A Vote Against FLDS Colonialization (Bonners Ferry: attorney, live in, safer)

[Clark Fork Fantast]

Thanks. I was looking at land up there (North of B.F.) and around some other parts of NID not just super close to the border. I guess the only way to find out more on those parcels would be to look up county land records (Public record.) on where he owns what.

Catherine

Catherine,
We had similar concerns when we looked for NID property last fall--trying to avoid any budding extremist enclaves, meth labs, etc. I actually looked at 5-6 properties around Bonners Ferry, including several on Katka Mt. (inexpensive, secluded, but not what we were looking for). My realtor didn't know about any such specifics, and I didn't have time to go to the county office, but I got an interesting piece of advice from talking with locals: If you are in the area looking for property, and not just looking online, go ask some casual questions in the local stores, in particular grocery stores. Chances are they'll tell you things that your real estate office doesn't know about, both positive and negative things. Of course what you get is likely to be gossip, so you have to evaluate the info yourself. A simple phone call to the county office may also work--they can be extremely helpful with info about official plans. It worked for me, in Bonner County.
Good luck!

[CatherineFrances]

Originally Posted by Clark Fork Fantast

Catherine,
We had similar concerns when we looked for NID property last fall--trying to avoid any budding extremist enclaves, meth labs, etc. I actually looked at 5-6 properties around Bonners Ferry, including several on Katka Mt. (inexpensive, secluded, but not what we were looking for). My realtor didn't know about any such specifics, and I didn't have time to go to the county office, but I got an interesting piece of advice from talking with locals: If you are in the area looking for property, and not just looking online, go ask some casual questions in the local stores, in particular grocery stores. Chances are they'll tell you things that your real estate office doesn't know about, both positive and negative things. Of course what you get is likely to be gossip, so you have to evaluate the info yourself. A simple phone call to the county office may also work--they can be extremely helpful with info about official plans. It worked for me, in Bonner County.
Good luck!

Thank you very much!

Catherine

[Mtn. States Resident]

It's been over five months since this thread was started. I wondered if there were any updates?

I was thinking about this thread today and realized I hadn't read anything about this subject for a while.

Thanks for the updates.

MSR

[Mtn. States Resident]

Sandpointian,

In thinking through your excellent thread again, I re-read your beginning post. I realized there were some questions I failed to ask you.

When you wrote,

""Until now, NID has offered great diversity of religious choice and freedom from religious oppression. What we lack in actual diversity, we have in access and rights. And to be perfectly honest, I like it this way. I would rather that we avoid the the complexities found in the SE corner of the state, where LDS membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination."

I totally failed to ask you some questions, that I realize now have additional inferences, to this thread. DUH on my part. Got caught up in changes that can and do occur when any large group moves in and may not pay their fair share of taxes etc. Today as I re-read your words, I'm wondering how many in NID feel as you do. I would write stronger words; however, I first don't wish to create undue tension or a situation here, secondly, I've read other posts of yours and know you don't generally write things that could be inflammatory about areas of ID, or other residents and their ability to enjoy their choices as much as you enjoy yours. Finally, am pushing this point, given recent threads, as sometimes I don't know that we all stop to think how those from other areas perceive our comments we may assume others will understand. Honestly, after what I read again today, I could say to others, "Well, if everyone is like Sandpointain, LDS are not welcome in NID."

Do I believe that? No, given the comments of so many. Do I believe there are some in NID who have had issues many years ago in SE ID and are happier in NID? Yes. And I'm happy when people who are unhappy make changes in their lives and improve them. Do I believe you care about your area and keeping a quality of life you enjoy? Absolutely.

I also believe its important to be accurate about timeframes, the size of the city or county (population wise), and whether the person who says X exists has current day knowledge of whatever still existing, in a different area of the state. If you have a brother, parent, cousin, business partner with whom you consult daily and they are telling you specific examples of what is happening is SE Idaho in 2009, that works for me. Please, just clarify your path of knowledge/experience, so I have a reference of when you arrived at your decisions. Others would benefit who read the ID Forum.

I totally respect your opinion - had one of my friends from an east coast state comment in a DM what a solid thinker you were, which is a tremendous compliment from that person. We all are different, we each have our own views and life experiences to this point.

One reason I'm posting this back to you is I know you are strong in your opinions and thoughtful. You'll give this some thought. When I first started posting here, I did so given some I knew who are active LDS who didn't feel like they could post without being mocked, or connected with events hundreds of miles away or something that happen 90-100 years ago etc. So in that sense, I'm strong too. I decided it was time to help be a force to update the currect southeastern ID scene. Fortunately, with posters like cleosmom (who was here before me), NCM, pw72, Breer23 and others, I've gotten some help to tell what life is like in southeastern ID in 2009. I know there are some really great and accurate people from NID who post in the ID forum, so you have help clarifying any misperceptions as well. I have lots of LDS friends and I with how those words come across today, I wouldn't want them to read them without further explanation.

Maybe you really prefer not to have LDS neighbors, residents in your area and I think it is beneficial that you let that be known. People won't waste time trying to decide between jobs and where to live etc.

When you wrote, " And to be perfectly honest, I like it this way. I would rather that we avoid the the complexities found in the SE corner of the state, where LDS membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination," I somehow missed if that was your own direct experience and observation, or what you had heard/read from others who may who relocated to NIH, Spokane or somewhere else.

Would you please clarify that for me and others who read that statement or will read it? I try to stay out of the NID debates about the Aryan Nations other cults etc., with this thread being the exception as I have direct knowledge. I stay out of those discussions about NID for that very reason. I don't have direct personal experience, observation current enough to add no clarity to those questions.

If you know specifically when the LDS church membership changed access to jobs etc. as you wrote, is that ongoing and where? I'd like to learn more.
If you are referring to BYU-Idaho only hiring LDS professors/employees, as a private instuition that is their policy and also their right. So yes, I would agree and write it myself, that if a person isn't LDS it can be difficult to live in Rexburg or Madison County. I suspect Northwest Nazare has a similar employment policy, of who that college will employee.

Being from SE Idaho and having a lot invested in accuracy about Idaho in general, I'd appreciate knowing your reference points. I'd consider it a personal courtesy.

Perhaps, what I should start to do, so you'll understand my ultimate point here, should you (or Sage) have confusion, is when people write questions about Aryan Nations etc. in NID, I should post that I don't live in or have close family members in the area, thus I don't feel qualified to give the most updated information. I've been contacted by several people via DM and asked why I stay out of the discussions about NID. Maybe that would be a good idea so those who have depended upon my observations/recommendations in the past, and have been confused of why I don't post about NID would understand. I could end that confusion with a simple post.

Thanks in advance for your clarification. Also thanks for any updates about this situation. Even though I haven't kept up, doesn't mean I don't remember and want to know more.

MSR

[Sage of Sagle]

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Perhaps, what I should start to do, so you'll understand my ultimate point here, should you (or Sage) have confusion, is when people write questions about Aryan Nations etc. in NID, I should post that I don't live in or have close family members in the area, thus I don't feel qualified to give the most updated information. I've been contacted by several people via DM and asked why I stay out of the discussions about NID. Maybe that would be a good idea so those who have depended upon my observations/recommendations in the past, and have been confused of why I don't post about NID would understand. I could end that confusion with a simple post.
MSR

MSR,

I understand what you're getting at here. My take on this would be that we should each be able to bifurcate our own personal anecdotal experiences from our general views as Idahoans as we discuss topics that may not be in our own locale.

From my personal anecdotal experiences here in NID, I understand that we had a pretty big backlash against LDS expansion in this region several decades past. My own experience here is that the LDS church is represented here in roughly the same percentage to mainstream protestant and catholic churches as we had in SoCal, and I run into the occasional mormon but most people here are either protestant christian or non-churchgoing people who have a general belief in God. So NID doesn't appear to be a "bible belt" area, but is generally monotheistic from what I've found in my personal experiences.

I wonder (and I'm just thinking out loud here) if the seriously libertarian tone of NID doesn't jive well with ANY church organization that has such a centralized social influence on its members as the LDS church appears to have based on my understanding.

