Kosher and Elphaba's discussion about Church history

[Guest User-Removed]

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

HiJolly

Popcorn...This is more disappointing than Big Brown's performance last Saturday.....

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by KosherXMorg

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.

Man, is this the quickest tap out or what? Is MyDogSkip gonna give at least partial refunds to this match?

[Guest User-Removed]

Man, is this the quickest tap out or what? Is MyDogSkip gonna give at least partial refunds to this match?

ME?????...Refund what?????...Do I look like Don King????

I told ya from the get go, my money was on Elphaba....

[KosherXMorg]

I don't understand. I didn't realize there was a bout I wasn't challenging her as to had more knowledge, I was challenging her to test my knowledge. It's all there in context, but for those that hate me it doesn't matter, oh well, life goes on.

[Guest User-Removed]

I don't understand. I didn't realize there was a bout I wasn't challenging her as to had more knowledge, I was challenging her to test my knowledge. It's all there in context, but for those that hate me it doesn't matter, oh well, life goes on.

Kosher...Send the paranoids home...no one hates you.

I for one, recognize the fact that you have good taste in radio...cause you listen to Coast to Coast AM....

[rameumptom]

I think the key to this is that everyone has some truth. Even an FLDS person can post a logical and persuasive statement on occasion.

So, while Kosher was focusing on one post, Elphaba was looking at the entire posting history. Two very different points to begin from.

Perhaps there was no fight in this dog to begin with, but only a lack of communication?

[john doe]

Kosher...Send the paranoids home...no one hates you.

I for one, recognize the fact that you have good taste in radio...cause you listen to Coast to Coast AM....

You two listen to Coast to Coast AM? That explains a lot...............:tinfoil::insane:. Now, .

[Elphaba]

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

No, this is not the problem.

I clearly asked you a question that had nothing to do with the Lost Boys, and while you may have been confused at first, as we continued posting you must have realized I had nothing to say about the Lost Boys and never had.

Unless, of course, you weren't really reading my posts.

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

she concluded (because of some of his other blog posts that I have never read)

You never read the “other” blog posts?

You literally did not read posts that you demanded I respond to? Even after I had responded to them?

It was your responsibility to read these posts, and not doing so is unethical on a message board.

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".

I already agreed to not call him your mentor anymore, so it’s a moot point to bring it up now. But since you did, I will respond.

a) I had asked you "Where or FROM WHOM did you get your information."

b) Your response was a link to your friend’s blog, and nothing else.

c) Since the majority of your blogger friend's posts were about the FLDS, I naturally assumed that, since you had linked to it, this was your answer to my question.

d) Therefore, I assumed he was your mentor as far as the FLDS was concerned.

I won't bring it up again if you don't. Otherwise, I make no guarantees.

“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.

No, this is not what you said.

You wrote: “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.”

So I replied that I would like to have a go, and started this thread so we would not hijack the other thread. I assumed you would come up with a subject about church history, since you had challenged me, and had even given me the courtesy of a forewarning.

However, in retrospect, I realize it was my responsibility to start the discussion, since I created the thread. So to all who have read this far, I apologize for not doing so.

I have written a post about fundamentalist Mormons. If you have insight to the thread, or a correction, please post it.

If you do, however, please read my posts in their entirety. Your excuse that you thought this was about the Lost Boys, or even worse, that didn't read relevant posts, won't fly here.

In response I'll keep your forewarning in mind.

So I ask, yet again:

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

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

You two listen to Coast to Coast AM? That explains a lot...............:tinfoil::insane:. Now, .

Oh John...I can't speak for Kosher...but it get worse...I even podcast Coast to Coast AM...and download it onto my iPhone....

[Guest User-Removed]

You know Kosher...In my encounters with you over at Yahoo and elsewhere,I've not found your grasp of LDS history to be all that great. As much as I find most of Elphaba's view anathema...She does know LDS History...at least from her view point...and she knows LDS history, I suspect more, deeper and better than you?

If you want to get into a "Peeing" match...as you put it...Get out your wellies and slicker...cause you're gonna get hit with a monsoon...

[Elphaba]

I have written a post to Kosher, and hopefully he will actually read it and respond.

However, I noticed some people on this thread are upset because I wrote that members of the FLDS Church are also “Mormons.” While I understand this concern, I stand by my statement, as technically, it is true.

