|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Hello! I'm new here and just wanted to pop in and join some of the discussion regarding polygamy, Big Love, and the FLDS Church. I was born and raised in the FLDS Church, my father had 4 wives and 31 children; I was his 28th child. I left the FLDS when I was 19 and joined the Marines to get away. I am now a Baptist Minister working in prison minister and Christian Theological Education (discipleship). I've also written a book about my experiences growing up in a polygamist Mormon home. Its the first book from the male perspective. Most folks out there don't understand the pressure that young men are under to be worthy of remaining in the community. If each worthy man has to have at least three wives to progress to godhood, then for every plural wife he takes a young man has to be driven from the community. If he has three wives, then two of them are plural wives, and two men have to go! That means that right off the bat at least 2/3rds of the male population in a polygamist community have to go. But the elite aren't content with just three wives. Many have more than that. Winston Blackmore who was resently arrested in Canada has 20 wives. That means that 19 are extra and 19 young men have to leave just for him to have those wives. Warren Jeffs is rumored to have over 120 wives. That means 119 young men have to go just for this one man to have that many wives. A conservative estimate would be that 75% of the male population has to be found unworthy and driven from the community. Now...imagine that you're a mother in that community and you have 4 sons. Which 1 gets to stay and which 3 are you going to allow them to drive from your life? The weeding out process is a silent process. There aren't clear cut rules, its hidden, its secret, its political. -- -Brian Mackert Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy". -- Edited by Illegitimate at 04/03/2009 6:02 AM PDT -- Edited by Illegitimate at 04/03/2009 6:04 AM PDT
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(94 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 8:53 PM
|
Zoar,
I've never considered George Washington's, or any other founding father's "visions" to be even remotely related to the LDS church's goal of eventually ruling the world through a theocracy of p-hood brethren.
Are you trying to say that you hope for and look forward to a time when the LDS brethren, or any other group of patriarchal men, have charge of our government and administer it as a theocracy? Without checks and balances that are outside of the realm of "god"?
Really?
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(93 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 8:43 PM
|
> To my knowledge, the most complete and
> well-documented BRIEF online discussion of the
> origins and purpose of the Council of the Fifty is
> here
> It's documented by someone who, like I, was a
> a faithful member of the LDS church for many years.
>
> Also -- rainmom and zoar63, when I was a Mormon and
> at BYU, everyone talked openly about the
> "Constitution hanging by a thread" prophecy.
> However, until I left the LDS church I never heard
> d of the "white horse" prophecy. Although they both
> refer to the same supposed future scenario, they
> weren't the same prophecy, right? I mean, not spoken
> at the same time by the same people, as I recall.
>
> Latayne C Scott
> www.latayne.com
>
> --
> Edited by Latayne at 04/26/2009 8:46 PM PDT
Latayne, thank you for this link. Fascinating information and very chilling.
A government led by the LDS brethren is beyond frightening.
This should be on every American voter's reading list.
Sadly, it would actually appeal to some wing-nuts, mormon and otherwise.
If memory serves correctly, I recall the WHP and the "thread hanging Constitution" mentioned, usually, in the same breath. From childhood through high school anyway.
I'm not sure if they're different "visions" or not.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(92 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 5:11 PM
|
Nice to see some things never change around here -- Marion is still as full of myopic denial as ever and GiP keeps showing up when you least expect him.
--
"I believe the church and its leaders are in grave error on polygamy, and on the kinds of marriages and families it creates. I can't forsake my family." Sister Barbara Dutton Henrickson
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(91 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 4:53 PM
|
I'm sorry you turned this into a personal attack. I was seriously asking the question - what defines a label vs. a description. Too bad.
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
|
|
|
Posts:
18
Registered:
3/25/09
|
|
(90 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 3:47 PM
|
> I've been thinking lately about Brian's hit-and-run
> observation about "labels," criticizing my tag line
> quoting Harry Dean Stanton.
>
> What is a "label" vs a "description"? The word
> "liberal", for example, is clearly a label, because
> it groups together a whole lot of beliefs and
> behaviors, and applies them to a person whether or
> not they actually subscribe to them. "Feminazi" is a
> worse label, because it takes feminist beliefs and
> behaviors and attaches to them some more about loud,
> strident, rigid opinions.
>
> But is "patriarchal male" a label or a description?
> I think of it as a description, because I think if
> f it applies to you, you almost certainly have the
> same set of beliefs and behaviors - you think women
> should obey men and look up to them, and are the
> lesser in many ways. But is that a label?
>
> Hmmm...
>
> --
> "When you label something, you dismiss it."
