Yes, I'd like to hear about Khlysty, the sect Rasputin is said to have belonged to. I remember reading in an Encyclopaedia Britannica article about 30 years ago-so it's not entirely clear in my memory-that the sect believed that if a person had not sinned, he could not be redeemed, therefore one had to go out and intentionally sin, spend a few weeks of vodka binge drinking and have a big long fling with hookers for a while, and only then could one be redeemed.
@@keithhardy1784 I would almost agree with their sentiments! A drunk or sexual addiction can be very humbling to have to try to get over - if it wasn't for the fact that pride, vanity, gossip, and hatred are already quite enough sins for most people to deal with!
I'm Doukhobor, always glad to see some folks interested in the culture and religeon. I encourge you to seek out Doukhobors to speak to in person, it's an oral tradition and as such many of our stories are still mostly passed down from father to son, mother to daughter, etc...
@@DoukhoborV Gave your channel a look and there are some interesting things. Perhaps we could exchange a story or two, I am from the group who left to Canada and our history is very different.
I've not heard of this group before, but they sound interesting, especially with their (seemingly) having some similar beliefs to Quakers! Certainly a group for me to look further into, ta!
That's what occured to me as well, the resemblance to Quakers. Particularly their views of church, rituals, and God. I would be curious to know of their origins, if they were influenced by the Quaker or Anabaptist movement. Another possibility is that they were influenced by the religious upheavals of the Old Believers split during the Nikonian reforms in the 17th century. Either way, they are considered a "sect" in Russia, one of many small groups that practice Christianity not according to the Orthodox Church, and that aren't exactly Protestant in their beliefs. Incidentally, Leo Tolstoy was a Quaker, albeit of an idiosyncratic sort. His persecution from the Russian government lead him to leave Russia in the "philosopher's ship" in the early 20th century.
Thank you for this, I met a young man bartending in Castlegar, BC who identified as a Doukhobor, and I was very pleased to see this addition to your channel as a great overview of their history and spiritual beliefs!
I grew up in the Canadian prairies and I'd love to learn the difference between Hutterites and Mennonites - they're both still active there. I see Hutterites at my local Tims all the time, I remember there were supreme court cases about photo ID.
Hello, fellow Doukhobor here. This information is accurate and well presented, but remember not all doukhobors follow these exact beliefs today. I for one, follow most but not all but still consider myself Doukhobor. Thanks for sharing
It is interesting that the Doukobours don't believe that the Bible is the word of God. It leads to their rejection of all the other things you mentioned such as the Resurrection or the Virgin birth. It's easy to see why they Russian Orthodox Church rejected them.
They were a part of what is called Spiritual Christianity, a diverse set of dissidents from Russian Orthodoxy in the 19th century, the most famous groups being Dukhobors, Molokans, Skoptsy, Khlysts, and Tolstoyans. They all rejected the need for church buildings, church rules, dogmas, priests, liturgies, rituals, etc, insisting that people should be Christians "in spirit", unconnected to a specific location or outward rite etc, appealing to John 4:20-23, hence the general name.
Yeah, smaller and sometimes way weirder. Khlysts practiced trance dancing in circles, (like some Chechen Sufi Muslims do today, as in that famous clip where they run in circles), chanting of the Jesus prayer, practiced self-flagellation, and "spreaking in tongues"; and Skoptsy men and women would cut off their penis and breasts respectively. Molokans were split into a typical group and a group which focused on miracles and "speaking in tongues". It's interesting that they influenced the development of Pentecostalism, there were Molokans in USA in the famous Azusa Street Revival.
@@RepublicofE Not quite, they also had groups which were very similar to mainstream Orthodoxy but with minor differences as well. Given time they would have developed more Protestant style groups of their own, but real Protestantism came in from the west.
I used to live in Grand Forks and plan to go back at some point with my boyfriend. I was looking for a video to describe who the Doukhobour actually are that wasn't too dense and this did it perfectly! Obviously you can't cover every aspect of a people in under 10 minutes but this did a good job of explaining them in a neutral way. Thank you so much!
