The Folk Prophet

Meaning...it's Disney's fault.

I was going to respond to this point by point (as your opener seemed somewhat conciliatory...) ...but once again... followed by nothing but strawmen arguments. You're not going to be easy to convince because you have predetermined what's in the hearts of your brethren and refuse to consider otherwise. No one can rationally converse with that sort of irrationality. Thanks for the conversation thus far. But I'm out.

This is an interesting post and I have a lot of thoughts, which I'll get to eventually. My overall thought though is that there is risk here, as in many things, of looking beyond the mark. All of us have the same mark. That mark is the Savior. That should be the center of our approach to any issues. Our roles in the kingdom are worth consideration. But at the core of those roles is the primary role we all have... to take on the name of the Savior and know Him. Worrying too much about other things can, as I said, amount to looking beyond the mark.

That's my mantra!

I think it should be clarified that this doesn't mean that Just_A_Guy is suggesting you "move on" from the marriage or the relationship. That's a determination that's between you, her, and God. Just moving on from the past to the future and doing as best you can to be as Christlike as you can, regardless of others choices and actions.

It's actually hilarious to me how much High School social stuff matters to High Schoolers and to now understand how little it matters in reality.

Remember the time John Wick John Wicked Wicked's Wicked Witch of the West?

Understood. But... I thought they handled it really well and it was intriguing and engaging. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'd make some level of effort here to try and explain the difference between making covenants and keeping them vs. supporting governmental authoritarism... but I'm sort of under the impression that you can't or won't follow. But... I believe I have covenanted to mourn with those who mourn, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so forth and that I will stand accountable for that someday if I do not. I do NOT believe I have the right to force others to mourn with those who mourn, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so forth. Do you believe you have the right to force me to do such? In point of fact, forcing others to be obedient is one interpretation of what Satan's plan was. (Though, personally, I don't think Satan's plan was simply "force". In fact, I think that's a naive view of what Satan's plan probably ways...but I digress...) Making moral choices and standing accountable for what choices you make is at the core of the gospel. Supporting government to force morality does not align with any gospel principles I know of. Can you understand the difference? By what consequences? If you didn't give to the United Order, what was the consequence? (We could get into the difference on local vs Federal government responsibilities, and how "Conservatives" view that...but I don't suspect it would resonate with you.) So you believe that Brigham Young used the force of government to take money from people without their consent, in the same way taxes work, or they would go to jail? Because if your idea of Brigham Young's "enforcement" of "social welfare" is other than that then you're comparing apples and oranges and calling them both citrus. Moreover, you've got some other flawed logical fallacies in the comparison. Would you have us believe the Brigham Young's local governance was perfect and a perfect example of exactly how things should be done at the Federal level in our day and age? Do we have to take every single governing choice Brigham Young made as gospel truth? Do you? Or are you just using what Brigham Young did as a "gotcha" arguing point? Your cynicism of Latter-day Saint conservatives is consistent. I'll give you that. But you're not applying it to both sides. You're defending leftists and lambasting conservatives. I'm somewhat shocked at the hypocrisy in this comment. And yet you're blind to the fact that that's exactly what you've been doing? I don't have a problem with arguing Conservatism is evil or arguing Liberalism is evil or implying those who follow one or the other are blind to this or that or etc. I do have a problem when someone calls other people wicked for calling other people wicked. I don't, honestly, even care if you think I'm wicked. I do have a problem when the reasons you're saying I'm wicked are strawmen. And I especially have a problem with that when you're concurrently accusing me of strawman reasoning for thinking others are wicked. It's like you're yelling at us to stop yelling. Cussing at us to, "Watch your blankity-blank mouths!" Or punching us to teach us not to punch. And to add insult to injury, many of us aren't yelling, cussing, or punching. It's like when I tell my son a bit strictly, but calmy, "You need to put that down like mommy asked." And he starts crying, runs to mommy, and complains, "Daddy yelled at me." I'd point out the remove-the-mote-from-your-own-eye type ideals...but at the risk of the same hypocrisy myself. I have no delusions I am no sinner and you are. But I am, likely, already guilty of the same hypocrisy I'm accusing you of. Just, you know...stop wickedly telling me I'm wicked for wickedly telling others they're wicked, and I'll stop wickedly telling you you're wicked for wickedly telling me I'm wicked for wickedly telling others they're wicked, etc.... Sheesh.

