be known by, is that the GA's do not wish 'Mormon' to become a term widely used to denote any religion or person believing in the Book of Mormon but not affiliated with the main LDS church- as 'Christian' has come to denote any person or belief that bases its soteriology on Christ's Atonement. I believe it's a concept related to keeping, in the public's eye, the true fold of God clearly seperated from intimidators who do not wish to enter by the strait gate.

I think this is especially true now that the aim of the Church is to use the foothold it has in society- the term 'Mormon'- to clear up confusion and spread knowledge about the Church and its teachings.

I frankly like the difference in Doctrine we as Latter Day Saints possess thanks to the Restoration of the Gospel and continuing revelation from the Lord.

Amen. It was the doctrine our church was founded on, and it is the doctrine that keeps it alive and flourishing, while all other branches have dwindled and died, in one way or the other.

I'm still awaiting the rumble between Elphaba and Kosher on their respctive views on "Church History" Alas...everyone (including myself) has been commenting on this thread, instead of the person who started it...and the person she directed it towards...

I doubt they would see much incentive to continue any conversation they might have had if they knew others were getting a 'kick' out of seeing what they thought was a useless, petty catfight.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Xzain
Clarity

[rameumptom]

I think you need to read and re-read President Hinckley's comments concerning the Jeff's Cult and other Polygamous Cults and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

As for the label Christian...again, I think you'll be assisted in formulating your view point on whether or not Latter Day Saints are Christian or not, by reading and re-reading the comments and talks of not only President Hinckley, but other GA's too.

I for one...am not a big fan of the "Rodney King" view of interfaith relations..."cacacan't we get along....cacacacan't we get along"

I frankly like the difference in Doctrine we as Latter Day Saints possess thanks to the Restoration of the Gospel and continuing revelation from the Lord.

Many tend to scream...let's view history accurately...not because they give a fig newton about accuracy...but, rather as a another arrow in their quiver to attack the Church.

I'm still awaiting the rumble between Elphaba and Kosher on their respctive views on "Church History" Alas...everyone (including myself) has been commenting on this thread, instead of the person who started it...and the person she directed it towards...

As some comedian once said on TV...."Veeeeeeeeeeery interesting"

I do not consider attacking the Church as the reason for an accurate history of the Church. In April, I attended a seminar on Mormonism and American Life, at IUPUI in Indianapolis. There were both LDS and non-LDS scholars. All agreed that a more serious and balanced look at LDS history was needed. Neither Joseph F Smith's sanitized version, nor Ed Decker's is of much use. All were excited about the Joseph Smith Papers project, but concerned that sanitization was still going to occur. For example, when they were going to include the D&C notations, they were initially going to just pull the current version, but scholars complained and they backed off.

I am grateful for Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, which gave a very balanced approach. It didn't run away from the human foibles of Joseph, but it didn't dismiss his revelations, either. It showed the whole person, and I like that. It tells me that God uses whom he calls, warts and all. And if Joseph is good enough, then perhaps there's a chance for me, as well.

As for LDS being Christian, many General Authorities insist in Gen Conf that we are. For example, in this last Conference, Elder Holland continued his discourse on why we are Christian, but with differences from traditional sects. He stated:

In general conference last October, I said there were two principal reasons The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused, erroneously, of not being Christian. At that time I addressed one of those doctrinal issues—our scripturally based view of the Godhead. Today I would like to address the other major doctrine which characterizes our faith but which causes concern to some, namely the bold assertion that God continues to speak His word and reveal His truth, revelations which mandate an open canon of scripture.

Obviously, Elder Holland DOES consider himself and Latter-day Saints as Christian. Having said that, we must recognize we are Christians with a difference, and he enumerates the two major differences: the Godhead/Trinity and continued revelation.

As for me, I am not a Rodney King-type person, either. But I do believe that where we have concurrence in doctrine, we should recognize those truths and light within other organizations. And where we differ, we should not be shy about sharing what we believe is a greater truth and light. Nor should we be shy about defending the gospel boldly, but not overbearing.

