Polygamy and authority

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Oh man, it was not BY that started it. I bet most white supremacists worldwide are clueless about him.  You think Hitler was a fan of Discourses of Brigham Young?  The Confederate War was started by those Mormons?  
 

Sure, Saints have their own flavour that riffed off the original version and he didn’t help, but we would have them even if the Ban hadn’t happened, just as so many other denominations do. 
 

Brigham had his faults, but he accepted blacks as children of God. 

I know that, I meant started it in the church and then people like Shilo and other so called prophets take off with it.

Here's where it's state it's squarely on BY's shoulders. That's why I said what I did. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1995&context=byusq

[MustardSeed]

Regardless who started racism, withholding priesthood from specifically one race did not and does not bode well.  That said, it doesn’t help to blame. We all have a part in all social ills.  We are either part of the solution or we aren’t- be that racism or sexism or what have you. IMO

Edited November 18, 2021 by MustardSeed
“IMO”

[Calm]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

, he down-voted my comment

Yeah, the downvotes made him look like a petulant child.  Patience can sometimes get past that. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

To be fair, I never took him seriously and my blind eyes were scorched from the beginning.

Exactly! Thanks for having my back throughout this encounter. If I remember correctly, you were also a target of not being 'loving' enough in your responses.

[Olmec Donald]

19 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Honestly, I was wondering the same thing. Especially after I got called out for not being 'loving' in my responses.

I assume you're referring to me, and if not you probably oughtta be.

My default mode is to give people the benefit of the doubt until I “know” otherwise (and I'm slow on the up-take). So back then I could either say nothing or toss out some thinly-disguised criticism of what you and Chum and Pogi were saying, said disguise being the clever use of “I-statements” rather than “you-statements”, in case I needed to weasel out of anything. Then I sat back and enjoyed the panoramic view from my moral high ground.

Yeah.

Pretty obvious how that worked out. I apologize to you and Chum and Pogi.

For the record, I was (and still am) totally sincere in my subsequent “you Mormons are darn good people” post (this is all in the first couple pages of the "book sealed with seven seals" thread).

If anyone can counsel me on how to harmlessly communicate “I disagree with your idea but neither judge nor condemn you”, that's a skill I would like to develop. So I'm all ears... well except for the enormous stone head in between them.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

I apologize to you and Chum and Pogi.

Thanks, mate! Apology wholeheartedly accepted.

But this is a phenomenon I have experienced on this forum long before you came along. A few years ago, I had 3/4 of participants on a thread telling me to leave some poor new participant alone when I called BS on what he was posting, and I suspect I was reported as well because then a moderator chimed in.

Shortly after that, the participant in question sent me a PM asking how I'd seen through his posts and figured out that he was a troll from another (apostate) board that had been banned here on multiple occasions. He boasted about how easily everyone else had been 'suckered' and gave me permission to post his PM as bragging rights. I never did.

But seriously, sometimes the Saints can be too 'darn good' for their own good ...

[Olmec Donald]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate! Apology wholeheartedly accepted.

Thank you.  I'm not really an Olmec.  Are you really a big lizard?  Some of my best friends were lizards when I was a kid.

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But this is a phenomenon I have experienced on this forum long before you came along. A few years ago, I had 3/4 of participants on a thread telling me to leave some poor new participant alone when I called BS on what he was posting, and I suspect I was reported as well because then a moderator chimed in...

But seriously, sometimes the Saints can be too 'darn good' for their own good ...

I'm still trying to sort out where the correct balance lies.   Some people have a good natural feel for it, and I definitely do not. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Are you really a big lizard?

I briefly had to share an office with my supervisor when I was working at the university, and she argued that I was because of how dependent I am on external heat sources, so maybe?

Quote

I'm still trying to sort out where the correct balance lies.

Intuitively, I think one should err on the side of love and tolerance, but at this point in my life, I've seen that assumption sometimes lead to people being seriously harmed, so yeah, it's a tough one.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate! Apology wholeheartedly accepted.

But this is a phenomenon I have experienced on this forum long before you came along. A few years ago, I had 3/4 of participants on a thread telling me to leave some poor new participant alone when I called BS on what he was posting, and I suspect I was reported as well because then a moderator chimed in.

Shortly after that, the participant in question sent me a PM asking how I'd seen through his posts and figured out that he was a troll from another (apostate) board that had been banned here on multiple occasions. He boasted about how easily everyone else had been 'suckered' and gave me permission to post his PM as bragging rights. I never did.

But seriously, sometimes the Saints can be too 'darn good' for their own good ...

I don't remember this incident and might not have been around when it happened.  If someone is a known troll then it's probably better to call that out sooner rather than later, so that more harm isn't done with all the pretense.