JohnsonJones: Conservatives make absolutely dishonest statements about liberals and don't understand what and how they think. also: JohnsonJones: Conservative Latter-day Saints on this forum hate liberals, hate me, are more interested in worshipping Trump than Jesus, and don't care about the poor and needy. 😕 This is a pretty flawed point to try and make. I don't believe it's true -- because the claims your are making against conservatives here are mostly strawmen. How can we convince you of anything when your problems are built of facades? Obviously some of the things conservatives in this forum say are inconsiderate, rude, unkind, and flawed. Just like the things you often post are inconsiderate, rude, unkind, and flawed. Because we're all flawed mortals who say inconsiderate, rude, unkind, and flawed things, no matter our political views. But somehow that's translated to you that conservatives here worship Trump and despise anyone they don't agree with politically. But if we point out that your commentary can easily be views as despising those you don't agree with politically, you respond with something like, "I don't despise anyone here." Which you expect us to just accept. Fair enough. ...but then refuse to accept the same of us. Not fair. Yeah...easy to convince... I don't think so. Putting aside that "conservative Latter-day Saints" isn't exactly a "niche"...depending on how one defines "niche"...but putting that aside... You're kind of stereo-typing everyone. Are you really under the impression we all engage in this forum for the same reason? I, myself, started engaging because the prophets asked us to. It was an effort at obedience. I had no interest in feeling good about myself (other than feeling like I was following the prophets' and apostles' counsel and being obedient). I'm flawed, so I can't claim I've never felt self-satisfaction at piling on to someone with whom I disagreed...but I also learned from that, have made significant changes to the way I communicate, and participate far less than I used to because I'm so bad at that. I still do it sometimes. I try to fix it when I do. Because I'm interested in following the prophets, following Christ, being obedient, showing love for my fellow man, and avoiding contention. And yet, apparently, you've taken it upon yourself to tell me I'm not worshipping Jesus and hate my fellow man because I'm conservative politically. Thanks? And you think calling us weird, Trump worshippers, false followers of Jesus, and accusing us of hating others is the best form of defense? I can't speak for anyone else here...so I'll only respond for myself. You call me a "Conservative". I'm not. I'm not a Republican (though I tend to vote that way), I'm not a Conservative (though my political ideals tend to line up that way). I'm a a disciple of Jesus Christ. The things Trump does that I am supportive of, or the things that are part of the "Conservative" or "Republican" parties that I support, I support because they align with my understanding of Christ's gospel and the government ideals that I believe were given by God to the founding fathers and are taught in the Book of Mormon and by many of our prophets and apostles through the years. The things Trump or Conservatives do that I am not supportive of, I do not support because it does not align with those things, per my best understanding. I am a Christ-first thinker, contrary to your accusations. And I find it particularly and EXTREMELY offensive to be told I'm not following or worshipping Christ because I agree with and like a lot of what Trump is doing. And I would dare guess my approach to politics (while not completely or exactly the same), and the resultant offense I take from your accusations, is probably broadly representative of most conservatives on this forum. I don't care if you are for socialism, higher taxes, bigger government, or anything of the sort. You may be. You may not be. You may be just playing devils advocate for things. That's your business. I may disagree with you on what you actually think or not. And that's okay. But please stop telling me (even by implication) I'm worshipping Trump instead of Christ. Stop saying that true followers of Christ would be Democrats because their ideals align with Christ's better. It's not true. But moreover -- it's incredibly rude.

There's that chip on your shoulder showing again.

Does someone feel sheepishly stupid now? No...no they do not. Okay...they do.

I'd say I should check those out then...but I actually kind of dislike bringing those insecurities back up. I'm SO not that person any more. And being reminded of it isn't very pleasant. But I'll have to check those out. Is DEH short for something or is that just what the name is?

You must not have been a pathetic loser in high school. I relate, pretty well, to making stupid decisions as a teenager for whatever reason. Don't most teenagers? Some do it for rebellion, some for thrills, and some for insecurity. But teenagers make dumb decisions. Would it have been a more satisfying moving if he'd...I dunno...gone to jail for it? Or ended up killing himself in misery because he'd messed everything up? Or a hundred-thousand dollar debt to repay the funds raised? (That one could work rather well, actually. Hmm.) He wasn't really the fund-raiser though. It was that girl. Yes, he was culpable in the fraud, for sure...but it was her idea to raise the money. But I digress....not relevant to the point you're making. I'm not sure what no true negative consequences means in this case though. He lost the girl and her family. Societally he become despised instead of just invisible. All faith and trust in him was entirely lost by everyone but his mother. That's not true negative consequences? I can definitely see showing that backlash more and really making it miserable for him because of his actions. But... I actually wanted more of a redemption arc for him, including a potentially bright future that was more than just "because we made the music feel hopeful in the end". He gets fined a hundred grand and has no hope for college now...but then in the end he writes up an essay on the whole matter, including how he's developed a better understanding and respect for his mother's love and sacrifices, and ends up signing a book deal or getting a scholarship or....whatever (not necessarily those things. Just spitballing. But...something.) Something that fixes things after he repents. That would have been more satisfying to me. I think it should have had a stronger implication that he might get the girl in the end after all...and I think her family should have reached out to him again as well with understanding and love. I can see a balance there. Stronger consequences, but stronger redemption and hope. I'm not sure the lack of those things means loathing is valid though. Not that I begrudge you loathing it. Taste and perception is personal. So I'm not saying any of this to try and convince you or imply you're wrong. Just sharing my view.

This doesn't seem like an important question for you to have an answer for. It seems like, entirely, the wrong way to come at the issue. What difference does a yes or no answer make? It's a letter of the law question that should have no bearing on your choices moving forward. If, technically, you determined kissing IS breaking the law of chastity would it change your choices vs determining it ISN'T? Seems to me that the underlying problem remains the same regardless of that answer.