The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12437 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
197
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
-
-
5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Believe it or not, that is a lot of what made my OP significant.
Just so we're clear, I'm not countering anything you're suggesting. (I'm not supporting it, per se, either. Just...commenting.)
The thing is... the dangers of (air-quotes) A.I. (air-quotes) are not, at present, what everyone believes they will be. Everyone thinks it's some form of the terminator. Well...maybe someday. But that's not what the current danger is.. The dangers of AI is that AI is a big freaking lie that's turning the business world upside down...based on a lie.The lie is, as always, wealth. "A.I. will make you rich!"
But NO ONE is going to get wealthy from A.I. except those peddling A.I. and its related support system (computing power). Well, and the dirtbag traders and execs who will sell A.I. to their companies, get big bonuses, and then move on to another lucrative career.
None of that is actually related to the first comment I made about A.I. not existing yet. More related to the video I just posted.
But it's related... in that even calling it A.I. is a lie. It's not. It's not intelligent in any way, shape or form. Not artificially or otherwise.
We think we're experiencing "intelligence" in the way that Hollywood has portrayed A.I. But we're not. Not even close. At best we're seeing some artificial artificial intelligence. Maybe that's argumentative in an unnecessary way. But not really. Like I said...it's marketing.Don't get me wrong. There's value in some of what we are experiencing. Not monetary value. Not for most. But it's a nice tool. As a developer, for example, I like that when I google (or bing or whatever) the syntax for some code I can't quite recall, that instead of having to click on the Stack Overflow link, I get an AI Overview (that's basically stolen the info from Stack Overflow), which has been "summarized" for me. That makes my search a bit quicker. Nice. And I like that when I shop on Amazon that when I go to the reviews there's an "A.I." summary of the reviews. Nice.
But neither of these things, once again, are in any way "intelligent", artificially or otherwise.It's just branding for basic algorithms that have been running for half a century in some form or another. Guess what. That's what computers do! All of a sudden it's being touted as "A.I.". Why? Money and the promise of money.
It drives me nutty. There's only a very few applications of the tech that even pretend to be intelligent, as in artificially "thinking". The chat engines for one.
Even the art generation...which is nifty and fun...but...is it "intelligent"? Since when is automated replication of something or another "intelligent"? And, moreover,.... I'm pretty intelligent. But I can't do that. My brother can. He's not more intelligent than I am. He's trained artist that's learned skills. But the ability to paint a face that looks like a face instead of a scribble isn't exactly intelligence. I mean...it's tied into intelligence. The ability to learn and to assess and remember. So at least the art stuff can, sort of, fit the classification of A.I.... sort of.But so much the other stuff out there being called A.I.? Nope. It's just the new thing to call stuff. It's like, for example....cameras autofocused for fifty years, but now anything like that is "intelligent". And everyone's freaking out because a camera is "thinking" for itself? Yes...I'm using a simple example and tech has advanced and what cameras or the like do is more complex now. But it's essentially the same thing. It's like calling the starter on your vehicle intelligent. "You mean it...starts the car? By itself? All I have to do is push this button!? Wow! Well, there goes humanity." Another more realistic example is the writing suggestion tools from Word or Grammarly or the like. They've done that forever. But now it's called A.I. The spell checker is A.I. now. Oh no. We're doomed.
The real danger, in things like that, is when all the companies needing photography fire all qualified photographers because the camera is smart enough by itself, and then wonder why their photography magazine nose dives. But, hey...maybe, eventually, the camera will be smart enough. Except, I forgot...we don't need cameras at all now. Just a few prompts.
C'est la vie.
- Carborendum and Jedi_Nephite
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
The right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is kind of one of the reasons America is great.
Yep. The right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is, indeed, kind of one of the reasons America is great.
That's not an argument against whether actually doing so is stupid or not.
I'll defend people's right to do it all day long. And I'll continue to think it's stupid.
- Vort and NeuroTypical
-
1
-
1
-
-
-
17 hours ago, laronius said:
How about the time BY snuck up on a passed out drunkard and chopped his head off. Oh wait, that was a different prophet.