Hutterites are not as "out there" as Doukhobors. They're more conventional except they put their salvation in their "traditions" (works) and lifestyle (works). Members who've been redeemed/born again are persecuted until they leave the colony. There is no tolerance for anyone with the experience and message of being given a new heart.
I'm a doukhobor. We celebrate our heritage culturally but not religiously. We have our traditions but most of them deal with funerals. This is a good video for explaining us on paper but that's only a little sliver of what we are like culturally. Only a small portion of us are religious now.
I am a Doukhobor, and in basics we were the Russian version of American 'hicks' and were a mountain people. When ww1 came they told Russians to fight but the Douks were pacifists and threw all the guns they were given into a pile and made a bonfire of them. (There is this painting in some Douk households). The Russians then gave them the option to either leave the country, or be executed, so they left as a spiritual people to Canada (which is where I live). We were also excommunicated from the Orthodox church. Since our arrival we were prominent in either 4 or 5 towns in my area but, mainly in the town I live in. It was mainly Doukhobor back in the day, they built up the town I live in and ran most of the industry that created it. But modernism and Immigration, plus marrying non-Russians has resulted in us being a very overlooked story now. (Not saying that's a bad thing, it was bound to happen. I come from one of the most loved families and still hold property that has been Douk for over 100 years. Even in my town there are two graveyards, one where -only- Doukhobors can be buried, and the other is for anyone else. We don't like war, we go against it, but we still drink and fight at parties because in the end we are Russian. If you're ever In the BC area, you're welcome to come meet me and my баба, and we'll feed you and tell you our tale. Sorry, just felt like I had to comment, as I'm an actual Doukhobor.
My mom was a Doukhobor. Grew up in Grand Forks. Dad may have been a Doukhobor but never said such. Hailed from Kamsack, Saskatchewan. Grandma came over in 1905 and Dad was born in 1910. Something else must have been going on before WW1 to persecute the Doukhobors to chase them out of Russia. Anyway, I still have relatives in GF and surrounding towns (Thrums, Kelowna). My cousin has a 5 acre vineyard on the west end of the valley, if he hasn't moved on to other interests. Mom was a Zibin but they are all gone to my knowledge. I know all about the alcohol flowing freely. I've had discussions about the faith with relatives who are more diehard Doukhobors. My uncle was one of the Sons of Freedom (marched in the nude and everything) at one time. His daughter was one of the singers in the choir. The anti-war idealism is what drove Mom to start looking into other faiths, as Doukhoborism just wasn't to be found nearby in CA. When JW's came to the door, explaining that they, too, would not get involved in taking up arms, that was it for her. But they completely believe in the Bible. To believe in Jesus' teachings and reject the Bible (the source of Jesus teachings) has always baffled me. But I'm still proud of being a 'mountain man' or a 'man of the woods or forest' as I understand modern Russian has the derogatory term for hicks, which, too, is derogatory. If I'm ever in BC visiting relatives again, I would like to stop in and visit you and your baba. My traveling days are probably numbered, as, right now, walking has become temporarily very difficult for me. But your recap intrigued me and thank you for your observations on the Doukhobor culture.
@@johnkrigin1535 I live in GF brother! I am related to the Sons as well, specifically the ones who blew the bridge up HAHA. I probably know your family who lives in this town, my family was married into the English so I don't have an 'off' last name but I come from the Areshenkoff's. I hope to meet you and your relatives, I always love fellow Douk's.
At@@ryooke9581 At 7:36 in the RU-vid video 'The Doukhobors and Sons of Freedom', the guy on the right was an uncle or a dead ringer for him. His name was Pereversoff. His wife, my blood aunt, was the sweetest woman. Mind you, I don't profess to be of the Doukhobors, but I think all of my older relatives were of that stock. In GF, there were, as I said, Zibins, Pereversoffs, Subotins, Astoforoffs, (Grandma's maiden name), Zmaeffs (Dad's mother's maiden name and not in GF) et al. I used to love coming to GF when I was a kid, and I've been up there a few times as an adult. It's not a top priority, but if something drags me up there, as I said before, I'd love to come and make your acquaintance. Till then, wish the best for you.