At the same time, I do think there is a difference between treating someone kindly and treating someone kindly because you believe their story.   Treating someone kindly regardless of their actions, because that is how you choose to be in the world, is not being a sucker, and any troll who thinks that it is hasn't emotionally left the 7th grade yet.  We've had enough trolls on here that it can be difficult not to be once bitten twice shy, but I think those who manage it (usually not me) are amazing and I look up to them.

And any poster that brags about how nice someone was to them while they are being a duplicitous troll needs to seriously consider therapy because they are messed up.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone is a known troll then it's probably better to call that out sooner rather than later, so that more harm isn't done with all the pretense.

That's the thing. I didn't know this person was a troll with a history of multiple bannings or that he was sharing how 'dumb' we all supposedly are on an apostate board until he told me via PM (at which point he mistakenly thought I knew!). I just sensed that there was something in his 'help, I'm a sincere member having a faith crisis' persona that very clearly did not add up. But as soon as I started asking the kinds of questions that would help with assessing that hunch, I was repeatedly lectured on the 'Christlike' way to treat someone having a faith crisis, partially but not exclusively by critics, who in many cases have mastered weaponising this accusation as a form of emotional blackmail. (My irony metre goes off whenever someone who doesn't believe in Christ tries to shut me up by accusing me of being un-Christlike!)

Quote

And any poster that brags about how nice someone was to them while they are being a duplicitous troll needs to seriously consider therapy because they are messed up.

No disagreement from me!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Intuitively, I think one should err on the side of love and tolerance, but at this point in my life, I've seen that assumption sometimes lead to people being seriously harmed, so yeah, it's a tough one.

I have learned that the vast majority of people in my life are interacting with me in good faith (I have been lucky), so it is best to start from that position. Plus if I make a habit of it, I am less likely to rationalize it is okay to get angry, etc when it really isn’t appropriate. And third, people in general are naturally defensive and being critical can shut down communication fast and it then requires much more work to get it open and I am lazy and easily frustrated. 
 

This board has been helpful in teaching me to pay closer attention to cues for manipulation, etc. but outside here, my social life is pretty limited so don’t have much need for it.  I am a skeptic in many ways, it just doesn’t get exercised much in interpersonal stuff (outside of wondering if people including myself really know themselves as well as they think they do, remember their own behaviours accurately, etc) except with questioning to see if someone is consistent or is throwing stuff out without thinking, but that also serves for curiosity and liking and supporting people…which is elegantly efficient in accomplishing much with one effort.  And I don’t want to be a hypocrite and if I was all giving the benefit of the doubt and sugar and spice when I help out with FAIR or at home, but here let my skeptical side dominate, that just doesn’t seem honest. I would be manipulative instead of truly giving some a chance.  I don’t think I make too many missteps in trusting the wrong people or too much (pretty quick to spot the Ahabs), but definitely not infallible.  I have seen what happens when distrust is automatic, I don’t like the results.  Boring, repetitive, and contentious.
 

I figure unless it is obvious someone is a minor or emotionally unstable here, I am safe in assuming others are intelligent adults and since capable of going anywhere on the internet by themselves and exposing themselves to whatever, it would be a waste of time so I don’t need to play the protective role and frisk anyone who shows up. But there is a sense of responsibility in not allowing factual inaccuracies to stand without challenging. Much harder when it comes to religious claims where it is easy for me to see why others may believe something that contradicts my own faith or emotional claims when it is all about our filters. 
 

God has also allowed numerous faiths to exist on the earth for millennia without flood or fire anytime recently when he could more actively interfere, so if it is okay with him I don’t see my role as one to stamp out heresy and bad ideas. And proselyting I do best by example it seems because more people have asked me about my faith and listened when I am just living my life than there are those who don’t change the subject as soon as I let them when I actively seek interest. Either I am bad at picking out potentials or there is something wrong with my approach.  
 

Some day I will learn how to say what I want in half the space. Sorry…

Edited November 19, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

20 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

I'm still trying to sort out where the correct balance lies.   Some people have a good natural feel for it, and I definitely do not. 

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Intuitively, I think one should err on the side of love and tolerance, but at this point in my life, I've seen that assumption sometimes lead to people being seriously harmed, so yeah, it's a tough one.

I agree with both of you.  I think we should err on the side of love and tolerance where there is any question.  There a couple areas that I personally feel that a stronger stance and less tolerance is warranted though, 1) someone that is spreading dangerous misinformation online about vaccines and Covid and thus putting lives at risk; 2) someone that is obviously not here with an open mind to discourse and dialogue ideas, but is instead here to convert and preach and make disciples of us, and 3) someone who spews racist and other harmful narratives.  