> ...............Harry Dean Stanton
>
> --
> Edited by Marionj2 at 04/27/2009 8:57 AM PDT
so in other words, if someone calls you a name (liberal or feminist) that is a label, but if you call someone else a name (patriarch) that is a description.
feel free to call me a patriarchal nazi, that would be an apt description and label.
personally when i label things i like to use descriptions. red beans, white rice, motor oil, metric nuts, car parts, etc...
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(89 of 94)
Apr 27, 2009 10:52 AM
|
I've been thinking lately about Brian's hit-and-run observation about "labels," criticizing my tag line quoting Harry Dean Stanton.
What is a "label" vs a "description"? The word "liberal", for example, is clearly a label, because it groups together a whole lot of beliefs and behaviors, and applies them to a person whether or not they actually subscribe to them. "Feminazi" is a worse label, because it takes feminist beliefs and behaviors and attaches to them some more about loud, strident, rigid opinions.
But is "patriarchal male" a label or a description? I think of it as a description, because I think if it applies to you, you almost certainly have the same set of beliefs and behaviors - you think women should obey men and look up to them, and are the lesser in many ways. But is that a label?
Hmmm...
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
--
Edited by Marionj2 at 04/27/2009 8:57 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
5/19/08
|
|
(88 of 94)
Apr 26, 2009 11:45 PM
|
To my knowledge, the most complete and well-documented BRIEF online discussion of the origins and purpose of the Council of the Fifty is here It's documented by someone who, like I, was a faithful member of the LDS church for many years.
Also -- rainmom and zoar63, when I was a Mormon and at BYU, everyone talked openly about the "Constitution hanging by a thread" prophecy. However, until I left the LDS church I never heard of the "white horse" prophecy. Although they both refer to the same supposed future scenario, they weren't the same prophecy, right? I mean, not spoken at the same time by the same people, as I recall.
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com
--
Edited by Latayne at 04/26/2009 8:46 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
758
Registered:
6/6/06
|
|
(87 of 94)
Apr 26, 2009 11:22 PM
|
> Zoar; yes, I've heard of the council of fifty; how
> could I not?
>
> Seriously, I question your statement that JS
> 'invited' NON-MORMONS into his secret council of
> fifty. I find that highly improbable. Gentiles and
> mormon apostates have clearly been evil enemies of
> mormons from the very beginning.
rainmom,
Yes there were gentiles on the council of 50. If you do not believe me, research it. Richard Lymon Bushman, author of Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, devotes an entire chapter to the council.
> Have you seriously never heard of the "White Horse
> Prophecy"?
> Latayne's clear and accurate statement regarding the
> beliefs of this prophecy/vision/revelation/suggestion
> is nothing new to Utah-bred mormons of (recent)
> yesteryear.
> It's another favorite faith promoting story told as
> often and as reverently as the "Governor Boggs
> extermination order story".
Yes I have heard and have read the White Horse Prophcey. I compare it on the level to George Washingtons vision. Both have not been authenticated. You are familiar with Washington?s vision of the Republic?
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(86 of 94)
Apr 24, 2009 8:08 PM
|
Zoar; yes, I've heard of the council of fifty; how could I not?
Seriously, I question your statement that JS 'invited' NON-MORMONS into his secret council of fifty. I find that highly improbable. Gentiles and mormon apostates have clearly been evil enemies of mormons from the very beginning.
You say you've read the JOD right??? It's little more than endlessly divisive rhetoric.
Group loyalty and cohesivness work best with a well-defined "enemy". Also, FEAR helps.
The "modern' mormon story includes the saints' "knowledge' that JS was a benevolant supporter of the U.S. constitution/laws and desired to lead his country, as U.S. President, in 'righteousness'.
Learning 'the rest of the story' (how he actually behaved during his life) indicates that he and his other p-hood men actually had less than stellar motives and held little to no respect for the principles/laws of this country.
The early mormons' views IRT U.S. law is eerily similar to today's pitiful attitude and behavior among the FLDS. Not at all surprising. They think they're god's special and chosen, with the correct white & delightsome seed too.
Have you seriously never heard of the "White Horse Prophecy"?
Latayne's clear and accurate statement regarding the beliefs of this prophecy/vision/revelation/suggestion is nothing new to Utah-bred mormons of (recent) yesteryear.
It's another favorite faith promoting story told as often and as reverently as the "Governor Boggs extermination order story".
In fact, the most recent public discussion of the WHP was from Brother/Senator Orrin Hatch during his failed bid for the White House in 2000. (Not exactly ancient history).
It's so clear in my memory because of the huge laugh I got after reading his public statement that "the Constitution is LITERALLY hanging by a thread". (Bold mine.)
My dear husband and I chuckled so while discussing whether to buy plane tickets and fly east to see if it actually WAS dangling there and why, apparently, no government official was being paid to look after such an old and precious U.S. document. LOL!
