The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    12210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    191

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. Sorry. I wasn't suggesting Secondhand Lions was and Angel Studios movie. I can see how that came across though. I was just using another example of a studio that has made movies that aren't crude but are also quality entertainment.
  2. Give me Angel Studios over Daily Wire 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.
  3. Is it also ironic that that tends to be how I feel about your complaining about conservatives complaining. "There goes LDSGator again, complaining about conservatives, thinking he's all holier than them as he does exactly the same thing."
  4. It's called long-suffering and it's a virtue! Seriously...are you suggesting complacency and apathy for the sake of peace of mind would be better? Like...really? Is that what you're trying to imply. People who hope for godliness, cleanliness, righteousness, and peace on earth should just give up because it's depressing and exhausting and they can't ever win? You're the one who's phrasing it as "complaining" and applying the cynical tone to what's being discusses. I don't consider it "complaining" to state that I wish Lady Ballers wasn't so crude. I admit it can be looked at that way. But I don't really think it's legitimate to call any criticism (from the right or the left) "complaining". I mean isn't your statement that the right are never satisfied and trying to make themselves feel noble really just you complaining about the right? Would that really be a fair way for me to look at it? Someone can't even state they have a preference one thing over another without it being considered complaining? I mean it's really just shutting down debate. Any time anyone says "I don't care for _________________" you're going to accuse them of just being whiney complainers and virtue signaling to look noble? Do you really think that's all Just A Guy was doing? But anyhow... I'm sorry...certain things DESERVE to be complained about. You may be desensitized to the poop they smear on the burgers you eat, but I think complaining about poop being smeared on my burger is fully justified. It really comes across like you're response is, "Everyone likes poop on their burgers. You complaining about it makes you look pathetic. We gave you a burger without cyanide in it like you asked? Is nothing good enough for you?! Now shut up and eat the poop burger!" No thanks. I don't want poop on my burger. And I'm gonna complain about it.
  5. I think I'll stop complaining when the Savior returns.
  6. It might be your (our) age, but.... the kind of comedy this is emulating has always been one that I despise. Crude juvenile humor has never appealed to me, personally, even when I was juvenile.
  7. One of the things I dislike about the Daily Wire's approach (based on statements they've made) is that they don't see anything wrong with language, sex, violence, and the like. I think they'd love to make a Game of Thrones hit or the like. And they are completely oblivious to the fact that doing so is not going to help re-moralize or save the country's culture. Whereas I think making fun of what they're making fun of here is theoretically great, I agree whole-heartedly with @Just_A_Guy. Yes...it's extremely difficult to make good solid entertaining entertainment that doesn't include that sort of garbage. That doesn't mean it isn't doable. Heck, Disney did it for decades. It's hard, but it's doable. And, yes, I understand there are shades of grey and it's really hard to find that balance in entertainment. As it's often pointed out, a legitimate Book of Mormon or Bible movie would probably end up being R-rated. But crude humor about women with "the biggest ____ I've ever seen" is clearly not in that gray area of what sort of entertainment is morally uplifting and useful to bring people back from the grasp of Satan within which our culture is caught. Yep. The "right" as you put it, will lose the culture war because they aren't the left. That is correct. I love that the Daily Wire is trying to win back the culture. But they will not succeed. You can't bring an evil culture back from being evil by giving them a different kind of evil.
  8. But God is not. The plain scripture I mention is not the words of Satan. It is the words of God. "And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying... ...Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1, 3) There can be no question that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Unless one wants to argue that God was deceived by a lie.
  9. Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.
  10. I know we're joking around a bit.... but..... This sort of response (if used seriously, as it sometimes is) is the kind of dismissiveness that's a real problem... not in that it's dismissive, but in that it's calling something a fact without proof or even evidence that it might be a fact. I'm not arguing here, btw, just using what you said as an example to my point. You said people who say "facts don't care about your feelings" think they're right 100% of the time. But you provide no evidence. Can there be evidence? How can you, or anyone, possibly know what people think? It's just your assumption based on what seems to be a bit of bias. Then you follow that by jokingly suggesting that what you said may be a fact. (I know you're being humorously snarky...but just go with it here for the point....). Fine, right. Maybe. Sure. Maybe. But it really strikes me that therein lies the potential problem. When we assume things without evidence are factual because of how we feel ----- well by golly that's half the point of the saying. We really ought to stop "feeling" what we think is factual and use actual evidence or statistics to inform our views instead of just our "sense of the matter" (how we feel about it). As to the specific comment at hand... take Ben Shapiro, for example (after all, he's the one famous for the saying in question). Does Ben Shapiro think he's right 100% of the time? Obviously it would be easy to assume he does. He speaks as if he's that confident. His mannerisms and attitudes imply it might be true. But.... "First, let me point out that I’ve made mistakes and said dumb stuff. When this is pointed out, I’m more than happy to admit it, " - Ben Shapiro https://www.dailywire.com/news/so-heres-giant-list-all-dumb-stuff-ive-ever-done-ben-shapiro Of course this sort of thing is still only evidence. I wouldn't consider it "factual" that Ben Shapiro doesn't believe he's right 100% of the time. He may be providing nothing but lip service. It is, however, factual that he said he's made mistakes. And whether someone "feels" he's never admitted such...well he has. That's a fact.