I agree that the FLDS and other break-away sects are not LDS. But as long as they use the Book of Mormon, they have a right to distinguish themselves as Mormon, though a very different sect than us; just as we have a right, as Elder Holland proclaims, to state we are Christian with differences.

[Guest User-Removed]

I do not consider attacking the Church as the reason for an accurate history of the Church. In April, I attended a seminar on Mormonism and American Life, at IUPUI in Indianapolis. There were both LDS and non-LDS scholars. All agreed that a more serious and balanced look at LDS history was needed. Neither Joseph F Smith's sanitized version, nor Ed Decker's is of much use. All were excited about the Joseph Smith Papers project, but concerned that sanitization was still going to occur. For example, when they were going to include the D&C notations, they were initially going to just pull the current version, but scholars complained and they backed off.

I am grateful for Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, which gave a very balanced approach. It didn't run away from the human foibles of Joseph, but it didn't dismiss his revelations, either. It showed the whole person, and I like that. It tells me that God uses whom he calls, warts and all. And if Joseph is good enough, then perhaps there's a chance for me, as well.

As for LDS being Christian, many General Authorities insist in Gen Conf that we are. For example, in this last Conference, Elder Holland continued his discourse on why we are Christian, but with differences from traditional sects. He stated:

Obviously, Elder Holland DOES consider himself and Latter-day Saints as Christian. Having said that, we must recognize we are Christians with a difference, and he enumerates the two major differences: the Godhead/Trinity and continued revelation.

As for me, I am not a Rodney King-type person, either. But I do believe that where we have concurrence in doctrine, we should recognize those truths and light within other organizations. And where we differ, we should not be shy about sharing what we believe is a greater truth and light. Nor should we be shy about defending the gospel boldly, but not overbearing.

I agree that the FLDS and other break-away sects are not LDS. But as long as they use the Book of Mormon, they have a right to distinguish themselves as Mormon, though a very different sect than us; just as we have a right, as Elder Holland proclaims, to state we are Christian with differences.

First off...lemme start by saying, I'm just sooo peagreen wid envy that you and others can do this multiple quote thing here...I wish someone would show me how to do it????

Thanks for quoting from Elder Holland's talk...I was in the Conference Center when he delivered it, and I can tell you that there was an electric charge that went through the building. The spirit was SO strong...I thought at any moment, you'd find well over 20K Latter Day Saints rise to their feet and give him a standing ovation!!!

Now, under full disclosure, as on other threads my comments are usually observations and not attacks upon what others write. I realize that I have rather strong opinions about the faith for which my ancestors have perished, but I do work to not attack someone who holds a view different than mine.

President Hinckley some years ago, asked us to forego using the term "Mormon"...for obvious reason. When Folks inquire as to my faith, I always say I'm LDS. Very few ever go "HUH"...folks for the most part know the 5W's of what "LDS" is....(particularily since the former Governor of Massachussetts spent 37 million of his own money in a bid for the White House).

There are over 200 sects which believe in and use the BoM as a main body of scripture. Kosher is working to make that 201 <vbg>. Folks have a right to call themselves whatever they wish...Folks also have the right to call them whatever they wish. I never refer to the FLDS as the FLDS. I always call them the "Jeff's Cult" and I differential between Allred and others. To the best of my knowledge, the Jeff's Cult is the only sect that uses LDS in their name. Allred doesn't, the Hedrickite's don't, certainly the RLDS have ceased. Kosher, while holding fast to his belief in the BoM, calls the church he founded something other than "Mormon."

Comparing Joseph F. Smith in the same sentance with Ed Decker is a big OUCH to me, but you make an excellent point in your comment.