[Mtn. States Resident]

Originally Posted by Sage of Sagle

MSR,

I understand what you're getting at here. My take on this would be that we should each be able to bifurcate our own personal anecdotal experiences from our general views as Idahoans as we discuss topics that may not be in our own locale.

From my personal anecdotal experiences here in NID, I understand that we had a pretty big backlash against LDS expansion in this region several decades past. My own experience here is that the LDS church is represented here in roughly the same percentage to mainstream protestant and catholic churches as we had in SoCal, and I run into the occasional mormon but most people here are either protestant christian or non-churchgoing people who have a general belief in God. So NID doesn't appear to be a "bible belt" area, but is generally monotheistic from what I've found in my personal experiences.

I wonder (and I'm just thinking out loud here) if the seriously libertarian tone of NID doesn't jive well with ANY church organization that has such a centralized social influence on its members as the LDS church appears to have based on my understanding.

Hi Sage,

Just happened I was checking a different forum for something and saw your post. Great timing.

First, thank you for allowing my post to remain. I hope it felt respectful as I meant it that way. I apologize to any whom I may have offended. It appears, that at least Sage got my point.

Secondly, I think there will be LDS people who will appreciate your sharing your observations of LDS residents of NID. That was more than I asked for, but I'm sure some will benefit for your thoughtful addition.

Finally, in your question, "I wonder (and I'm just thinking out loud here) if the seriously libertarian tone of NID doesn't jive well with ANY church organization that has such a centralized social influence on its members as the LDS church appears to have based on my understanding." - I'm not positive I totally understand enough to respond, or don't have enough neurons still firing at the moment. Perhaps others may understand or have thought about the same point and can respond. And I hope they would add a thoughtful answer so others like me, or maybe just me, would understand more.

So I removed my answer. I may send you a DM about your thoughts, as I don't want to confuse what I think is a clear message from you.

Thanks for responding and helping to clarify the point I was attempting to make. I appreciate the help.

MSR

[Sandpointian]

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I totally failed to ask you some questions, that I realize now have additional inferences, to this thread. DUH on my part. Got caught up in changes that can and do occur when any large group moves in and may not pay their fair share of taxes etc. Today as I re-read your words, I'm wondering how many in NID feel as you do.

You know, I think that communities have "layered opinions" based on age and time in the community. Beyond that endowment, I think most people only update periodically via friends and family & bit of one's own initiative. So I cannot claim to know the sentiments about NID beyond the circle of people I know.

Additionally, there is the issue of the flux in the demographics. If a community remained static, then it would be only a matter of time before, one does gain a pretty good understanding of all. But we have seen a number of faces leave and come.

Finally, there is NID itself. SP, Hayden, CDA, PF have large % of urbanization. One can get a very different picture of things from more rural parts.

That said, I think that the primary thing my circle of family and friends share is the wish to preserve our freedoms and sense of community. The worry I have is that when cults take over, they have very clear agenda that is about zealous adherence to their rules and very little tolerance for those who do not follow the same rules. Regardless of where and what, exceptionalism breeds alienation and condescension.

When more extreme groups go into small communities, they can significantly affect the functioning of communities and of course skew things to make the government service their needs in a very biased manner. We have dozens of examples of this in the Western US. Towns turn into company towns, where the company is church/cult, etc.

On this, my fear of any such invasion is probably higher than others. Maybe because I have seen this happen quite often; am more sensitive to such things; really do not want to get pushed out; do not want this to happen to SP. And this forum indicates as well as others, people do not always have the same take as me.

A secondary worry is the nature of the group itself. Some groups/religions are more likely to allow for peaceful coexistence. Others are intolerant and require a degree of vigilance I would rather avoid. There are also those groups with practices are are either downright scary or so morally offensive as to compromise our value systems or constitutional rights.

The reality though is that it is really a case by case, group by group analysis and one in which my opinion is just one of many.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I would write stronger words; however, I first don't wish to create undue tension or a situation here, secondly, I've read other posts of yours and know you don't generally write things that could be inflammatory about areas of ID, or other residents and their ability to enjoy their choices as much as you enjoy yours. Finally, am pushing this point, given recent threads, as sometimes I don't know that we all stop to think how those from other areas perceive our comments we may assume others will understand. Honestly, after what I read again today, I could say to others, "Well, if everyone is like Sandpointain, LDS are not welcome in NID."

Gosh, I would hope that my writings do not suggest that such a quote would be mine. I place no litmus test of race, creed, wealth, schooling, or nationality as barriers to friendship with me or my family. Never have and never will. I do not know many LDS, but I do have LDS friends, people who I am fortunate to know.

The OP was about an extreme group of LDS with a proven track record of "cultural imperialism," intolerance, and rather hard-to-swallow views on polygamy and pre-teen brides. As a father of daughters and lover of freedom, the mix is one that raised red flags. That said, a red flag need not stay raised permanently. There is always a nonzero probability that I might not only be wrong but I might gain from their presence. But my reaction was one of caution, reflection and a call for examination. The truth shall set us free and in the case of extreme cults, keep us free.

But again, please note that such a quote would never knowingly be attributed to me. I am a terrible typist, so hopefully I did not leave out a "not" in places and give the impression 180* opposite of my views!

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Do I believe that? No, given the comments of so many. Do I believe there are some in NID who have had issues many years ago in SE ID and are happier in NID? Yes. And I'm happy when people who are unhappy make changes in their lives and improve them. Do I believe you care about your area and keeping a quality of life you enjoy? Absolutely.

I am glad on all three counts. But that you asked makes me wonder if I was misunderstood or misquoted. I have not kept up in reading the thread..

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I also believe its important to be accurate about timeframes, the size of the city or county (population wise), and whether the person who says X exists has current day knowledge of whatever still existing, in a different area of the state. If you have a brother, parent, cousin, business partner with whom you consult daily and they are telling you specific examples of what is happening is SE Idaho in 2009, that works for me. Please, just clarify your path of knowledge/experience, so I have a reference of when you arrived at your decisions. Others would benefit who read the ID Forum.

Beyond the OP, I have not had much info. But if I do, I will certainly contribute my two cents.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I totally respect your opinion - had one of my friends from an east coast state comment in a DM what a solid thinker you were, which is a tremendous compliment from that person. We all are different, we each have our own views and life experiences to this point.

That is very kind. From the perspective of an engineer, solid thinking arises from many experiences with errors and failures. LOL! It is as if I was meant to be middle-aged and with lots of mileage and awkward experiences under the belt. However, from the POV of someone in their 70s, I probably remain terribly unrefined...so I remain humble and know there remains a lot of learn.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

One reason I'm posting this back to you is I know you are strong in your opinions and thoughtful. You'll give this some thought. When I first started posting here, I did so given some I knew who are active LDS who didn't feel like they could post without being mocked, or connected with events hundreds of miles away or something that happen 90-100 years ago etc.

So in that sense, I'm strong too. I decided it was time to help be a force to update the currect southeastern ID scene. Fortunately, with posters like cleosmom (who was here before me), NCM, pw72, Breer23 and others, I've gotten some help to tell what life is like in southeastern ID in 2009. I know there are some really great and accurate people from NID who post in the ID forum, so you have help clarifying any misperceptions as well. I have lots of LDS friends and I with how those words come across today, I wouldn't want them to read them without further explanation.

Let me go back to what I wrote earlier. My friends that are LDS are great people. To my knowledge, no one has cornered the market on knowledge, intelligence or success. However, I do have an debate ongoing with someone else who feels slighted if I do not speak in glowing terms about her ethnicity. As with the positives, no group is without its shortcomings, inefficiencies, or deep problems. So not everyone likes truth, something CD debates make abundantly clear. People also prefer regurgitation of bias and prejudice over reasoned understanding of context and cause & effect. On the latter, it is classic: "I am successful because of me. I fail because of others."

Please tell your LDS friends that if they love freedom with responsibility, respect and sufficient tolerance, they will find enough people here to share community. At the same time, we are not Lake Wobegon or some utopian happy factory. There will be those with different and opposing views. But I find that I actually "need" the presence of different views to force me to value what I do believe and value. Political correctness robs us of this necessary self-reflection.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Maybe you really prefer not to have LDS neighbors, residents in your area and I think it is beneficial that you let that be known. People won't waste time trying to decide between jobs and where to live etc.