Shiloh checked all of those boxes for me very quickly.  Sometimes we need to love people from a distance.   Christ taught us that being an enemy and someone we love are not mutually exclusive ideas.  We can hope for the best in them, even pray for them (something I need work on), but we should not tolerate certain behaviors.  

Edited November 19, 2021 by pogi

[Navidad]

I still worry that this whole thread is going to somehow come back and bite this forum some day. Methinks my LDS friends need to take the Fundamentalists a bit more seriously as a group that have in the past, and will continue in the future to cause harm to the LDS church.

Perhaps this is why I kind of insist on making such a distinction between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals in my world. There are those in this forum who insist there is no real difference between Fundamentalist and Evangelical non-LDS Christians. I believe Fundamentalists of all kinds cause great harm to the Kingdom of God, however we define it. Just my .02 cents.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Navidad

[Orthodox Christian]

On 11/17/2021 at 8:56 PM, ProphetShiloh said:

I haven't forgotten that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.  The Jews were gathering back to the southern kingdom prior to the coming of Jesus, but they went back into exile and were scattered again after they rejected him and had him murdered.  They were caused to "drink deep and large from the cup of her sister".  When Rome came into the southern kingdom area in 70 AD they slaughtered all the Jews who had not gone ahead and opted for self-exile.  We aren't even certain to what extent they were prevalent in number even when they were gathering back after Cyrus of Persia fostered them doing so.  We know that there wasn't a cleansing of the land of promise, aka genocide, of the non-Israelite inhabitants so they likely yet shared the region with a wide variety of people.

That image is false speculation.

And, yes, Ishmael, Esau, and Judah all intermarried with Canaanite women and brought those traits into the posterity of Abraham.  This interbreeding thing of Judah is why Jesus and the Pharisees didn't get along.  They taunted him as being the child of fornicationthrough Tamar and he retorted them by addressing their Canaanite lineage through Sheleh's foreign wives thereby attributing them to be the offspring of Cain, who Jesus referred to as the liar and murderer in the beginning.

We do know that Abraham's wife Sara was special and that she was fair and beautiful.  She would have stood out as a fair-skinned woman in that region.  Noah was known as a fair-skinned being, though Noah is a flesh-and-bone being rather than a singular individual human.  This means that Noah represents a plurality of people, all of whom would have needed to bear those characteristics for them to be attributed to Noah.  So we know that the progenitor of the continuation of the pure Adamic race was Noah and the members of his flesh-and-bone body all had the characteristics of fair skin at the least, but which also goes along with the recessive trait of blueness of the eyes.

As for the duration of the races, the model of creation that I teach is that the Adamic race renews itself over and over each cycle.  This is why God commands them to "multiply and replenish" the earth.  The concept of replenish is key.  There is an implication here that God is referring to a process that is cyclical in nature.  There was another Adam back further from the Adam of 6,000 years ago.  There is a new Adamic race being put together right now.  This Adam will foreordain his new world out for the next cycle.  This is why Adam prophesies all that shall befall his posterity to the end of that world.  He just got through spending his life foreordaining (naming) it all.  And, at the end of that cycle, there will be a new Adam, and the cycles will just continue to repeat from eternity to eternity in eternal rounds.

I did not say that the Onias revelations teach that non-Adamic people can have the priesthood.  They absolutely cannot hold any priesthood of God.  All people who have Negro blood are disallowed to hold the priesthood of the Adamic race.  I do not know if there is any sort of a patriarchal priesthood for the Negro race and what their provisions are for non-Negro people or mixed with non-Negro people are.  Elohim has these provisions and we simply need to respectfully honor the will of our patriarchal Father while meaning no offense or insult to anyone in so doing.

The Onias material does say that the people of the Negro race have a soul that functions as the souls of the beasts do, which I personally take to mean that they are a race of people who have not become fully self-realized.  I currently presume that they seem to be more in their element living in what we would call their primitive ways.  The movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" comes rather close to making my point.  The "gods" are definitely crazy from their point of view.  Attempting to forcibly induct them into the Adamic society is either bad for them or bad for both in some way.  Elohim forbids it and so we either go along with that or we posture ourselves as an enemy of Elohim.

According to the revelations that I received, if the Negro people wish to also come and be in Zion, there are provisions for them to do so.  The provisions for them in Zion, oddly enough, entail providing for them very much what Socialism/Communism is attempting to promise everyone.  For them to be in Zion they will have everything they need provided for them in the way of housing, food, medical care, occupational education, etc., and they will also have their work assignments that they are required to do.  They are to be treated well and kept healthy in their circumstances.  If they aren't happy with their circumstances then they will need to leave Zion and perhaps go to their own land with their own people.  Any who are found to be cruel to them will incur intense disrespect as the culture of Zion will give no place for such.