My problem with this site and history is simply...It has been my experience that those who shout the loudest for "openess and honesty" in historical accuracy are folks who have either left the Church or never were in the Church. There drive for honesty in Church history, masks what I perceive is their dishonsty in their approach. Now, before all heck breaks loose (as they'd say in Utah County) My comments are general in nature and not meant as an indictment on anyone one on this thread.

Bushman's book on Joseph was an interesting read. Although, I will confess to liking the writings of his wife, Claudia to his. He's currently the Hunter Chair out at Claremont...by virtue of geography, I'm fortunate to be able to attend many of their lectures and functions. Last year, I went through my rolodex and turned out a number of my Utah friends when he spoke at Benchmark Books. Curt does a great job there, and has a vast resource of materials there. If anyone is in Utah and likes books, Benchmark is top of the line.

[Guest User-Removed]

Question- do you mean the LDS church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; to which you and I belong) or an offshoot of it (many which spell it 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints')?

I think the main difference between the 'Christian' title we wish to be known by, and the 'Mormon' title that we do NOT wish offshoot churches to be known by, is that the GA's do not wish 'Mormon' to become a term widely used to denote any religion or person believing in the Book of Mormon but not affiliated with the main LDS church- as 'Christian' has come to denote any person or belief that bases its soteriology on Christ's Atonement. I believe it's a concept related to keeping, in the public's eye, the true fold of God clearly seperated from intimidators who do not wish to enter by the strait gate.

I think this is especially true now that the aim of the Church is to use the foothold it has in society- the term 'Mormon'- to clear up confusion and spread knowledge about the Church and its teachings.

Amen. It was the doctrine our church was founded on, and it is the doctrine that keeps it alive and flourishing, while all other branches have dwindled and died, in one way or the other.

I doubt they would see much incentive to continue any conversation they might have had if they knew others were getting a 'kick' out of seeing what they thought was a useless, petty catfight.

I'm not sure anyone is viewing this thread as a "useless petty catfight"...I have post a couple of wisecracks in support of this thread...I guess I could post some really stupid attempt at humor...but Lord knows others around here have that market cornered.

Elphaba has thrown down the gauntlet. It is now up to Kosher to respond...(FWIW...my money is still on Elphaba...the silence from Kosher has been deafening)

In the mean time, while we await a response from Kosher...Elphaba's original posts have created an opportunity for discussion and the exchange of ideas and thoughts...

To me...this sounds like a win/win...doesn't it to you?

Edited June 10, 2008 by MyDogSkip

[john doe]

Okay guys, we're into this thread 3 pages now and we have yet to see Kosher or Elph start their discussion. Let's get back to the topic and let them do their thing. If you wish to continue with being off-topic, I suggest you start your own threads.

[KosherXMorg]

I've just been sitting back for a few days, letting you all talk. Whatever she would like to discuss is fine with me.

[KosherXMorg]

The problem of this thread is Elphaba's false premise that because I linked to the blog of an ex-FLDS member to tell another side of the "Lost Boys" story she concluded (because of some of his other blog posts that I have never read) that because his knowledge of LDS church history is the whitewashed version published by LDS scholars for decades that somehow I fell into the same category and for some reason assigned him the role as my "mentor". The difficulty with this in this thread is that I DO know the facts of history and am in agreement with her that reality is quite different then the official line was for over a hundred years. In the other thread I told her that if she doubted that she is free to challenge me.

[HiJolly]

The problem of this thread is Elphaba's false premise that because I linked to the blog of an ex-FLDS member to tell another side of the "Lost Boys" story she concluded (because of some of his other blog posts that I have never read) that because his knowledge of LDS church history is the whitewashed version published by LDS scholars for decades that somehow I fell into the same category and for some reason assigned him the role as my "mentor". The difficulty with this in this thread is that I DO know the facts of history and am in agreement with her that reality is quite different then the official line was for over a hundred years. In the other thread I told her that if she doubted that she is free to challenge me.

Man, am *I* disappointed. I guess I'll eat the popcorn, anyway. Not a total loss.

HiJolly