I do not know the religion of half of the people I respect most in the community. I love that.

I would prefer tolerance and understanding over bigotry and ignorance.
I would prefer a town in which I feel my kids can feel safe and fully enjoy all that Sandpoint and NID offer.
I would prefer a community in which we can learn from our diversity.
I would prefer a community in which we handle disagreements with civility and grace.
I would prefer enlargening our circle of friends rather than raising up defenses.
I would prefer more friends for kids so they can have more support in trying to navigate the challenges of their youth and of life in general, including examination of faith.
And since I am no rock, I would prefer the more friends to lean on and to share what we know and don't know.

Anything above this is really frosting on the cake.

And everything is church-independent.

There is a great movie with Gregory Peck, The Keys to the Kingdom (1944). In it, Peck plays a priest whose his best friend is an atheist, key benefactor is (most likely) a Daoist, and key challenger for converts is (I think) a Methodist. But their love and respect for each other is clear--and in a movie made by a Jew. I would like to think that my views would mesh well with those portrayed in the movie.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

When you wrote, " And to be perfectly honest, I like it this way. I would rather that we avoid the the complexities found in the SE corner of the state, where LDS membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination," I somehow missed if that was your own direct experience and observation, or what you had heard/read from others who may who relocated to NIH, Spokane or somewhere else.

Would you please clarify that for me and others who read that statement or will read it? I try to stay out of the NID debates about the Aryan Nations other cults etc., with this thread being the exception as I have direct knowledge. I stay out of those discussions about NID for that very reason. I don't have direct personal experience, observation current enough to add no clarity to those questions.

I think the context is very important. From what I understand (which I amdit is little), there are pockets of SE Idaho that are dominated by LDS beyond faith but in terms of civil servants, judges, etc. My opinion is that any such domination, especially if the populations are rather zealous, is likely to presence situations where freedom and justice may be comprised.

I stand by quote on the grounds explained above and at the beginning of this response particularly for extreme elements. It is really an opinion to protect the rights of the minority than to exclude based on religion.

The past ten years in the world has been filled with some terrible examples of religious intolerance mixing with policy platforms. I think the words of the Founding Fathers on religious freedoms, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are my guides and that when we deviate, we run into trouble. Smart guys, those Founding Fathers. I also think that there have been brilliant examples outside of the US that have enshrined this kind of freedom (Ataturk's commitment to secularism in Turkey).

We are so small up here. I would rather we grow the collective "we" than grow an "us versus them." I am sure the vast majority of LDS folks would be fine with that (as would be the case for most moral people). But for those that see themselves differently, chosen or superior, I would hope that they grow into Sandpoint than try to overwhelm SP.

Again, the OP was about the FLDS takeover of tiny border communities in NID and Canada. My post was not about religious tolerance toward a given LDS family, but one of preserving freedoms in the face of waves of people with a vastly different idea of church & state. This tolerance was exactly what the early LDS did not experience in its early years, right?

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

If you know specifically when the LDS church membership changed access to jobs etc. as you wrote, is that ongoing and where? I'd like to learn more.
If you are referring to BYU-Idaho only hiring LDS professors/employees, as a private instuition that is their policy and also their right. So yes, I would agree and write it myself, that if a person isn't LDS it can be difficult to live in Rexburg or Madison County. I suspect Northwest Nazare has a similar employment policy, of who that college will employee.

Being from SE Idaho and having a lot invested in accuracy about Idaho in general, I'd appreciate knowing your reference points. I'd consider it a personal courtesy.

Gosh, it is really the accumulation over time of anecdotes and media reports. For this reason, my language is more abstract and on principles that on specific examples; cautionary flags rather than calls to arms.

I think in the year 2009 with the internet and labour mobility as it is, one will react with due cause at overt attempts to undermine our Constitutional privileges. In plainer terms, we all want a fair shot in life and demand that government not corrupt the playing field anyone than history and economics already has. The outrage in this credit crisis stems in large part with a government handing out billions of tax payer dollars to the very people whose corruption brought the system down in the first place. This outrage comes from that same sense of ethics and morality that I think people have when they see corruptions at our chance to live happy and productive lives.

So rather than cite specific examples (nothing in front of time, no time to write a paper on this), I will respond by way of my opinions and thoughts.

1. the LDS church membership changed access to jobs.

Abstracting away from the LDS, anytime there is insufficient separation of church and state or groups of considerable influence materially affecting processes that are supposed to be for all of the people, I believe all Americans should be concerned.

We see this with the issue of eminent domain, where a couple of rich guys with power and $$ to influence local councils, get the city to condemn the houses of good citizens. An evil and corruption of our rights as Americans. So I joined Castle Coalition: Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse.

We see this in the area where Mr. Jeffers used to operate (I canot recall, but it was a network investigative report). There in Utah, the entire police force and judiciary was FLDS. In a larger community, those involved with the enforcement and administration of the law should recuse themselves sot hat justice remain blind. There in a remote corner of Utah, it was not case.

Another example would be what happened to Antelope Oregon when the Bagwan Rashneesh and his followers came and literally took over the town. Actually, it is this example that is in my head more than not. With sufficient numbers, the entire civil service converts to be the agents for the cult--and through Democratic means! Cults are not stupid. They know this and carve our territorial claims relying on legal means. Hence, the resistance must be ex ante!

2. BYU-Idaho and only hiring LDS. Hmmm...I did not know that. While I do think that private firms should have the right to hire, here are two basic kinds constraints that must be followed. One, they should do so within the letter of the law: from Federal, to State to local laws. For BYU, I am sure this is not an issue, but it might apply to more extreme and kooky/evil organizations. Two, BYU-Idaho should not operate with public monies without explicit consent of taxpayers. If one only hires LDS professors, but then turns around and tries to win public tax breaks & subsidies or public contracts, then the burden should be on BYU to rethink how it wishes to interface with Idaho, not the other way around! The public would then be subsidizing the growth of LDS!! Would they do the same with Islam or Hindu? For many years in this country, they would not have done so for Jews or Catholics.

This is very tricky...for LDS or any other group. The right to allow that should reside with the community. But the community should be made fully aware of the cost-benefit of sliding down that slippery slope. There are reasonable "bands of tolerance" for this kind of activity. But it is probably even easier to see how the separation of Church and State can get corrupted.

On the issue of Church & State, I would probably say my views are not universally shared in NID, although I wish they were. However, were the church Muslim or the church of the Bagwan, I think it is fair to say that a large number would come around to my views, which are after all the views of the Founding Fathers.

The worry is far more obvious were LDS to take over departments of North Idaho College, a public institution, and hire only LDS.


3. if a person isn't LDS it can be difficult to live in Rexburg or Madison County.

So this is the issue. Right now, I would argue that it is not difficult for anyone to live in SP or most of Kootenai County. LDS are welcome here as are those of other faiths or alternative beliefs. But since we are relatively small, especially certain towns, it is not too difficult to see how parts of the town can get gobbled up.

That the church in question is LDS or FLDS is really beside the point. If a group is sees it as their mission to blur the lines between Church and State and as a way of spreading their faith beyond the homes in which people make peace with their God and/or beliefs, then I think those that self-identify as rational thinkers or secular humanists or are from faiths that see the importance of separation in a pluralistic society should prepare to meet any challenges.

Again, from the POV of a given LDS family, one should feel completely welcomed here. However, as to a Church Policy architect seeking to take over towns, I personally would hope that the message sent is one in which we affirm our pluralism and freedoms and one in which the incoming Church feels compelled to integrate into Sandpoint rather than vice versa.

I am being excessively thorough in this response since the wording of your post clearly suggests there might have been some ambiguity. It may take a few reads of the post to sink in, but I hope that my principles have remained consistent.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Perhaps, what I should start to do, so you'll understand my ultimate point here, should you (or Sage) have confusion, is when people write questions about Aryan Nations etc. in NID, I should post that I don't live in or have close family members in the area, thus I don't feel qualified to give the most updated information. I've been contacted by several people via DM and asked why I stay out of the discussions about NID. Maybe that would be a good idea so those who have depended upon my observations/recommendations in the past, and have been confused of why I don't post about NID would understand. I could end that confusion with a simple post.

