Khlysty

[RedOctober]

Bump...and...

I find in interesting a certain individual can not answer a specific question about verifiable evidence with a specific answer. So drowns the answer in the middle of a lengthily post and dances around stating that there is no direct evidence while at the same time stating so...see quote below:

Quote:To conclude, I have never met anyone yet who denies that it would be good if we could obtain the "interview transcripts" of Mel'nikov, together with his travel itinerary showing where he traveled to in order to obtain the historical information that he did about Rudometkin and his Khlysty forefathers. I think this would be excellent.

The mumbo jumbo translation is....There is no direct evidence linking MGR to the Khlysty. Only a historians conjecture and a loopy ex-molokan wishing to feel self important.

The next paragraph is also very comical, I really wish I had more time to expose the nonsense of the statements from this individual, but he obviously has a lot of time on his hands and I have many responsibilities outside the internet world.

Quote:At the same time, if there were any evidence available to document and prove that the man simply "made it up", as pure fiction, this too would be excellent.

So basically he is saying either acknowledge what he says as 100% fact or believe he made it all up....trying to "force" a person into a decision between the two extremes, while ignoring that perhaps its somewhere in the middle. Such as Melnikov heard that the Khlysts practiced a sort of dance during their services and then heard about some Molokans doing something similar and just concluded (without investigating) they were the same. So no, he didn't make it up, but assumed an erroneous correlation that could have been verified...but didn't....and its not too uncommon for historians to make such mistakes when they have deadlines, limited resources, etc. and is a minor subject in the overall context.

And he also goes on a tirade (sounding desperate) how Melnikov was a recognized researcher (and he was) and how he advocated first hand research. Well, I would hope so! But nowhere does it say Melnikov actually did the research and no transcripts, notes, etc were provided in either appendix or bibliography form. So there is a question as to the legitimacy of his conclusions on Khlysty and correlating them to Molokans. And a researchers work should never be considered "gospel", time brings out new information, studies, etc. that either can affirm, change or denounce the researchers findings. Such as this little bit of information from the Moscow State Regional University:

Quote:As a writer, Melnikov based his research about the Khlysts on oral communications without checking their reliability. One can forgive a writer for using of unchecked information, but as long as Melnikov was a researcher and an official of special orders, he should have chosen his sources of information more carefully. Unfortunately, he made the same error when writing Otchet o sostoyanii raskola v Nizhegorodskoy gubernii [The Report on the Condition of the Schism in the Nizhniy Novgorod Province], for the Home Office. This certainly reduces the quality of his work considerably

And it never ceases to amaze me....some still fall for this snake oil salesman who makes lots of grandiose claims with questionable material, when the plausible reality is staring right at them, contrary to the wild claims and rather dull (perhaps thats part of it..no drama). But then again, some actually believe the fable of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree as historical fact and Adam Smith stated "laissiez faire" as the best economic policy. Maybe I should tell them about this bridge I got for sale....

[RedOctober]

While I'm waiting for a huge data pull....

When a person decides to leave the Molokans....they are well within their right to do so...afterall, it is their life. But how they "leave" is often the more interesting. Some simply just go and live their lives.

But yet for a small bitter segment, they can't seem to quite let go. There are endless things to debate, such as;

-Food Laws
-Trinity Doctrine
-Language
-Prophesy
-etc.

...and invariably they do tackle some of these, albeit rarely. But one they always love to zero in on and seems to be a huge crutch for them, is the history. The irony on that is, the fact there is little they can prove with concrete documentation.

Since its impossible in their own minds to accept and believe that Molokans actually base their faith on Christ, they apparently have assumed if they can trash the history via a third party, that will somehow trump first hand written accounts (albeit written by Molokans).

Thus one can conclude that they erroneously think that the Molokans are based predominately on its history, destroy that and they will have an enormous number of converts. Of course, most Molokans know full well that most of its history is undocumented and much of it passed down orally. And the few written first hand documents include as such, the Essay in the S&L, Diary of Phillip M. Shubin, Interview with Vera Shinen, etc. But none the less, they are more reliable than a small chapter of whole books written by writers with either no formal training or a historian or two who didn't even make the trip to the exiled areas or make the effort to interview anyone imprisoned.

When Molokans state "hold on to what you have", naturally it includes the heritage, but thats the minor point, the major is the holding on to the Faith and not compromise it for another. Those who base their faith alone in history are doomed to failure. Hence when they state they did not base their faith in Christ while they were a Molokan...I believe them. But for them to falsely assume everyone is just like them on this error, is delusional.

Question is now that they have left, is their faith based on Christ? Or on faith they are not Molokan?

[RedOctober]

Putting the web page put together by AJ in PDF version. That way it can be downloaded, sent, etc. See Attached.

One other aspect I didn't touch yesterday on this, attacking the history may give the small segment that leave with bitterness some sort self legitimacy. On the religious topics, such as the Trinity Doctrine, the arguments can continue endlessly. In the end, one can accept what scripture directly says (Christ is the Son of God, not co-equal, etc.) or accept the decree of a political council (Jesus is God, co-equal, etc.). Perhaps knowing that arguments can be made against the theology of their new found religion and arguments for the one they have decided to reject, makes the decision too difficult. So an additional layer if you will, is needed to make the break complete. However, the fact they continue to return to derision of Molokan and Khlysty history also suggests, they need continued reinforcement. Anyway...nuff of my ramblings.

[Guest]

Actually, we still exist.