  11. This strikes me as your bias bleeding into your view on the matter.
  12. I agree that it is often dismissive. That doesn't make it wrong, meaningless, or useless. In point of fact, it's an extremely meaningful idea that actually matters a great deal. It's unfortunate that it is often used dismissively. (Though I'd argue that it's taken dismissively more than it's used that way.) It's also often misrepresented to be saying "feelings don't matter". But it doesn't actually mean or say that. I said it in a jokingly way, but the actual fact is that facts don't care about feelings. That's an obvious truth, but one that's denied by a lot of the world. Denying truth because of feelings is a serious problem in our society. I can understand that the saying itself has become a dismissive weapon. But to take the idea behind it, the actual meaning of the saying, and disregard it because of that isn't a good idea.
  13. Not really. Facts don't care about your feelings is a fact. You're making the case that facts don't care about feelings. A true statement is true no matter how some people use it. It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.
  14. Really? So if you just feel strongly enough that you can fly like Superman then the facts of gravity have no application in reality?
  15. Well I'm not sure how I can be more clear than I've been. So I guess we'll leave it at that. As for my being "wound up" and "snarky": As is common, I'm really significantly less emotional than I'm probably coming across. So I apologize for that. And I apologize for my other phrasing that was insensitive as well. I'm not that wound up, more just mildly huffed. But I'm clearly "in a mood". So I apologize for that and will try and do better.
  16. Of course asserting we should follow the examples and counsel of our priesthood leaders isn't a bad thing. Are you really oblivious to the fact that correlating it to certain innocuous behavior is likely to offend? That's the wide-eyed faux innocence's I'm talking about. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting that if they drink soda they're not following the prophet. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting if they don't homeschool their children their not true Christians. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by implying that any true followers of Christ will be clean shaven. OBVIOUSLY we should follow the prophet. That's not the concept that offends. And assuming or pretending like it is is a deflection. If someone is asked to shave by a priesthood leader then clearly they should shave. I'm am clean shaven currently. Why? Because I'm a temple worker and they asked me to shave. I have no issues with doing as we are asked to do. I have an issue with the idea that allowing others to believe that we HAVE been asked to do things that we have NOT been asked to do is a good idea. The problem is the reverse. There are those who may never get around to the challenge of giving up coffee or alcohol because they won't investigate the church because they NEEDLESSLY believe that "Mormons" look down on anyone with facial hair and can't drink Coca-Cola. It's the needless part I take issue with. And I don't think we should be driving potential investigators away needlessly. We have litmus tests to pass. Let them be the tests they're meant to be and not otherwise shut doors that should be open. And, frankly, I find the attitude that we can just write off anyone who doesn't take a look at the church because they believe things like we have to be clean shaven seriously problematic. I don't have any issue with someone coming to the conclusion that they need to be clean shaven to follow the prophet. I do have an issue with preaching to others that if they don't shave they aren't following the prophet, and even more so preaching to non-members that all faithful Latter-day Saints abstain from soda and shave.
  17. When you suggest that all the good and faithful brethren in the church, my father-in-law, my neighbors, my friends, and oft times me, are not following the prophet because we have facial hair, and are essentially the same as those who are drinking alcohol and coffee, and then virtue blink in feigned wide-eyed innocence like it's not meant to be offensive or antagonistic...sorry....it doesn't play. It's rude and it's wrong.
  18. Give me a freaking break. You should know exactly what I'm saying. Are you trying to be antagonistic?
  19. The implication that "Mormons" don't wear beards wasn't very accurate. Brock didn't seem to catch that he was thinking that meant for all Latter-day Saints rather than just BYU and/or leadership like roles. Things like that can be problematic. Thinking that if you join the church you can't wear a beard anymore is going to drive some away. A minor complaint though.
  20. Thanks. I'm an okay singer. I'm a decent producer, so I can make myself sound even better than I am. Everything is relative though. What I would give to get some really, legitimately GREAT singers to sing for me though. Maybe someday.
  21. I have before. But... https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCrAik2zq2hrmBY0M6jrGMrQ
  22. Interesting. I didn't consider this forum when I stated I'd never been "censored". I was only thinking Facebook, Youtube, etc. I have actually had a post or two edited or removed in the past here, now that I think of it. Dang it @pam!!! You think that because I help program a client and inventory management system for someone that I'm worthy of an expert opinion status on internet censorship? Thanks!! I'll take it!
  23. I'm a web developer for my day job. If I could just get some fans for my YouTube channel then maybe I could monetize things and do it for a living. But... yeah. I have no idea how to build an audience.