Thanks in advance for your clarification. Also thanks for any updates about this situation. Even though I haven't kept up, doesn't mean I don't remember and want to know more.

First, it is a free world, you have every right to post about NID. The gap between perceptions and reality can lead to very fruitful discussions.

When I post in other forums on topics I know less about I plant myself as observer rather than expert or as an outsider seeking the inside scoop. And I try hard to refrain from stereotypical judgments based on second hand info--not always successful. It requires a change in wording, sometimes subtle, to avoid crossing the line.

Let me close by dis-spelling any notion of being anti-LDS. I am not. In fact, those LDS that I do know actually bring me closer to wanting to know more about their approach to life. Fortunately, they are open with me. I would be saddened were my friends to apply religious litmus tests as conditions for our friendship.


SP today is, in my opinion, extremely free and respectful of one's privacy. It is a served by a government which does a pretty solid job of balancing disparate perspectives. However, there is no guarantee that it will remain this way. As with any kind of freedom, it is up to us, the citizenry, to preserve and protect. The constant need for vigilance and personal growth & enlightenment is not always something people care to address...far easier to be set in one's ways.

But we do so, the reward to ourselves is a community that can enable the immigrating LDS family to feel as good about their SP/NID as the Catholic, the Methodist, the Buddhist, the Muslim, and the atheist.

S.
P.S. Sage's question above is the one we must all consider. It is at the root of my long responses above.

[Mtn. States Resident]

Thanks for you very thoughtful response, S. I appreciate you taking the time.

You are correct, I will read your response a few times as I think we're not connecting somewhere.

We do agree about so many key freedoms and how cults can destroy them.

A few things I must address at this time, having read your carefully word post just once.

" So I cannot claim to know the sentiments about NID beyond the circle of people I know." I must not have communicate very well, so let me try again.

I meant how often and by what means have you updated yourself regarding the percentage of the SE Idaho popoulation being active LDS residents who feel oppressed? My question was NOT about NID, it was about SE Idaho.

"The OP was about an extreme group of LDS with a proven track record of "cultural imperialism," intolerance, and rather hard-to-swallow views on polygamy and pre-teen brides."

FLDS are NOT an extreme group of LDS. They are a splinter group which separated from the Mormon church. I might be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct of who the person was, if my memory fails me. Wasn't it Martin Luther that split off from a dominant religion and created his own? In no way am I suggesting Lutherans and FLDS are at all similar.

What I'm getting at is just because someone once belonged to a church, but broke away from it, are they not a member of a new church instead of their former church? FLDS are not LDS! indeed IMHO, FLDS has become a dangerous cult where children are sexually violated, forced into marriages and other illegal acts. Thus my earlier posts a few pages ago and about 5 months ago, given my direct knowledge working with the St. George (Washington County, UT) crowd, plus others located in different areas of UT.

You don't need to convince me what can happen, I can tell you exactly how a county or any public services are depleted with the FLDS. While I was a visiting guest working, those with whom I worked explained it clearly to me. It was quite obvious anyway.

"Gosh, I would hope that my writings do not suggest that such a quote would be mine."

I quoted from your OP.

"I think the context is very important. From what I understand (which I amdit is little), there are pockets of SE Idaho that are dominated by LDS beyond faith but in terms of civil servants, judges, etc. My opinion is that any such domination, especially if the populations are rather zealous, is likely to presence situations where freedom and justice may be comprised."

I totally agree with you, S. That is why I asked when, where and your observence of the events -or other sources of your knowledge to formulate your stated opinion in the OP.

"Again, the OP was about the FLDS takeover of tiny border communities in NID and Canada. My post was not about religious tolerance toward a given LDS family, but one of preserving freedoms in the face of waves of people with a vastly different idea of church & state. This tolerance was exactly what the early LDS did not experience in its early years, right? "

Agree about the subject of OP. Also you did write your view of southeastern ID being oppressed by a religion for the reasons you stated. Given that you and I both share concerns for cults and how they can destroy or create a great risk to an area, is it safe for me to believe you would have the same opinion of the southeast ID, if it were Catholics, for example, instead of LDS as the majority religion in certain towns/cities? I certainly know Catholics who feel more than oppressed from their religion and Parochial School days. Or, am I confused about how you feel if Catholics were the most represented faith in southeastern ID in earlier decades, or even today?

To the best of my knowledge, which isn't the most thorough of all who post on this forum, I believe it was Pres. Lincoln who allowed murder of LDS traveling westward. More than a tad ironic, from my POV. So yes, the lack of tolerance in any state was what encouraged LDS members westward to settle an area where they could worship their beliefs freely. The same principle as the wonderfully brave people who came to America and fought for our Indepence from England and Royalty, if I recall correctly. I know the persecution of LDS occurred for decades, so others who became President also allowed persecution and denied freedoms to those who trecked westward to Utah as LDS members.

Where I think I'm a little confused, is with your statement about why you'd rather not live in SE ID, which is totally your right and I respect your rights. You and everyone who can, should live where they are the most comfortable. However, I'm not sure that some active LDS wouldn't feel a bit of intolerance from your words even in 2009, with no specific information as to exact details of where, when, the population of the area etc. that created the opinion you wrote about SE Idaho.

"That the church in question is LDS or FLDS is really beside the point."

I respectfully disagree, as did others early in the thread, such as norcalmom. LDS is not FLDS. Would it be fair to say Catholics and Baptists are the same? Because there is a greater difference in how those two religious views abbreviate their church names, being one letter off regarding the FLDS cult and what illegal, immoral and sickening acts occur in that cult, vs. the LDS church, which does not allow any members who practice those beliefs continued membership. They are formally terminated from the LDS church.

I think being very careful to make sure either the names of each church could be totally written out to avoid confusion, or at least Fundamentalist could be written, or total accuracy in the abbreviations is precisely the point. One is a church who does not allow illegal activites, without termination, while the cult not only allows those who break the laws, rape young children (have you read about the male victims yet? It's not just girls, but because girls were forced to marry, the focus mostly has been on girls, IMHO and personal observation) to remain not only active members in good standing, in some situations, there is "advancement," so to speak and better housing or income opportunities given to certain male members of the FLDS. I can't think of anyone I know, who is LDS, being re-assigned a housing unit based on following teachings.

Since the cult teachings and how the compound functions was the point of the OP, I really don't see the need to continue to write about the LDS. Or perhaps what I should say is that would be a different option to clarify your point that you are not worried about members of a church vs. a cult. I share the same concern as you, perhaps more so, given what I've seen with my own eyes. I'm sickened when I see five or six young women standing in a hall who aren't even 18 years old, and most are holding their first, second or possibly third child. Plus, with the dress code allowed, it is not hard to see practicing FLDS. A few don't follow that dress code and are more mainstream in their dress. I've always wondered how some could do that and others couldn't. My guess, is it had to do with how they earned their income and if they left the compound to earn a living, then a modest, but more mainstream dress code was allowed. But, it's only my guess, so I may be totally off. Good people of many faiths, or without a formal faith exist everywhere. Cults don't function the same way churches do, from my personal observation/experience having worked with some of those who belonged to FLDS in Hilldale/Colorado City.

"2. BYU-Idaho and only hiring LDS. Hmmm...I did not know that. While I do think that private firms should have the right to hire, here are two basic kinds constraints that must be followed. One, they should do so within the letter of the law: from Federal, to State to local laws. For BYU, I am sure this is not an issue, but it might apply to more extreme and kooky/evil organizations. Two, BYU-Idaho should not operate with public monies without explicit consent of taxpayers. If one only hires LDS professors, but then turns around and tries to win public tax breaks & subsidies or public contracts, then the burden should be on BYU to rethink how it wishes to interface with Idaho, not the other way around! The public would then be subsidizing the growth of LDS!! Would they do the same with Islam or Hindu? For many years in this country, they would not have done so for Jews or Catholics."