In what way were they gnostic? That word is used in many ways, to mean one likeness with the gnostics, and others, another likeness. They wouldn't be gnostic because they didn't believe in organized religion, if they believed in a serious faith in Jesus, according to the gospel. These guys didn't believe in the Bible and they didn't believe the gospel. I'm not sure that this should rightly be defined as gnostic. I hate the way that actual, gnostic doctrines were smuggled into Christian doctrines in some ways, all the more reason to go by the Bible alone, and not by the doctrines cobbled together by man. But for that reason, I'm called gnostic by some; that, and not believing that the bread and wine are the _literal_ body and blood of Christ, but a very sacred symbol, and not believing in infant baptism, or baptismal regeneration. I don't see how that could honestly be called either "gnostic" or "antichrist", but there you go.
@@lindajohnson4204 The rejection of the literal Christ in the flesh and a literal resurrection of the body while still claiming to be Bible based are born extremely Gnostic and that’s just scratching the surface.
@@lindajohnson4204 There are no new heresies, only new variants of them. Every heresy had already emerged and given officially defined characteristics within the first 500-700 years of Christian history.
My babushka's parents were of Doukhobour origin, she moved from Saskatchewan to BC. Does anybody know if the Doukhobours are related to the "Old Believers" in Russia?
They seem to have followed a similar path to some other groups which were originally quite strict in Christian morality while abandoning some parts of traditional ritual, in that when the initial fire of Christian Zeal died the organisation did too. Only those groups that retained their religious zeal have been able to exist distinct from wider society and modern morality, see the Amish, the Christedelphians, Jehovah's wittneses, Mormons and the like.
And how do you get a bunch of people to believe this new "thing"? Usually it springs from one person who had a vision or a visitation from a "spiritual being" that lends some credence to this new message. The common trait among the strange "belief systems" is .... the Bible was corrupted. Or in this case it just can't be believed.
Probably similar to how the various Protestant denominations emerged from Catholicism or how the deism of many of the Founding Fathers emerged from English Protestant traditions
In the historical context a lot of these are popping up during the 18th and 19th century. Peter's the 1st reforms followed by his daughters and the empresses did a lot of damage to the church in Russia. And immensely hurt the leadership and they did a lot of things to crush a lot of the mysticism and spirituality of the Russian church. Thankfully they weren't able to squash at all and even with the corruption and it's being an appendage of the state it was going through somewhat of a revival in the 18th 19th century still a lot of bad leadership though. The irony is similar with the catholics when they were under some of their worst popes. It gave some of the major stains to orthodox church spiritual side of the church was strong elders were popping up left and right. Showing even if the leadership is failing the Holy Spirit never abandons her church. The best way I would consider these elders is think of saint Francis. Except there more of hermits and not a lot of weird body thing going on over there more of the spiritual flame and seeing the uncreated light of God.
@@decimusausoniusmagnus5719 The reason I ask that is because from a western perspective, this is like the equivalent of going from the Catholic Church to something like the quakers without the centuries of the Protestant revolt against the church in between.
They aren't actually that obscure. Some of their protest antics are actually quite notorious. He barely touched on their nudism/naturism aspects or their use of arson as protest for example. It was good to hear more about their beliefs.
A neighbor and part of our Anglican (ACNA) parish grew up in northern Canada. Her parents were from Russia and they were part of a Doukhobor community. She said that it was when she attended another church (Anglican) as a teenager is where she made a commitment to Christian faith. The Doukhobors sound somewhat like other separatist groups in their social outlook and even some more progressive branches of the Mennonites with regard to orthodox Christian faith. She now sees herself as a witness to her extended family.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 Are they a high-control-group? If not, then calling them a cult is little more than the religious equivalent of a schoolyard taunt. Far more accurate to simply state that you dislike them or profoundly disagree with their theological outlook.