Er, I am new here, and just looking around. After reading some of Shilo's posts, I have to ask if he is to be taken seriously? Or does he just like to wind people up with his claims? 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Er, I am new here, and just looking around. After reading some of Shilo's posts, I have to ask if he is to be taken seriously? Or does he just like to wind people up with his claims? 

I think he is mentally disturbed myself.  Sometimes posters’ interest in people’s different ideas backfires.  It was unfortunate we fed his need for attention or whatever as I suspect it is not good for him. I was thinking perhaps he was just someone who tried to reconcile too many ideas (he used some buzzwords from the ‘New Age’/energy work groups as well as a sci fi mechanistic slant) and was mostly harmless, but then he went deep into the extreme stuff.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Er, I am new here, and just looking around. After reading some of Shilo's posts, I have to ask if he is to be taken seriously? Or does he just like to wind people up with his claims? 

He's a fundamentalist follower of the sagebrush prophet Onias and I'm pretty sure he got himself banned.

His kind show up occasionally, along with drive by evangelicals, ferocious anti's, and soapbox preachers of all kinds.  They never last long.

[Orthodox Christian]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

think he is mentally disturbed myself. 

He does seem delusional, I can't really understand why he is allowed to continue posting here, is it for entertainment? I can understand why, because his posts are pretty wacky, but is it really kind to allow him to use your platform to continue to air his delusional ideas, especially the racist ones? 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

He does seem delusional, I can't really understand why he is allowed to continue posting here, is it for entertainment? I can understand why, because his posts are pretty wacky, but is it really kind to allow him to use your platform to continue to air his delusional ideas, especially the racist ones? 

He was reported to mods by me and no doubt others as soon as it was clear he was into the extremes in a bad way, but mods sometimes don’t show up for awhile as they are volunteers and check in when it works for them. 
 

It happen in just a few days. He was banned and no more posts after that. If he shows up again, he will be reported immediately by multiple posters I am guessing. 
 

I say mods because in the past we had a few at a time, but my guess is now there is one usual one that has an uneven schedule of turning up as sometimes when I report a post there is almost an immediate reaction, but one time I think it was three days.  Another mod may show up on rare occasions.  They don’t read all/many? of the threads themselves and depend on the reporting system to find problematic posts. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I say mods because in the past we had a few at a time, but my guess is now there is one usual one that has an uneven schedule of turning up as sometimes when I report a post there is almost an immediate reaction, but one time I think it was three days.  Another mod may show up on rare occasions.  

Sometimes I worry about keeping the board going.  We've lost a LOT of good regular posters in the past year or two.  Sounds like even the Mods don't bother to show up regularly.

Perhaps the threads are becoming boring.  I know I don't read the endless sociopolitical topics or Church news that get threads.

Discussing history and doctrine is more interesting to me.  But it ends up being a rehash every time.

Hopefully this board can enter a new growth cycle again.

[Orthodox Christian]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sometimes I worry about keeping the board going.  We've lost a LOT of good regular posters in the past year or two.  Sounds like even the Mods don't bother to show up regularly.

Perhaps the threads are becoming boring.  I know I don't read the endless sociopolitical topics or Church news that get threads.

Discussing history and doctrine is more interesting to me.  But it ends up being a rehash every time.

Hopefully this board can enter a new growth cycle again.

I suppose things just get tired over time, how long has the board been running?

Edited December 27, 2021 by Orthodox Christian
Missing question mark

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I suppose things just get tired over time, how long has the board been running?

At least 2004, maybe 2003 as I signed up in early January and I think I waited a month or two as I was a moderator on another board and obsessive compulsive poster as well and I wasn’t sure it was wise to add another board to my addiction. 
 

So almost 20 years. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

On 12/27/2021 at 12:17 PM, JLHPROF said:

Sometimes I worry about keeping the board going.  We've lost a LOT of good regular posters in the past year or two.  Sounds like even the Mods don't bother to show up regularly.

Perhaps the threads are becoming boring.  I know I don't read the endless sociopolitical topics or Church news that get threads.

Discussing history and doctrine is more interesting to me.  But it ends up being a rehash every time.

Hopefully this board can enter a new growth cycle again.

The Defenders used to be in the church and the doubters outside the church. Now the doubters are inside the church. Way back when there was a wider variety of subjects. A lot of posters have passed away or moved on.

I miss those days of a good Mayan baseball thread or one of Larry's geography threads, some good archeology threads, BoA threads. Now it's endless LGBTQ, feminist, the Church has too much money and polygamy threads. It's become popular to chastise God. I must admit there have been a few good thread lately.