My final point for now, please check BYU-Idaho. This is the link to their main webpage: www.byui.edu BYU-Idaho does follow the policies you mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, just as Northwest Nazare and any other privately funded institutions must. I'm not aware that BYU-Idaho has asked for tax breaks or anything else from public funding. If you have an example, please share. As that is not how President Kim Clark, who left his Harvard Business School Faculty position (I thought he was the Dean of Harvard Business School, but I could easily be wrong about that) when asked to be the President of BYU-Idaho planned for the school to function. All the massive expansions, new buildings are all paid for with private funds. BYU-Utah, and BYU-Hawaii operate under the same private status, so I think the LDS Higher education system is quite aware of what is legal or not, especially given the high ranking of the J. Rueben Clark Law School in Provo.

And no, my main point was not about Rexburg or Madison County now. Certainly, it should be added to the discussion as people do ask where to live if they don't want to be in a town I think most say is about 90% LDS, given the large student population and tremendous growth when BYU-Idaho became a four year instution. I would welcome being corrected if someone knows the exact percentage of LDS residents vs. non- LDS residents in Madison County now.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, and I'm not sure what words to utilize that hopefully don't feel disrespectful to you. However, I must try to address my main question to you yet another way. It appears you have limited knowledge of BYU-Idaho in 2009. I know at least approximate ratios of LDS to non-LDS in the larger cities in SE ID.

My question to you, was when did you formulate your opinion about SE Idaho and the composition of the percentage of residents who lived in various towns, that were or were not LDS, historically? I believe you wrote you haven't kept up with the LDS faith much, so I'm a bit more confused of when you came to the conclusions you wrote in your OP. Again, let's just say it were people who belonged to the Catholic faith, as it doesn't matter for my question. When, and how did you formulate your views? Did you live in SE Idaho and see it 20 years ago, in a town of perhaps 1,000 people? Did you read about it and didn't know perhaps the size of the town and percentages of various religions etc.? Did you hear stories from some who may have moved to NID and their expierences or other?

Just think of my questions and how you would answer them of how you have knowledge of Catholics living in SE Idaho, as that is a large population as well. Since the core issue of this thread is about the FLDS Cult, again the LDS name and what you originally wrote in the OP, send a different message to more people than me. I printed your OP out and showed a few people yesterday who were both LDS and non-LDS. They had no problem seeing what I was commenting about from your OP as your personval view. Again, no argument from me we are all entitled to our personal view. I'm just asking how yours got formulated about SE Idaho to write what you did.

As I stated earlier, you are aboslutely entitled to your view, as is everyone else. I found it was more than just me who read those words as not exactly feeling warm about LDS members. And people do get very tired, who are LDS, being equated to practicing cult behaviors of FLDS. Perhaps it would be useful for you to print your OP and show it to your active LDS friends to get their feedback. Maybe they, since they know you well, they can better explain my concern/questions than I did.

Thank you for the discussion to this point. I look forward to more as I share so many of your views, Sandpointain. I agree, I like the "we" approach in building a community. And cults should be feared. Honestly, I've vomitted when I heard certain stories and I didn't even see the events happen, only the results. If you look back to my earlier posts, I said I fear there will be a major battle in Washington County, UT, the way the FLDS are stock piling arms. I also wrote I hope I am very, very wrong.

I look forward to additional updates of where we may have a better shared understanding from what I've written in this very long post.

It is useful to have these discussions, from my perspect, when respect for others and their beliefs, concerns, values is given. I hope my comments felt respectful as I meant them that way. I apologize if something I wrote didn't come across that way.

Thank you, S. for your time, effort and thoughts.

MSR

[Sandpointian]

Moderator, can you delete my previous post which was cut off in transmission? Thanks.

Hi MSR,
I began by responding to specific points in your posts. But after a while it became clear why your questions and self-described confusion persists. So let me cut to the chase.

There were three issues in the OP that were naively presented as inherently linked. They are one (a) worries over separation of Church and State, (b) the red flags over FLDS coming into NID, and (c) FLDS being extreme LDS. The example I used was unfortunate in that regardless of its validity, it gave you and perhaps others the perception that FDLS=LDS.

Let me clear the air.

1) On c), your comments on FDLS being an unwanted splinter of LDS and therefore not LDS were well received and duly appreciated. I actually never thought or wrote that they were one in the same but I would admit that the example might have given the wrong impression to some. So from now on, any reference to FLDS will be about FLDS and not about LDS. Fair enough?

2) On b) and a), my concern over FLDS or any self-described Church that operates with such zeal (I will leave the Church vs. Cult question you brought up for another board and for those better suited for religious scholarship) is two fold. One, whether separation of Church and State can be maintained. Two, whether that zeal within with the bounds of the laws, both Constitutionally-guaranteed and consistent with local cultural norms ex ante.
All comments flow from these two points. Hopefully the above is enough to clear the confusion. If not, my comments below should.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

" So I cannot claim to know the sentiments about NID beyond the circle of people I know." I must not have communicate very well, so let me try again.
I meant how often and by what means have you updated yourself regarding the percentage of the SE Idaho popoulation being active LDS residents who feel oppressed? My question was NOT about NID, it was about SE Idaho.

I know next to nothing about SE Idaho other than what I have learned via anecdotes, media reports, some published research, & various posts on blogs.

Any updating is quite random and has been more reactions to published reports than the result of more determined inquiry. So I try to keep my comments in the observation/inquiry/cautionary categories rather than opinion.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

"The OP was about an extreme group of LDS with a proven track record of "cultural imperialism," intolerance, and rather hard-to-swallow views on polygamy and pre-teen brides."

FLDS are NOT an extreme group of LDS. They are a splinter group which separated from the Mormon church. I might be wrong about this, and please feel free to correct of who the person was, if my memory fails me. Wasn't it Martin Luther that split off from a dominant religion and created his own? In no way am I suggesting Lutherans and FLDS are at all similar.

What I'm getting at is just because someone once belonged to a church, but broke away from it, are they not a member of a new church instead of their former church? FLDS are not LDS! indeed IMHO, FLDS has become a dangerous cult where children are sexually violated, forced into marriages and other illegal acts.

On the lack of association of FLDS & LDS...that is very interesting to know. Thank you for the important education. However, there are two important concerns for the outsider with little knowledge of FLDS or LDS. One, FLDS identifies itself as fundamentalist LDS, not me or any interested third party. Two, if FLDS is as you say several times a splinter group, it was born of the LDS, which you state above. So it stands to reason that one’s first impression is not of clear separation. Fair enough?

I will admit that the name overlap is not something I questioned. If the FLDS consider themselves the "true" LDS, then he burden then is on the "mainstream" LDS to disassociate. Has this been done publically beyond the LDS community? You do so personally, but I am curious whether the LDS Church has done so. If it has, then the ball moves back to the court of the public attached with a clear signal that the similarity of the acronym and FLDS comments is simply untrue. If it has not, then the b=public cannot be faulted for forming an impression that the FLDS is a sheep born of the same flock.

I hope so...it often takes a while for the mainstream to cut all ties to the fringe elements & splinter groups. I think in large part due to issues of "dirty laundry" and not wanting to give ammunition to those who have also cast doubts on the mainstream. However, if the signals are NOT sent, then the actions of the splinter will be seen as being condoned by the mainstream.

But again, thanks. I will consider them separate.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

"Gosh, I would hope that my writings do not suggest that such a quote would be mine."
I quoted from your OP.

Actually, you are not placing my comments in proper context. The quote I was referring to in that passage was this
"Well, if everyone is like Sandpointain, LDS are not welcome in NID."

I never stated this nor insinuated anything like this. The total weight of my posts in this thread should make this abundantly clear. As best as I can, I look at the contents of the book, not the cover. But the assertion of the quote is a terribly distorted interpretation that twists a couple of ambiguous points and discounts the reasoning behind the OP and the rather substantive posts that have followed.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Also you did write your view of southeastern ID being oppressed by a religion for the reasons you stated.

I think in CD and in other message boards that one should not try to create from thin air ulterior motives for posts. I did suggest, however clumsily, that any place in which separation of Church and State is at question, is neither appealing to me nor operating on a model attractive for importation into NID. That it community in question is LDS is not material to the principle being argued.