Rameumpton explained this well when he wrote:

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.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints are, today, two completely different religions that, when looked at objectively, have virtually nothing in common.

But in the late 1800s, this was not the case.

In the 1880s, all members of the Church revered Joseph, some of whom had known him in their lifetimes, with even a few old enough they mourned him still. Additionally, Brigham Young, though a completely different personality than Joseph, was also highly respected and held in reverence by his flock, to whom he had preached that Celestial Marriage was God‘s commandment to his chosen people.

In the 1880s, all members of the Church believed the Bible and The Book of Mormon and were inspired by God, and they studied these scriptures often, both in their personal lives and during their religious meetings.

In the 1880s, the practice of “plural marriage,” was a religious rite, and to believers, had been instituted by Joseph, and under Brigham’s mantle it had become a commonplace thing around Salt Lake City, and throughout the territory, although the majority of members did not practice polygamy.

And then the 1890 Manifesto was announced.

It is understandable to me that many members, especially those already in and committed to polygamous relationships, were taken aback by the 1890 Manifesto. In fact, they did not believe it was a revelation at all, but a compromise.

Elder Dallin Oaks agrees with this, though he maintains President Woodruff did have a revelation. He says: “. . . It's a result of a Mormon compromise - and the Mormons retained their religious freedom. They won the right to propagate without persecution. They preserved their unique doctrines and so on. Those (remain) with us today, but other things that were essential to and a cause of earlier persecution were abandoned in that compromise as we entered the 20th century.”

The 1890 Manifesto caused a small, but, in human terms, significant number of members to believe President Woodruff was either a fallen prophet, or, as mentioned above, was only being expedient in renouncing polygamy.

These Saints had been taught by Church leaders, for forty years, that polygamy was a commandment of God, and that it was necessary to ensure their place in the Celestial Kingdom. They were also taught that God would never remove polygamy from the earth.

Hearing this repeated over the pulpit for forty years certainly ingrained the doctrine into many of the Latter-day Saint’s psyche.

However, whatever one believed, it was obvious the Church’s practice of polygamy was on its way out. Soon those whose faith in Celestial marriage remained unfazed started gathering together, creating different schisms.

And so began the fundamentalist LDS movement, with its adherents removing their families away from the Church they had traveled so hard to get to not that long ago.

While these Saints chose to become fundamentalists, they also continued to believe their doctrines and practices remained true to Joseph‘s and Brigham‘s teachings. Additionally they believed the Bible and The Book of Mormon were inspired of God.

These beliefs continue today in the fundamelists sects. And while polygamy is an excommunicable offense in the Church, the fact that the fundamentalists continue to believe Joseph and Brigham were prophets, and that the Book of Mormon is true, they do have the right to the name "Mormon."

This post is an extremely brief description of the fundamentalist movement of the 19th century. If it gives you a glimmer into the world of the polygamists of the 1880s, who were suddenly brought to their knees with the 1890 Manifesto, perhaps you can understand how heartwrenching their decision to move their famlies elsewhere was.

These fundamentalists are also an integral part of the Church's history. The two paths divurged, but at one time they were one. And these fundamentalists are still Mormon pioneers, though not of the Church. However, they had the best of intentions when they traveled into deeper, more desolate spots in the desert. This included the “thirteen” who were the original ancestors of the current Fundamentalist Latter day Saints church.

I have only read two journals kept by 19th century fundamentalists, and both were riveting. To condemn these people for their beliefs is shortsighted, as they had more in common with the Church’s pioneers than not. Unfortunately, such is not the case today.

While there is obviously much disagreement about these Mormon fundamentalists, especially from me with regard to child abuse, I have no doubt the vast majority are decent people still trying to live their lives as they believe God has commanded.

Elphaba

[pushka]

Great post Elphie..what are the names of the 2 books/journals you've read about the Fundamentalists, they sound like they might be interesting?

[KosherXMorg]

Have I ever lived in a fundamentalist Mormon community? Yes. Just not the FLDS.

During my time there as a believer I frequented and contributed to various FM groups, blogs, and have read tons of material produced by fundamentalists of varying stripes.

So my knowledge... first hand as a one time believer. Anything else?

[KosherXMorg]

You know Kosher...In my encounters with you over at Yahoo and elsewhere,I've not found your grasp of LDS history to be all that great. As much as I find most of Elphaba's view anathema...She does know LDS History...at least from her view point...and she knows LDS history, I suspect more, deeper and better than you?

