The Folk Prophet

Available on CD now: https://www.amazon.com/Alma-Amulek-Charles-Dail-Nielson/dp/B084DGQ58M/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=alma+%26+amulek&qid=1581008833&sr=8-2 Or for MP3 purchase: https://www.amazon.com/Amulek-Complete-Musical-Concept-Recording/dp/B083GCRG4S/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=alma+%26+amulek&qid=1581008833&sr=8-1 Though it's free to listen to through Spotify and the like with ads, etc.

Thought some of you might find some interest in this. https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/charlesdailnielson/alma--amulek-the-complete-musical-concept-recording

Dear friends whom with I have now long associated, It is with regret that I have made the difficult decision to abandon this forum. There are a variety of reasons I've made this decision but the primary one is that the More Good Foundation and the progressive, false, mistaken lean of so many of their articles has made me more and more uncomfortable. I am, indeed, deeply uncomfortable with some of them and have considered leaving before accordingly. Deeply, deeply uncomfortable. I have to follow my conscience. I do love the association and the discussion when it is doesn't turn nasty. The times it does turn nasty is the other reason I've made this decision. I've backed way off on my involvement from years past partially because of the nastiness. But part of that, I knew, was my fault, and something I had partial control over. The articles I have no control over. I will check my private messages now and again for a few months. If any of you want to stay in touch otherwise then PM me and we can friend on Facebook or something. But I have simply become too uncomfortable in this particular house to continue dwelling here. And, yes, I am writing this in a snit. I don't expect it will do any good, and many, many more would need to join me in the abandonment before it might do any good -- though I suspect that it might not even then. Apparently the More Good Foundation, without change of leadership, is going to continue down this path. I consider that path highly insidious and destructive. There's been hardly a constructive article written in the past few years. That which isn't harmful tends towards trite and shallow. Because it is difficult for me to leave things hanging and not reply, which would defeat the idea of leaving -- I likely won't read or reply to any comments here in this thread. It is, truly, a difficult thing for me to just walk away. But I feel I need to. And all I can do is that which I feel is right. See you on Facebook if you like. Goodbye, Charles P.S. Those of you who weren't my friends and held no charity or kindness for me -- well...I wish you well too. But regret the parting slightly less, if I'm honest. P.P.S. I'll still be at the get-together at Tucanos and look forward to seeing those of you who are attending.

Our baby boy.

Logging in for just a minute to weigh in on this because it's so personal to me and because I don't know who else to vent to. First, @Vort lifts are illegal in all but one or two competitions. So that's really a non issue. Regardless....agreed. Stupid.......etc... So most of you probably don't know this because I haven't mentioned it but I was a ballroom dancer all through highschool and college and have competed in the highest amateur level dance competitions at BYU and other places many, many times. BYU has always held different standards than other competitions, and even the Pros competing for the national championships at BYU have been required to abide by BYU's standards to compete. The primary way this has been seen is in the dress. Ballroom Dance outfits can be very immodest. BYU ballroom competitions do not require the same level of dress that they would on campus, obviously, but they do have standards. The woman's dress, for example, must come down to mid thigh (including slits in the back, etc.). The shoulder straps for the women must be at least an inch thick. The man cannot wear a see-through top. Stuff like that. Additionally there are rules against lewd dance moves that will get you disqualified. Once again, this is still subjective, and what's considered appropriate on the dance floor in competition might be inappropriate in other places. But straight-up grinding and the like or butt grabs or such would get one disqualified for certain. But full body contact is required in certain dances ("Standard" dances such as waltz, foxtrot, etc.). Dips and sexually provocative movement is common in the Latin style. All ballroom dancing is a "sexual" style of dance in that it is created for the sexes to do with one another in roles -- the female and the male. The interplay between the sexes is a part of ballroom. Sex (not the act, but the "gender" difference) is core to it. Even in same-sex dancing, one of the partners must take the role of the female, and one of the male. The dances work that way. Both people cannot lead. Both people cannot move forward at the same time. Both people cannot dip each other simultaneously. Etc. So now we have a serious double standard. A woman who wears a spaghetti shoulder strap gets disqualified because BYU maintains a strict moral code despite the world's views, and yet two guys can wrap their arms around each other, dip and sway, gyrate their hips in synchronicity, place their hand anywhere on each other but "there", and dance cheek to cheek and crotch to crotch with nary a word said? Are you freaking kidding me?! I am absolutely SHOCKED by this decision. What happened to standing for truth and right no matter the consequence? Really? So you can't host the professional national championship anymore? Boo-hoo! Do you stand for God and His truths no matter the consequence or do you cave for the world because of the world?! A friend suggested that maybe BYU was contractually obligated to host until a certain time, and thereby contractually obligated to comply. The article didn't sound like that was the case to me. They might be obligated to follow the rules if they host, but required to continue hosting?? And if they don't, or don't follow the rules, and they get sued, and lose millions...are we really not willing to stand for what's right at any cost? I cannot believe it! I'm honestly stunned. Alright...that's my two cents. I'm out of here again. I probably shouldn't have posted, in that Third Hour is still allowing juvenile progressively offensive articles published on their site, and I'm not going to stick around posting while that's the case. But I do read the threads often. However, this one has been on my mind for the few days since the news broke and really bugging me, so I needed to vent a bit. But I'm done now. Someone should start a thread (unless I missed it) on the banning of gay conversion therapy in Utah too. Less offensive than this, imo, but the way it's being reported and handled, still....maybe worth a discussion. I will note that I'm going to post one other update in a few days or so with some news. But otherwise, don't expect me to actively reply. Edit: One other point I forgot to mention: What about cross-dressing? If two men are dancing together does one of them get to wear a dress? Does that dress have to also come to the man's mid thigh, etc? Can BYU discriminate against men dancing in the women's role in women's clothing, or is that something they're caving on too?