I certainly passed on a view that SE Idaho has some “complexities” regarding clear separation of Church and State. After reading your response, I would like to qualify this to “SE Idaho operates under the prevailing perception that such complexities regarding of Church and State.” Even if my view were in fact correct, I overstated what was essentially opinion and hearsay, something I will try to avoid in future posts.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Given that you and I both share concerns for cults and how they can destroy or create a great risk to an area, is it safe for me to believe you would have the same opinion of the southeast ID, if it were Catholics, for example, instead of LDS as the majority religion in certain towns/cities? I certainly know Catholics who feel more than oppressed from their religion and Parochial School days. Or, am I confused about how you feel if Catholics were the most represented faith in southeastern ID in earlier decades, or even today?

As someone raised Catholic, I would imagine that a place that is largely Catholic would provide a level of welcome and familiarity that would be undeniably comfortable to me. However, I would be less comfortable if in the public domain, the Church began to exclude and discriminate against non-Catholics. I would even feel uncomfortable. if local politics began to reflect the will of the Catholic Church rather than the diverse interests of individual Catholics. And for non-Catholics, I would understand perfectly any sense of discomfort and would, much like you, wish to get such people to replace the opinion in the wind with first hand experiences…

Please note that I have no intention of making this discussion about the merits of one Church versus another, nor am I interested in debating organized faiths versus alternative belief systems. Going back to point #2 above, my concern is over separation of Church and State and once that is clear, whether the churches or cults that do exists can do so within the boundaries of the Constitution and of civil society. Furthermore, I al also concerned, from a point of personal preference, that incoming faiths can be absorbed into the social fabric of NID in a way that enhances rather than detracts from the community ethos into which they come. And once again, this would apply to all faiths.

If you can, please try and abstract away from the LDS example. My intention was not to put LDS on trial. There are only a few phrases amidst hundreds that have LDS as the central focal point of my posts. And those contained no slight against LDS as a faith only a cautionary note against the possibility of Church-State separation issues.

Point blank, if we separate Church and State, we have the best chance of ensuring access and rights in a pluralistic society. I have had many Muslim students who are just fantastic people. Would I live next to practicing Muslims? Absolutely. But would I prefer to live under an Islamic government? Absolutely not.

As far as oppression from schooling, that is a wholly separate issue. I will leave that to another thread since that reflects a contract between willing parents and their Church rather than edicts that all people are forced to swallow. Forced religious instruction was the single greatest reason why Europeans migrated to the New World in the 17th and early 18th centuries. I prefer the world following the American Enlightenment to countries out there where the lack religious freedom will oppress or worse. No thanks. But a separate debate.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Where I think I'm a little confused, is with your statement about why you'd rather not live in SE ID, which is totally your right and I respect your rights. You and everyone who can, should live where they are the most comfortable. However, I'm not sure that some active LDS wouldn't feel a bit of intolerance from your words even in 2009, with no specific information as to exact details of where, when, the population of the area etc. that created the opinion you wrote about SE Idaho.

This is a perception built from years of comments, posts, and published media accounts. This is no defense. And you and any LDS should challenge me. I naively passed on a prevailing sentiment as my own. Culpa mea. If I ever come across any such accounts in the future I will carefully document them.

You know, please allow me to qualify a statement.
"...I would rather that we avoid the the complexities found in the SE corner of the state, where LDS membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination..."

I was not as precise as I should have been . Please change this to...

"...I would rather that we avoid the complexities found in those pockets, where specific Church membership or lack thereof, regardless of religion, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination..."

Were the comments on LDS control in SE Idaho something that one can empirically verify, then I think that there would be cause for concern for anyone that is non-LDS to live in any such area. Fair enough? Why? Then the issue of separation of Church & State would be at issue. Furthermore, I think in ANY area of great concentration of ANY given Church, the issue immediately raises questions.

This is not saying "Do not move to SE Idaho." Not at all. If I meant that I would have said so directly. But if it there are voiced concerns on the web or in media reports, then I think it would something that should most definitely be something to examine more carefully. At the same time, if perception is reality, then it would be hard to argue why a non-LDS would not at least ask some of the questions raised.

This then brings us to my presumption that such complexities do exist in SE Idaho. I back away from that assertion, regardless of validity, that since I do not have enough direct experience to make or insinuate any such claims. That said, many others have, which then piques my interest. But in the spirit of full accountability that you are holding me to, I would like to state for the record that I am not certain about such allegations only that such allegations have been made and made on numerous occasions and in such a way that raised red flags in me.

If you accept my qualification and modified quote, the question that is raised and must be asked since I am now extremely curious is the following: in areas with heavy LDS concentration, do non-LDS believe there is complete separation of Church and State? I do not know that answer and would be extremely curious to know as I would for any place in which there is such concentrated religious domination. I would be terribly interested to hear answers on this question from both LDS and non-LDS in SE Idaho. It is asked innocently and scientifically, with open mind and heart. Fair enough?

Although the original post was based on published comments, I should have qualified them since I have no direct experience. And I apologize for any anxiety this might have created and thank your persistence.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

"That the church in question is LDS or FLDS is really beside the point."

[b]I respectfully disagree, as did others early in the thread, such as norcalmom. LDS is not FLDS. Would it be fair to say Catholics and Baptists are the same? Because there is a greater difference in how those two religious views abbreviate their church names, being one letter off regarding the FLDS cult and what illegal, immoral and sickening acts occur in that cult, vs. the LDS church, which does not allow any members who practice those beliefs continued membership. They are formally terminated from the LDS church.

The back-and-forth with norcalmom was a whole another ball of wax…one I care not to revisit…and one in which she wished felt religion was not part of the discussion (her focus being only on the criminality), while my focus was on establishing separation of Church vs. State first and only then having the “luxury” to address criminality with sufficiently blind justice second.

But to your contention. I guess I too must respectfully disagree.

But let’s hold on a sec and go back to the original quote and context
3. if a person isn't LDS it can be difficult to live in Rexburg or Madison County.
So this is the issue. Right now, I would argue that it is not difficult for anyone to live in SP or most of Kootenai County. LDS are welcome here as are those of other faiths or alternative beliefs. But since we are relatively small, especially certain towns, it is not too difficult to see how parts of the town can get gobbled up…by anyone, religious, corporate, etc.
That the church in question is LDS or FLDS really is beside the point—at the least the point I am interested in. If any group is sees it as their mission to blur the lines between Church and State and has a way of spreading their faith beyond the homes such that people’s ability to make peace with their God and/or beliefs, then there is a cause for concern and questions should and must be asked. I also think those who self-identify as rational thinkers or secular humanists or are from faiths that see the importance of separation in a pluralistic society should be prepared for the complexities the lack of separation might bring.

For me in my OP, the most pressing issue is separation of Church and State. For once this is ensured, we can then look at the specific activities of a given Church or splinter Church. Without separation, there far less little vested interested for civil servants who are Church to uphold interests that might conflict with that of the Church. Not “no” interest, but less interest.

If you doubt this, then consider the case of the Northern Ireland. There was absolutely no effective separation of Church and State. Numerous splinter groups operated. Without separation, the mainstream Catholics and Protestants could not crack down on splinter groups for fear of weakening the cause against the otherside. Also, any such efforts, often met with death and banishment from social circles for being a traitor of sorts.

To tackle this issue, we must first abstract away from the specifics of a given Church, hence my quote. If we do not we will get tangled up in details of a given Church and one of its splinters and will miss the greater point.

My take on this is not FLDS versus LDS but first Church versus State and second whether the specific group in question, the FLDS, are acting in accordance with the law.
So yes, for my purposes, FLDS versus LDS is beside the point that I am interested in and the reason for the thread.

By abstracting to #1) Church vs. State and #2) criminality/tolerance, I avoid the infinitely messy discussion you bring up with Catholics vs. Baptists, etc. No thanks. The point is not to compare them to one another nor to compare the idea of a Church vs. Cult, but to compare each to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and on a personal level, to the social norms that I currently enjoy in NID. If Churches or groups operate in a way that does not infringe upon by rights as a citizen nor undermines the quality of life I enjoy in SP, then quite frankly I am personally not interested, for the purposes of this discussion, of comparing the merits of different religions. For once I make religious domination a litmus test for friendship, I rob myself and my own family of a huge number of great people out there who I am fortunate to call friend and without whom life would be less interesting.