If you want to get into a "Peeing" match...as you put it...Get out your wellies and slicker...cause you're gonna get hit with a monsoon...

Well, of course you have no idea of my grasp of church history as most discussions I have been involved in with you are concerning theology that usually ended in you being upset.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Tamrajh
Personal Attacks will not be tolerated.

[rameumptom]

Well, of course you have no idea of my grasp of church history as most discussions I have been involved in with you are concerning theology that usually ended in you going into a fit of rage, cursing, and accusing people of bizarre sexual practices. Shall we enlighten the good folks here as to your behavior outside of this forum?

Instead of dropping this down into an ad hominem thread, why not add to the discussion. I have no desire to know Elphaba's or your past online tantrums.

Given how inadequately trained many of the FLDS membership is in the way of history and doctrine, I'm not convinced that even being a member of such a group necessarily equates to being an expert, even as being an LDS-Mormon does not equate to being an expert on LDS history.

So far on this topic, I've seen Elphaba attempting to gain information and discuss these things, and you have offered very little info in return. So, instead of tossing grenades at Elphaba, let's turn this into a useful thread, shall we?

I lived for a while in a ward in Montana which contained the town Pinesdale, an Allred clan polygamous community. I met and had many discussions with them. They were very different in many of their attitudes than the cloistered FLDS, at least back in the 1970s when I dwelt near them. Of course, some of the biggest drunkards in the area were active members of this clan - obviously not everything taught by Brigham Young settled in on them, just as with regular LDS. The big difference being these drunkards did have multiple wives, and Brigham Young wouldn't have let any drinker into the temple for a first sealing, much less a second one.

For some reason, the Allred clan encouraged their members to be baptized and receive their first sealing in the LDS temple. Our poor bishop and stake president handled a couple excommunications every WEEK over this clan's infiltration into the ward membership. Once notice of additional wives, or living with additional women was noted by the bishopric, disciplinarian hearings were set in place.

Would you know the reason why the Allred clan would seek LDS membership and temple sealings, when their own church claims to have all the keys and authority?

[KosherXMorg]

The post was directed at MyDogSkip not Elphaba.

So far the only thing I seen that I was asked was if I have first hand knowledge of fundamentalist culture, and I answered. What am I missing?

[KosherXMorg]

Instead of dropping this down into an ad hominem thread, why not add to the discussion. I have no desire to know Elphaba's or your past online tantrums.

Given how inadequately trained many of the FLDS membership is in the way of history and doctrine, I'm not convinced that even being a member of such a group necessarily equates to being an expert, even as being an LDS-Mormon does not equate to being an expert on LDS history.

So far on this topic, I've seen Elphaba attempting to gain information and discuss these things, and you have offered very little info in return. So, instead of tossing grenades at Elphaba, let's turn this into a useful thread, shall we?

I lived for a while in a ward in Montana which contained the town Pinesdale, an Allred clan polygamous community. I met and had many discussions with them. They were very different in many of their attitudes than the cloistered FLDS, at least back in the 1970s when I dwelt near them. Of course, some of the biggest drunkards in the area were active members of this clan - obviously not everything taught by Brigham Young settled in on them, just as with regular LDS. The big difference being these drunkards did have multiple wives, and Brigham Young wouldn't have let any drinker into the temple for a first sealing, much less a second one.

For some reason, the Allred clan encouraged their members to be baptized and receive their first sealing in the LDS temple. Our poor bishop and stake president handled a couple excommunications every WEEK over this clan's infiltration into the ward membership. Once notice of additional wives, or living with additional women was noted by the bishopric, disciplinarian hearings were set in place.

Would you know the reason why the Allred clan would seek LDS membership and temple sealings, when their own church claims to have all the keys and authority?

Rulon taught that the LDS church is still the true church and has the keys to the first ordinances of the gospel and at the time I don't believe they had their own Endowment House/Temple. He saw his calling as that passed down from the 1886 Centerville meeting where men were authorized to continue sealing plural marriages and the AUB as a place for like believers to assemble, not a different church. Kind of like a Ward in exile you could say.

[rameumptom]

Rulon taught that the LDS church is still the true church and has the keys to the first ordinances of the gospel and at the time I don't believe they had their own Endowment House/Temple. He saw his calling as that passed down from the 1886 Centerville meeting where men were authorized to continue sealing plural marriages and the AUB as a place for like believers to assemble, not a different church. Kind of like a Ward in exile you could say.