For those of you who asked for the update, we're having a little boy.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/16/ed-smart-elizabeth-smart-father-comes-out-gay-announces-divorce/2027981001/

Shame shame shame shame SHAME on the More Good Foundation for publishing this article. I cannot even begin to express my disappointment. I do believe this may well be the final straw with me. I do not believe I am comfortable being associated to any degree with them any longer. Sister Coppersmith is lying. It is and was nothing but rebellion and pride. She lied to her bishop. She's lying to herself. She's filled with pride and trying to bring others into her pride-based thinking. Those in charge at The More Good Foundation should know better! They should hold their writers to higher standards or truth. Shame on them!

This thread seems designed just to make older people feel guilty. Thanks for nothing.

Technically these two options are not mutually exclusive. One could be suspicious that a kid is making stuff up to get attention and still take them seriously and not ask questions about it actually happening or not.

The scripture plainly says the Father and Son have a body of flesh and bones but the Spirit does not, otherwise He could not dwell within us, and I'm the one with the error in logic? O.......kay. Yeah... Through the Holy Ghost. Yes. But I do very plainly understand the meaning of the words, "were it not so".

I'm not sure how it's unclear. The scriptures teach that the reason the Holy Ghost can dwell in us is because He does not have a body. If that's the scripture truth then it follows that God the Father and Jesus Christ, having bodies, cannot do this, despite whatever knowledge they have. How is this hard to understand?

Let's plan for a high chair just for containment. She's okay without one...but...for civility's sake.

I understand your position. What I want you to explain is how then is it that: "the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." The clear implication is that the matter is not one of mere knowledge, which renders your position moot.

False. It is His (the Holy Ghost's) special and especial purpose.

Or a very sad day....depending on how one views it. I can't exactly see the scriptures, if being written in our day, saying anything other than something like, "And behold, the people were so corrupt that it was requisite that they did commence mandatory training for the leaders of the church." On the other hand, said scripture could be followed up with something like, "And thus we see that the Lord doth provide for His church." So, yeah. A good day -- but a sad one too.

The difficult situation of not being able to have illicit sex with all the people to whom you're sexually attracted without it being a sin? Boo freakin' hoo.

Me, my wife and my wee one.

This is not hypocrisy.

It's such a weird idea, isn't it, to imply that if someone is viewed as harsh (or as "garbage" as it was put) in their online interactions that they don't deserve respect for trying to be polite in person.

For example, I was shocked the one time I met @estradling75 and he was actually a nice guy!!

My wife and I used to use a lot of pre-workout and/or weight-loss supplements. that we later discovered had green tea. One of them even had "coffee extract". That's something to watch out for in those things as it's quite common.

Essentially he's apparently decided that his personal, carnal self-satisfaction is what the Savior really cares about.

I don't understand a word of this post.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (a lot to read here) but even if marriage sealing was a "modern" revelation that doesn't mean everyone else couldn't be saved to exaltation. It just means more work in the Millennium.