The other point in the paragraph you bring up is one of name. The FLDS self-identifies as F-LDS. If they are in fact a splinter that purports to be the true LDS, then it stands to reason that interested third parties, like me, will be very interested in what the mainstream LDS church says or does not say. Unfortunately for you, assuming now that you are LDS, this is a burden that is thrust upon you. It is not fair perhaps, but it is in your best interest and in that of the LDS church to clearly signal that FLDS having nothing to do with FLDS. You did this in this series of posts in which I have learned a lot.

And given the education you are giving me on FLDS versus LDS, I will make sure that I do not in future writings mix the two. This point though is different from the question of Church and State.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I think being very careful to make sure either the names of each church could be totally written out to avoid confusion, or at least Fundamentalist could be written, or total accuracy in the abbreviations is precisely the point. One is a church who does not allow illegal activites, without termination, while the cult not only allows those who break the laws, rape young children (have you read about the male victims yet? It's not just girls, but because girls were forced to marry, the focus mostly has been on girls, IMHO and personal observation) to remain not only active members in good standing, in some situations, there is "advancement," so to speak and better housing or income opportunities given to certain male members of the FLDS. I can't think of anyone I know, who is LDS, being re-assigned a housing unit based on following teachings.

Your points are extremely well noted and appreciated. But note that unfortunately, it is LDS that must shoulder the burden of establishing distance between itself and any splinter group, especially one that makes the claims that it does and claims that were certainly part of the mainstream in years past. I hope you agree to that assignment of the burden. For a think the “rational man” would probably have done as I have assumed 999/1000 times that FLDS is an extreme form of LDS or at least a church that shares teachings.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Since the cult teachings and how the compound functions was the point of the OP, I really don't see the need to continue to write about the LDS. Or perhaps what I should say is that would be a different option to clarify your point that you are not worried about members of a church vs. a cult. I share the same concern as you, perhaps more so, given what I've seen with my own eyes. I'm sickened when I see five or six young women standing in a hall who aren't even 18 years old, and most are holding their first, second or possibly third child. Plus, with the dress code allowed, it is not hard to see practicing FLDS. A few don't follow that dress code and are more mainstream in their dress. I've always wondered how some could do that and others couldn't. My guess, is it had to do with how they earned their income and if they left the compound to earn a living, then a modest, but more mainstream dress code was allowed. But, it's only my guess, so I may be totally off. Good people of many faiths, or without a formal faith exist everywhere. Cults don't function the same way churches do, from my personal observation/experience having worked with some of those who belonged to FLDS in Hilldale/Colorado City.

Cult teachings per se were not the really the point of the OP. More so, I was and am concerned if those teachings materially threaten the security of my family and on some psychic level my sense of community. Racial bigots who end up looking like jerks I can handle. Racial bigots who try and infiltrate the police force or who threaten by family’s welfare or that of my friends’, I cannot tolerate.

As for needing “to continue to write about LDS,” hold on a sec! The thread has been silent since early March 2009, until you revived it with a post directed at me. And in my responses since I think I have made it pretty clear that LDS per se was not my concern! So I am not really going on about LDS.

Church vs. Cult? Let's take a step back. My original OP was about FLDS moving into NID. In it, I used the example of LDS in SE Idaho. I was concerned by maintaining pluralism and separation of Church and State. That FLDS is a splinter nor not does not change the concern I have over preserving separation of Church and State in NID. The example of LDS influence in SE Idaho, one that I now admit I would rather have not pushed forward and which may or may not have empirical validity, should not detract from my concern over encroaching FLDS in NID on the question of Church and State.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

[b]My final point for now, please check BYU-Idaho. This is the link to their main webpage: Brigham Young University - Idaho BYU-Idaho does follow the policies you mentioned, to the best of my knowledge, just as Northwest Nazare and any other privately funded institutions must. I'm not aware that BYU-Idaho has asked for tax breaks or anything else from public funding. If you have an example, please share. As that is not how President Kim Clark, who left his Harvard Business School Faculty position (I thought he was the Dean of Harvard Business School, but I could easily be wrong about that) when asked to be the President of BYU-Idaho planned for the school to function. All the massive expansions, new buildings are all paid for with private funds. BYU-Utah, and BYU-Hawaii operate under the same private status, so I think the LDS Higher education system is quite aware of what is legal or not, especially given the high ranking of the J. Rueben Clark Law School in Provo. ]

All good info. However, I think the differences we have is that I am trained to immediately raise the red flag when religious institutions have taken on a degree of size and influence and ask questions until I am satisfied. Whereas, by the comments above, I think your default is to give the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Half Empty vs. Ms. Half Full.

In my profession, I am paid to be a skeptic and to ask questions. If I did not, my work and the pursuit of truth would have suffered. If you go by what banks and regulators said about the state of our financial system in early 2007, we would be $15 trillion richer as a country. The burden of proof is on every single religious institution, not on the person asking questions.

Universities, are a different and quite complex animal. You brought up BYU and so I responded. Much of the work done by LDS or Catholic or Baptist. Etc. universities can have universal application to the general public. At the same time, questions can be and should be raised as to separation of Church and State.

Imagine if BYU were a Muslim university or a Gay University‼ Wow, that would be interesting, no? And please note that I bring up Islam not to criticize it nor to compare it to LDS, but to evoke reactions that arise only via its name and via illustrations. Please do not read more into it than that. THe point is we should absolutely ask where our tax dollars go and whether any institution has undue influence on our pursuit of happinness

But I do not want to get dragged into seven different discussions in one. Suffice to say that if Mormon universities in NID were formed and they became the single biggest source of employment and tax revenue in town, non-LDS should be rightfully concerned as to their Constitutional rights and privileges. The same goes for if the schools were Catholic, Evangelical Christian, etc.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

And no, my main point was not about Rexburg or Madison County now. Certainly, it should be added to the discussion as people do ask where to live if they don't want to be in a town I think most say is about 90% LDS, given the large student population and tremendous growth when BYU-Idaho became a four year instution. I would welcome being corrected if someone knows the exact percentage of LDS residents vs. non- LDS residents in Madison County now.

The questions at hand are: in a town that is 90% X religion, can a person of beliefs in Y or none at all have the ability to receive full access to the benefits for which he pays taxes? Can a person receive fair treatment under the Constitution on due process? Will a person be excluded from the ability of forming a community with his neighbors? If the answers are “no” to each, then knowing this, I would caution any friend or family member to think twice about trying to set roots in any such community that excludes based on religion. This goes for X = LDS, Catholic, etc.

I am a Catholic turned transcendental humanist who is politically libertarian and a firm believer in the both the American Enlightenment and in the benefits of a modern pluralistic and diverse society; concerned with our ability to compete globally; and hopeful that we will be able to continue to absorb peoples of many races and creeds . Others have different opinions on some if not all of that self-characterization. That is fine. But…it does not stop us from sharing a pint, letting our kids play together, receive the same courtesies from law enforcement and the judiciary, and from counting one another as friends. I would hope you think the same.

My concerns, borne of perception or cold hard facts, stems from this perspective. If they are perceptions, I raise red flags and try to inquire further. If based on facts, then I will not back down. Here, I was not sufficiently clear enough, but as far as disclosing how I see things and whether I should ask questions, I see no reason to edit my statements, as I think I have been as honest as I can possibly be. I have no agenda.

Those from LDS or other backgrounds are perfectly consistent with my world. More often than not, the question has been whether I or my friends are acceptable in their world. Here I reiterate the point of Sage that with any religion that attempts to separate itself out as exceptional or chosen, diversity and acceptability cannot be taken for granted. For this reason, my questions and posts are focused on the individual and those choices not on a huge debate over religious principles for which I am most definitely under-qualified.