That's how I thought I understood it, but wanted to be sure. IOW, they accept the LDS prophets, but don't accept them. That's contradictory. Either they are true and living prophets, or they are fallen or false prophets. You can't have both.

[KosherXMorg]

That's how I thought I understood it, but wanted to be sure. IOW, they accept the LDS prophets, but don't accept them. That's contradictory. Either they are true and living prophets, or they are fallen or false prophets. You can't have both.

Many of the AUB have had and might still have (I wasn't with them) the idea the LDS church leaders actually know what is going on and it is only because of the unfaithfulness of the LDS membership that they are being withheld from that greater knowledge. There are stories amoung Rulon based group that David McKay actually sent some people to Rulon when they were able to get an audience with him and ask him who had the keys to perform plural sealings.

[Elphaba]

Anything else?

Yes. I would be interested in your take on my post about the fundamentalists who left the Church to continue practicing polygamy.

Do you have any additional perspective, or corrections, you'd like to share?

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Many of the AUB have had and might still have (I wasn't with them) the idea the LDS church leaders actually know what is going on and it is only because of the unfaithfulness of the LDS membership that they are being withheld from that greater knowledge. There are stories amoung Rulon based group that David McKay actually sent some people to Rulon when they were able to get an audience with him and ask him who had the keys to perform plural sealings.

That really is a rather sad view of history. The LDS Church publically denounces polygamy and excommunicates them, yet secretly is supportive of them? I do not think so. I so doing, the Church leaders would be leading a major betrayal of the Church.

The Manifesto had nothing to do with the unfaithfulness of the LDS membership. The Lord allowed via revelation for the end of polygamy, in order to protect the Church from destruction. Had the Church been destroyed, more important things would not have been accomplished, such as missionary and temple work. The Lord compromised with the world, in order to accomplish His work. As it is, I do not think it really matters to God whether polygamy is practiced or not, except as a test of faith.

Then, a second test of faith occurred, when the Manifesto occurred. Would the saints follow the living prophet? Most did, but many proved unfaithful to this revelation and commandment, including those that later started the polygamist sects.

Any other "history" version does not make sense. If President Monson were to command the LDS to start living plural marriage, most would obey. There's nothing unfaithful about it. The lack of faith was on the part of those that departed from the faith, rejecting Wilford Woodruff and subsequent prophets in their command to live a monogamous and chaste life.

[KosherXMorg]

You seem rather worked up about this. Perhaps the subject should be dropped?

[KosherXMorg]

It concerns me when someone in the same breath says, "The Lord promised the church would never be taken again. " and "If they hadn't done this the church would've been destroyed."

To quote a hero of mine...

" And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying:

"Let us go up again unto Jerusalem and let us be faithful

in keeping the commandments of the Lord,

For behold, He is mightier than all the earth;

Then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty,

yea, or even than his tens of thousands?"

He is certainly stronger then the US Army.

But what really concerns me is this statement...

"The Lord compromised with the world, in order to accomplish His work."

Since when does the Lord compromise with the world?

[Hemidakota]

[rameumptom]

It concerns me when someone in the same breath says, "The Lord promised the church would never be taken again. " and "If they hadn't done this the church would've been destroyed."

To quote a hero of mine...

" And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying:

"Let us go up again unto Jerusalem and let us be faithful

in keeping the commandments of the Lord,

For behold, He is mightier than all the earth;

Then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty,

yea, or even than his tens of thousands?"

He is certainly stronger then the US Army.

But what really concerns me is this statement...

"The Lord compromised with the world, in order to accomplish His work."

Since when does the Lord compromise with the world?

He sometimes compromises on one smaller thing to ensure his entire work moves forth. Had he not allowed the persecutions to occur in Missouri, he would not be able to rightfully judge the persecutors in the final judgment. Nor would God be able to purify the members in the crucible of life. God compromises frequently on a daily basis, whenever he allows evil to occur. He does so in order to allow his greater purposes to move forth - our salvation and exaltation. Why else would he allow Hitlers and Stalins to slaughter millions? God either allows it for a greater purpose, He is incapable of stopping it (impotent), or He has a hand in the evil. I do not believe the latter two, so the only option is the first one.