The Folk Prophet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. Oh...I have no current complaints. I only claim RIGHT to be able to complain....hashtag ...#allModsAreBulliesWithBadges!
  2. We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!
  3. Nevertheless, I don't agree that the Community of Christ should be classified as a church of God. It's not led by God and it has none of God's authority. Those are my defining criteria for a church being God's. Not whether it has some truth and light or not.
  4. Since you followed up your "yes" with a view that seems to believe that stating that it's stupid to believe the earth is flat as a general statement on a forum is equivalently improper to telling someone they're stupid to their face, and exactly opposite to holding one's tongue when speaking face to face with a flat-earther, I am entirely unconvinced by your claim to recognize the difference.
  5. Just out of curiosity, do you recognize the difference between, for example, stating on a forum that believing the world is flat is stupid and going up to a flat-earther and telling them that they're stupid?
  6. This is an interesting thing to think about. I accept what you're saying as valid. But.... I also have to ask myself.... how can one fight falsehoods without truth? It's an interesting challenge. If one cannot respect father-dom how can they respect our Father? It's absolutely requisite. And we'd get nowhere by not teaching them the truth of that matter. But...tact, timing, line-upon-line, etc.... Those things matter. It's interesting.
  7. God is very clearly racist AND sexist. I mean, first, he's white (which means he's racist). Second, he's the power class (racist). Third, He restricted the priesthood and other thing by race. He specifically declared a certain race "My people". I mean if that doesn't fit the modern definition of racist.... And let's not even get started with traditional marriage, polygamy and the patriarchy.
  8. I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.
  9. 3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.
  10. I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.
  11. The logic behind these examples kind of baffles me and isn't related to my thoughts. But I'm not interested in arguing. If people want to think the next low tide is a sign of the end of times, go for it. Someone could try and argue that an eclipse was a fulfillment of "the sun will be darkened" and it would at least make sense. I think that's a pretty serious stretch. But maybe at least. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" That would be a reasonable (though flawed to me) argument to make. Lest we forget however, here's the discussion: me: Eclipses are common enough that it's a stretch to call them a sign. mikbone: People have often associated eclipses with eras ending. me: So what? People are superstitious and historically make all sorts of crazy stuff up. mikbone: what about scriptures. Are they irrelevant? me: ?????? Wha......???? This reply isn't really related to what I said. I don't disagree with any of it. God certainly could use an eclipse as a sign. I just don't think it's useful to apply "sign" to an event in reverse. The prophesy of the sign generally comes first, like you said. An event happening without the prophesy, particularly, when it's a natural common event... I don't find a lot of use in calling that a sign. Anyhow, I've said my peace (piece? My piece of peace?). I'll step out now.
  12. What about all the signs in the heavens discussed in the scriptures? Are those irrelevant too?
  13. The fact that there has been superstitious association with anything at any given time is irrelevant to the signs of God.
  14. How can an eclipse be a sign of the end of times when eclipses have always occurred throughout history? Hear ye, hear ye, in the end of days something will happen that......has happened since the earth, sun and moon were created and put in their orbits. know...THIS time it's a sign....
  15. Every time I see the title of this thread I envision what my new church uniform might be. I mean I already wear a white shirt to church. But maybe something like my dress blues from the Air Force? Or the Marines dress blues. That was always classy looking.
  16. I'm not sure what subtext you mean, specifically. But if by "embracing" you mean don't make jokes, then a pox on you and your humorless house. On a side-comment, I always joked with my wife that I didn't want her barefoot and pregnant.... because I prefer high-heels.
  17. Since ultimately I'm probably a "women should be barefoot and pregnant housewives" type (a.k.a. chauvinist pig), I think my logic would be pretty consistent. I think there's a difference, of course, between what women "should" do and what women should be allowed to do. And I think there's some nuanced allowance to be made on the "allowed" side of things in the military. If some woman wants to go be a Green Beret and can hold her own just as well as the men in that regard... I can see carving exceptions out, legally speaking. But obviously the qualifying part is unlikely to happen in most cases. They have to lower standards to make it "equitable". And that shouldn't be happening. Flying helicopters or jets or what-have-you.... once again, I think there's some allowance for nuance in the "if she wants to" side of things. I certainly don't believe women should be legally excluded from all military roles. But certain ones...yeah. Really though, when it comes to fighting wars... a country that sends their women out to die for them deserves to rot in the pit of hell where they're surely headed. And a large part (sadly) of that is that the women want to in the first place. Hollywood is lying to you all!
  18. Nope. Even if they want, we should proactively discriminate against certain things when it comes to the military (specifically I mean trans and women. Trans because I believe they're mentally unfit, and women because women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us).
  19. That's a non-starter for too many. I, for example, would literally kill and die without hesitation before I'd let them send my daughter off to war. I suspect, that despite the corruption and evil in the world, that there are still too many who feel as I do in that regard.
  20. So what if they do? Plenty do. Plenty behave terribly. Plenty serve Satan. It's reality. It will happen. You, I, and everyone will get treated like rubbish throughout our lives, and oft times by members of the church. And you, I, and everyone will at times treat others like rubbish, either accidentally or intentionally. If intentional, we'll repent or we won't. If we do repent, our standing remains secure. If we don't, our standing will crumble. Clearly the gospel message is to not treat others like rubbish (though even that's a relative statement*). Any suggestion that we should intentionally treat others like rubbish is silly. Obviously. But to act like the church members are at fault for others coming to or not coming to Christ is also, in my opinion, pretty silly. That's where I take issue with posts like this. "We need to do this or we'll drive people away." Nope. That's not why. We need to follow Christ because we love Him. We need to serve others because we love them and because we love Christ. And we need to obey the commandments and repent when we fail. And we do this by our own agency and will stand accountable for ourselves alone in the end. In particular, the idea that we need to stop focusing on the words of God because it might drive others away is particularly ridiculous. I mean at least it makes a sort of sense that we need to not be total jerks to others. But even that falls apart when speaking in terms of their salvation potential. But clearly we'll damn ourselves through such behavior. But to claim that we need to stop preaching God's word because others might be offended by it and would otherwise be saved....? Yeah... I don't think so. *I've found that what's perceived as being treated like rubbish is often in the eye of the receiver, and it can be very difficult to second guess that in many cases. Moreover, it could be pretty soundly argued that Christ treated the Pharisees and Sadducees like "rubbish" -- particularly in the eyes of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
  21. It only matters as to our own salvation. To suggest otherwise is to take away others' salvation against their choice and to claim God is entirely unfair. I am fully confident that if I have terrible bedside manner and drive others away from the church because of my terrible bedside manner, that they'll have the same chance at exaltation as if they'd never met me. I'm also confident that if I'm doing my best but still have terrible bedside manner because I'm the moron that I am, that God will forgive me as I do my best to repent and change, despite failure upon failure. And I am fully confident that no matter how others treat me, in or out of the church, that my choice of salvation or damnation is completely and fully my own. And I'm also fully confident that if I purposefully go out and preach against the Gospel and Christ, or set a terrible example, or otherwise do Satan's work, that they only soul I'll ultimately be damning by those actions is my own.
  22. What matters? The attempt? Or success? Obviously, for our own sake, it matters that we try our best. But the idea that our failure or success in how we interact with others, despite our best efforts, determine their salvation is not correct. God does His work. We do our best. The OP is suggesting that our bedside imperfections are key to other's damnation.