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

My question to you, was when did you formulate your opinion about SE Idaho and the composition of the percentage of residents who lived in various towns, that were or were not LDS, historically? I believe you wrote you haven't kept up with the LDS faith much, so I'm a bit more confused of when you came to the conclusions you wrote in your OP. Again, let's just say it were people who belonged to the Catholic faith, as it doesn't matter for my question. When, and how did you formulate your views? Did you live in SE Idaho and see it 20 years ago, in a town of perhaps 1,000 people? Did you read about it and didn't know perhaps the size of the town and percentages of various religions etc.? Did you hear stories from some who may have moved to NID and their expierences or other? .

I think I answered this already, but I’ll be crystal clear
1) My question to you, was when did you formulate your opinion about SE Idaho and the composition of the percentage of residents who lived in various towns, that were or were not LDS, historically?
a. My opinions have been compiled over the past 5-7 years, quite randomly and haphazardly, more or less mentally collecting anecdotes and the personal experiences of others and all without much zeal or determination. Trust me, I have no axe to grind.
b. % ? Geez, I am not a social demographer...and not unless I am paid for being one! I am just a citizen of NID with less free time than might be indicted by these posts! However, if I see any such report I would read it with gusto!

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

Just think of my questions and how you would answer them of how you have knowledge of Catholics living in SE Idaho, as that is a large population as well. Since the core issue of this thread is about the FLDS Cult, again the LDS name and what you originally wrote in the OP, send a different message to more people than me. I printed your OP out and showed a few people yesterday who were both LDS and non-LDS. They had no problem seeing what I was commenting about from your OP as your personval view. Again, no argument from me we are all entitled to our personal view. I'm just asking how yours got formulated about SE Idaho to write what you did.

I think my answers elsewhere in the past three posts are sufficient to give you are crystal clear picture of the issues that were of concern to me.

The only line in the OP that had anything to do with LDS was this one
[i] “I would rather that we avoid the the complexities found in the SE corner of the state, where LDS membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination.” [\I]
And really it is not that unreasonable a statement give numerous writings questioning separation of Church and State in high LDS concentrated communities. A google search produces a number of books and writings on this.

That said, I freely admit I was wrong not to qualify this as a perception and formed by second-hand comments and hearsay, regardless of how widespread. I still feell perfectly within my rights to raise a flag of caution as to the unattractiveness to non-members of places in which “membership or lack thereof, has undue influence over community acceptance, access to jobs, etc. to the point of institutionalised discrimination.” However, I should know better than to imply that perceptions are facts…even if they are. That goes for Catholic, LDS, etc. That goes for SE Idaho, Hawaii, NY, etc—if such conditions exist. Fair enough?

Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident

I found it was more than just me who read those words as not exactly feeling warm about LDS members. And people do get very tired, who are LDS, being equated to practicing cult behaviors of FLDS. Perhaps it would be useful for you to print your OP and show it to your active LDS friends to get their feedback. Maybe they, since they know you well, they can better explain my concern/questions than I did.

Believe me, I am grateful to receive such a useful education on the subject. But please understand that 999/1000 outsiders would probably have the same gut reaction to the acronym and like me would look for a clear signal from the LDS Church that splinter groups are not splinters but complete distortions of the religion.
I would imagine that the same fatigue applies to Islam. But to be perfectly honest, the issue at hand is whether the mainstream can side with the third parties against the splinters. Muslim countries have done this only with moderate success since it is both in their religion and cultures to side with Muslims, however lost, than with Christians, Jews, etc. Those that openly side with the other side frequently meet with exclusion or worse. It takes courage and commitment to shared principles.

While this discussion has been a personal training session on LDS-FLDS and the need for me to choose words and examples with exceptional care, the average joe out there has few such opportunities. The burden then must lie with the LDS to not only make announcements as to the separation of LDS-FLDS but to take an active role in its suppression. Note, I am not saying they are not, but that to third parties, such actions are needed to overcome perceptions.
But these final comments are an aside to the discussion we have had.

I would like to think that the conversation has been useful to others, not only in what I have learned but also in the questions we must always ask when one group/Church/cult has such great concentration in areas. I look forward to gaining answers to those questions. And I hope that we never lose the motivation to ask these questions for vigilance of this sort is the best approach in ensuring freedoms that we far too often take for granted.
S.
P.S. Please accept this as my final words on this topic. But don;t let that stop the answering of my questions nor of any splinter threads that lead to other discussions!

[Mtn. States Resident]

Thanks for your response S. I do agree with many of the points you clarified and have a better understanding of your concerns.

I apologize for not being clear enough as never was it my goal to compare churches. I was trying to ask for your clarification using a different church, just so my comment was clear. Indeed, you've shown me a better way by writing church X, so I don't confuse others that my goal is to compare churches. NOT IN THE LEAST! I'm neither interested or qualified.

Although I haven't stated it in this thread, I'm not a big Google fan, given all the components of how that so called "search" engine works. Google likes to promote the idea of the most hits will be what is shown. They fail to tell of their 5 point ranking system and those who pay for the 5 (highest) fees guide traffic their way. I don't rely upon Google for objective information, based on prior experiences in academic research and daily practice.

I prefer search engines that actually research the questions, such as ask.com and others. From ask. com, let me post these links as to how many years ago the LDS Church separated itself from the F-LDS.

From the link:

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[1][2] and one of United States' largest practitioners of plural marriage.[3] The FLDS Church emerged in the early twentieth century when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church's renunciation of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate practitioners of plural marriage."

Even their first paragraph is not accurate. Mormons are LDS. FLDS are NOT one of the largest denominations of Mormons. It appears Wikipedia needs some updates.

A couple of other sources of clarification as indeed the LDS Church has clarified repeatedly they are NOT FLDS.

Differences Between the FLDS Pol

At least since the 1920s or 1930s, LDS have clarified the differences between the LDS beliefs and FLDS beliefs, as you can read in this paragraph:


"Perhaps these dissimilarities are why some observers deny that there are any true Mormon fundamentalists. Anthropologist Janet Bennion, neither a Latter-day Saint nor a Mormon fundamentalist, lived for a time in a fundamentalist community in Montana where plural marriage and a united order were practiced. After her experience, she observed: “Fundamentalism refers to the Mormon schism groups that emerged during the 1920s and 1930s after the second manifesto from the mainstream Mormon church declaring plural marriage sinful. Although it parallels them upon many occasions, it does not"

Differences Between the FLDS Pol

"(LDS) Church President Gordon B. Hinckley emphasized during a 1998 television interview on Larry King Live: “They have no connection with us whatever. They don’t belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.”

Although there have been many articles and televised broadcasts earlier, this documents that in 1998, Larry King's audience was told the difference. That is 11 years ago, and not the first time.

There are so many articles and references of how the LDS Church has differentiated itself from the FLDS. These were just quick ones I could find, using NON-Google search engines. I'm limited in time.

I'll think more about your question if a private university (as it doesn't have to be affiliated with a church) is the largest employer in a county, pays its taxes, contributes what it does to the local economy, if that is separation of church and state. IN may be a good place to research as I don't know how local residents see Notre Dame and St. Mary's (I think that is the name, but might be wrong) in the church vs. state issue. Similar, TCU or the privately owned colleges in TX, would contribute economically by paying taxes, purchasing from local merchants and providing employment for those who lived locally.

Still, the best exampl for comparison to BYU-Idaho, might be Northwest Nazarene.

Finally, I'd strongly encourage you not to assume anything, espcially what you wrote about me, "Unfortunately for you, assuming now that you are LDS, this is a burden that is thrust upon you."

Certainly, you are free to think whatever you wish. I have clarified I did contract work in UT and indeed one of my degrees is from the University of Utah. I've posted in a different forum on CD that I'm a proud U. of U Alum when the U. beat the Crimson Tide (Alabama) in the Bowl Game, to remain the only non-defeated football team from 2008-2009. One does not have to be LDS to attend the U. of Utah, or agree to some contract work with the state of UT. Because someone has knowledge about a subject, from my POV, I fail to see how documented work knowledge (my earlier posts) makes it safe or accurate to assume other things about me. Actually, when we've both worked to provide better clarity, I feel like that is sliding backwards.

Certainly you've declared your own Catholic faith. Please show me where I said anything about what faith I belong to, or if I even belong to a church.

Thanks again for your response, S. I will continue to watch this thread for updates about the FLDS in NID, and research them myself, plus ask those who will know far more than myself.

MSR