@@thursoberwick1948 Facts and logic don’t support your position. Study the historicity of the New Testament. Linguists that do this sort of thing have determined we know what the original texts of the New Testament said with a 99+% rate of accuracy. So the corrupted argument isn’t valid. You don’t have to believe my understanding of the New Testament but you cannot reasonably argue the text I use isn’t correct. The missing text argument doesn’t hold up for a number of reasons. For there to be missing texts that dispute these fundamental understandings of Jesus they would have to contradict the texts we currently accept as the canon of the New Testament. The foundational teachings of the Church Fathers, that generation just after Jesus that learned under Jesus’s Disciples and Paul helped us determine the accepted books of the New Testament. And they didn’t teach any dispute about the divinity of Christ and Virginity of Mary.
You have no knowledge of or relationship with Jesus apart from the written and preached Word of God and the means of grace (sacraments) he has provided. You can mistakenly reject some of the above and still be a Christian, for example the Lord's Supper or the literal account of Genesis. But once you reject all of it in favor of some claimed relationship with the God of Christianity completely independent of the means God has provided Christians to know him, then at that point we can safely say you aren't a Christian. It's for that reason that I don't consider most Quakers to be Christians, and why it was obvious that this Russian group are not Christians even before their christological heresies were covered.
@@democraticpatriot2657 Truth requires judgement and thought. We partake in the search for it and experience of it. That old question pilate asked Christ, "What is truth?". Edit - of course truth may hit us like a collision like Paul on the road to Damascus too but that seems more rare.
The Doukhobors were the late 19th century version of the liberalized New Age "Christian" church. Who thought a bunch of Russian peasants would be decades ahead of their time?
The Sons of Freedom Doukhobors made the headlines in Saskatchewan back in the 50s/60s, when they always seemed to be protesting something. (I don't know what) Their favourite protest was to have their women strip naked and stand around a bonfire. Not a pretty site, but it certainly attracted the media and they got their pictures in the paper. Simma Holt, a journalist, wrote a book, "Terror in the Name of God"
Well, I never heard of them: but it is good to hear they are declining considering that they don't hold to really any of Christianity's essential beliefs.
@@thursoberwick1948 Christianity is more then trusting the state or otherwise. They are not Christians and thus we should not look to them for theological matters, even if they get a bit done better on the political side (which I don't since I don't seem to fully agree with their bit of politics that I see)
@@christianwalton7080 Russian Orthodoxy has been strongly Caesaropapist traditionally, and remains so to some extent to this day. It's an issue just now, in fact, with people asking how independent Kirill is of VP. That's what they were essentially reacting against.
Yes, they are Christians. Nothing about their beliefs contradicts anything fundamental to Christianity . Their beliefs about the nature of salvation could simply be due to different emphasis- emphasizing human will and effort is common in Eastern Christianity.
You're pronouncing Verigin wrong. And really missed the mark. I was raised Doukhobor and encourage people to speak to a Doukhobor, not listen to some white woke version of history.
If you reject the word of God you are lost! You have no basis for truth and no basis for worship No basis for sound theology or doctrine or practice. Where do they get the idea of protesting in the nude please help me with that?
From demonic deception. Its not from God and that leaves only one option. Usually these groups start with an influential leader who had "spiritual encounter" who gave instructions that are contrary to God's Scriptures.
The Gospel: Plain and Simple “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3 Ask someone today if they are saved and you will most likely hear responses like these: “I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what the gospel is and has left a devastating effect of people not knowing what it is that they are saved from nor how they are saved; which leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation. Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church sounding phrases that do not communicate anything. But rather present God’s word with clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel: plain and simple. Sin was passed upon all men by one man Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin (Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good works one might do we are still found sinners in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even one law we are found guilty. It is for this reason of not being able to create our own righteousness and being born in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus 3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross 2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial, and resurrection on our behalf that we are able to have peace with God and forgiveness of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good news is unto all but only those that believe in it are made righteous in Christ (Romans 3:22). It is then after we have heard this good news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit and we are now part of Christ’s body the church (Eph 1:13) There is nothing that we need to do, no good works that are required, and no bad works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39). Faith and belief in this information from God’s word is the gospel. The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your heart. The gospel is not making him lord of your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not being baptized with water. So next time someone asks you if you are saved. Give them the clear assured answer “Yes! And let me tell you why! Find more free resources at www.graceambassadors.com