The WHP was discussed joyfully among mormons during Romney's 2008 presidential bid. I don't recall him mentioning publicly that he would ride in on a "White "Horse" and "save the Constitution".
Not very good political strategy unless you're exclusively addressing people who think they're special and "chosen" and "their guy" will be doing the 'saving'.
Of course, like everything else mormon, the WHP, where the mormons rush in and save the U.S. and, apparently, everything and everybody else, is only considered doctrine/important/legitimate or even worthy of discussion or acknowledgement if it benefits mormonism. If it embarasses or detracts it's "merely the opinion of a fallible man/men". These men, at other times, are "known" and referred to as the prophet or apostles of 'god's only true church on earth'.
That kind of doublespeak sounds convenient for 'revelations' but doesn't exactly ring true in the real world.
Mormonism and its supposed 'authorization' to save everyone, dead or alive is disturbingly narcissistic.
Power, control, money and sex. The ususal.
|
|
|
Posts:
125
Registered:
5/19/08
|
|
(85 of 94)
Apr 22, 2009 7:43 PM
|
Zoar63 and rainmom, I think I know what's being referred to here.
When I was LDS, it was something I and fellow-students at BYU did often openly and enthusiastically discuss, which was the firm belief in a prophecy of a future date in which the US Constitution would be in serious trouble, and only saved by the LDS Church. As a people, it was our aim to produce as many LDS lawmakers, judges, politicians and legal experts as we possibly could, so as to fulfill and satisfy that prophecy.
Here's the prophecy from the Journal of Discourses, VII, 15. Brigham Young, July 4, 1854 : ?Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ?The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.? It will be so.?
It was with that thinking that the law school at BYU was instituted in the early 1970s or so -- with the thinking that "the elders of Israel" or LDS priesthood holders would be the saviors of the US Constitution.
from The Mormon Mirage 3rd Edition
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com
novelmatters.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Posts:
758
Registered:
6/6/06
|
|
(84 of 94)
Apr 22, 2009 7:22 PM
|
>
> Do you have any idea why the doctrine of the mormons
> taking over the U.S. government, and eventually the
> whole wide world, is no longer publicly
> mentioned/taught/acknowledged?
Seriously rainmom, I have never heard of such a doctrine and I have been in the Church as long as you have. The only thing that comes to my mind is the council of 50. Here is some historical information on that.
Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History
On 7 April 1842 Joseph Smith received a revelation titled "The Kingdom of God and His Laws With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgement in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ" (Quinn, 166-67), which called for the organization of a special council. This council, popularly known as the Council of Fifty because of its approximate number of members, was formally organized by Joseph Smith on 11 March 1844. Latter-day Saints believed that the gospel was restored, at least in part, to prepare the world for the second coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Council of Fifty, according to one historian, was designed "to bring about the political transformation of the world, just as the church was intended to change the world religiously" (Hansen, 11). Another historian wrote that "the primary role of the Council of Fifty was to symbolize the otherworldly world order that would be established during the millennial reign of Christ on earth" (Quinn, 163).
The Council of Fifty played a role in preparing some Latter-day Saint males to function as a sort of legislature in the Kingdom of God (Ehat, 260-61). A few non-Mormons were also invited to participate in the Council, symbolizing the millennial condition of members and nonmembers working together in harmony as Christ ruled as King of Kings.
Following the organization of the council, Joseph Smith told them that he had received its constitution by direct revelation. The Prophet was told, "Ye are my Constitution and I am your God and ye are my spokesmen" (quoted in Ehat, 259). In other words, God, through his prophet, would direct the Council of Fifty by means of revelation.
Several rules of procedure were adopted at a meeting held on 18 April 1844. For example, the president of the Church served as standing chairman of the council, and except for the chair, the members sat according to age. Decisions of the council had to be unanimous, and "no member [was] to be absent . . . unless sick or on Council business" (quoted in Ehat, 261).
Joseph Smith frequently taught council members the meaning of the Constitution of the United States and how it could be applied "to the Latter-day saints in the world and during the millennium" (Quinn, 164). Members of the council were also involved in Joseph Smith's presidential campaign, helped to direct affairs in Nauvoo, and assisted in planning the move west.
Following the murder of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young presided over the Council of Fifty and used it as the Saints moved west and settled in the Great Basin. John Taylor revitalized the Fifty, and they met annually during his administration so members could receive instruction regarding political matters (Quinn, 173). Since that time the Council of Fifty has not played an active role in Latter-day Saint history.
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(83 of 94)
Apr 21, 2009 6:31 PM
|
> > So, what do you believe regarding the need for
> > numerous wives to act as the "Eve" for each of
> the
> > future mormon gods' numerous planets? It's been
> my
> > observation that 'ego' is what motivated JS, BY
> and
> > their fellow p-hood pals.
> >
>
>
> rainmom,
>
> Please quote me the LDS book, document or publication
> where you draw those conclusions from.
Zoar,
Book, document, publication? No.
Merely the 'pearls of wisdom' taught at church, week, after month, after year, during my LDS youth in Utah. During the 50's, 60's, 70's. Upper middle class wards in the southeast SLC valley.
I'm aware that doesn't make it "true" anymore than anything else I was taught is "true".
Those LDS teachers may have all been "confused". Who knows?
Do you have any idea why the doctrine of the mormons taking over the U.S. government, and eventually the whole wide world, is no longer publicly mentioned/taught/acknowledged?
|
|
|
Posts:
758
Registered:
6/6/06
|
|
(82 of 94)
Apr 21, 2009 5:57 PM
|
> So, what do you believe regarding the need for
> numerous wives to act as the "Eve" for each of the
> future mormon gods' numerous planets? It's been my
> observation that 'ego' is what motivated JS, BY and
> their fellow p-hood pals.
>
rainmom,
Please quote me the LDS book, document or publication where you draw those conclusions from.
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(81 of 94)
Apr 21, 2009 4:37 PM
|
Zoar,
Yes, I've heard of the 'moon' conspiracy theories. I thought James Brolin did a great job in the film Capricorn One. He made it watchable while O. J. Simpson nearly ruined it.
I imagine the same type of gullible fools believe in government 9/11 conspiracy theories today. There's no accounting for what some people will believe.
Prior to Dubya's placement in the office of U.S. President in 2000 it was my opinion this country couldn't elect a greater fool than he and, sadly, my oberservations were validated. And even taking into account his adminstration's vile dishonesty with American citizens, I don't believe he would purposely bomb the WTC/Pentagon.
The U.S. didn't exactly 'abandon' travel to the moon after Apollo 11. Surely you're aware of the Apollo 13 'debacle'.
And no, the initial 'discovery' of the land that became America was not anything like the initial moon landing. This continent included water, vegetation, oxygen, animal life and actual human beings. The only action the Europeans needed to take was to drive out/kill the originals inhabitants. They didn't need to invent/create/build a habitat that would sustain life. That's probably been a small stumbling block to extending 'manifest destiny' to other planets.
But maybe the 'moon quakers' don't require water and oxygen for life. Perhaps the prophet Monson could inquire of god regarding the matter.
So, what do you believe regarding the need for numerous wives to act as the "Eve" for each of the future mormon gods' numerous planets? It's been my observation that 'ego' is what motivated JS, BY and their fellow p-hood pals.
I believe EGO causes mormon males to think they have 'authorization', the only 'valid' authorization even, to dictate government laws, necro-dunk non-mormons and profess (not publicly anymore however) the intention of eventually 'ruling' the U.S., this planet and then all of the other planets.
Power, control, money and sex. Nothing new.
--
Edited by rainmom at 04/21/2009 1:46 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
758
Registered:
6/6/06
|
|
(80 of 94)
Apr 21, 2009 1:47 PM
|
> Could be. It was a story told in my polygamous
> family oral history; interestingly, BOTH sides of the
> family. It was also 'rumor' told in church when I
> was young, which certainly doesn't prove anything.
>
> But the other 'rumors' being discussed in church at
> that same time included saints becoming gods and
> godesses of their own planets, Quaker-like folks on
> the moon and Joseph Fielding Smith stating that man
> would NEVER reach the moon. Heard it with my own
> ears. And we know how that ended just a few years
> later.
>
> I could go on and on with the endless list of mormon
> rumors/doctrine/policy of yesteryear that "we don't
> know much about today". But it's late and, like
> everything else mormon, it's anyone's guess.
> Doctrine/policy/programs/advice/rumor/suggestions
> s all change so quickly and quietly within the
> 'church'. There's just no pinning anything down
> other than the fact that Joseph Smith was a
> disgusting fraud.
>
> But I will ask the 3 nephites about it next time we
> talk.
rainmom,
Interesting that you mention the three Nephities. My own polygamous ancestors had a story to tell about an encounter, but it is not an oral tradition. It is written down.
About the moon landing. You do know that there are organizations out there that say the moon landing was hoax. They have even released documentaries to support their view. Hollywood even released a movie about a hoaxed mission to mars called Capricorn One. I am not inferring that I believe them but there is always two sides to every story. What is puzzling though is after the moon landings, there has been no effort made to further explore that body. It is our closest neighbor. Why did we abandon exploring it further? If we have the technology to send out un- manned missions to other planets, why cant we go back to the moon and explore every nook and cranny of it?
Abandoning moon exploration would sort of be like the early explorers coming to America, taking a look around and then returning home, never to return. Unless of course the other side is right, we never did go to the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