Or how about BY trying to slit his own son's throat because he thought God told him to. Oh wait, that was a different prophet as well.
Perhaps that they were all prophets is the only context that matters. That of course won't fly with those outside the Church but with some things that's all there is because sometimes what God does (or wants done) flies in the face of all mortal reasoning.
I can already hear the retort: "But God actually told them to do those things!" Well how can we know what God did and didn't tell BY to do? I don't think any of us is in a position to pass judgement on him.
If you were simply looking for a way to explain such things to those not of our faith, I wish you well. But for those of our faith it really shouldn't require apologetics.
I was also thinking of this from 1st Samuel:
1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord.
2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
It kind of always amazes me when people call any sort of violence "un-Christian".
-
-
Once I was discussing our ADD with my brother and he said, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"
- JohnsonJones, NeuroTypical, Carborendum and 1 other
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
On 4/23/2025 at 9:36 PM, Traveler said:
I have thought about this for a while. I will not pretend to know or understand any more than anyone else, but plural marriage in the eternities may not be defined exactly as we may be defining or thinking. There is a possibility that not all wives in a plural marriage are equal. Both to each other as well as their husband. Since we are speculating and do not know anything for sure, the parameters may not be defined in the manner we are thinking that we are applying them.
The Traveler
Yep. See my response to @estradling75 just prior to this one. Fully agree.
People like to think they understand. Even I do. But we don't.
-
On 4/23/2025 at 5:32 PM, estradling75 said:
But if it is widespread then it more likely means that men are less likely to make it to exaltation. Which is not something I accept.
Sure...but that doesn't mean it isn't maybe true.
What I do know is that there's WAY more to the eternities than we can even begin to try and comprehend.
-
21 hours ago, Vort said:
If plural marriage is practiced in the eternities, it is because it is a true principle.
Sure. But if it's a true principle, and if anyone practices it in the eternities, then it means more exalted women than men.
- JohnsonJones and zil2
-
2
-
On 4/21/2025 at 1:18 PM, Vort said:
Unlikely. Such blanket (and false) generalizations do no service either to the men demeaned by them or even to the women, many of whom wrongly conclude that they are doomed to be eternally attached to a lesser being. This is Satanic doctrine.
I remember while growing up that we young men would often receive lessons about how pure and wonderful the sisters were, how we were required to treat them with respect, and how God would demand of us an accounting of how we treated His daughters and would be very unhappy indeed with those men who did not treat the women well. I naively assumed that women were receiving substantially the same teachings about men. To my surprise, in my adult years I discovered that the young women were very rarely if ever taught that they owed the men respect, and that the adult women were never taught such things nor discussed them in Relief Society meetings. (My wife tried bringing the topic up once in RS, and was effectively shouted down by several of the other women.)
No, women are not naturally more righteous then men or better loved by God than men. These are, again, Satanic falsehoods. Many have noted that men, not women, hold the Priesthood. Some have bizarrely tried to explain this by claiming that men need the Priesthood because they are insufficent without it, but women don't, since they (the women) already naturally have all the spiritual power they need for reconciliation and salvation. I stand slack-jawed at this openly apostate teaching, that women are too righteous to need the power of the Priesthood exercised in their lives for salvation. I'm sure Jesus Christ will be surprised to learn this news, both in His role as Redeemer and Mediator and in his status as one of those insufficient men.
Men and women are both human and are both children of God. But as a group, men have certain strengths that women tend to lack and certain weaknesses that women tend to excel at. Bottom line: Anyone who tells you that women are by nature better or more Godly than men should be immediately and studiously ignored. Teach your children to ignore such teachings, and to ignore those who promulgate those teachings.
Moreover, even IF statistically more women make it to the Celestial Kingdom than men (which, you know....considering plural marriage.... but I digress....), the assumption that therefore any given woman is more righteous than any given man is classic biased stereotyping.
-
On 4/15/2025 at 2:46 PM, LDSGator said:
I’ve always thought there’s a simple cure for low activity rates: be happy.
It does not take great insight to grasp that people are seeking a happy place to be in this world. If we created an environment where people left happy, we’d have no issues with retention and activity.
Happiness is not so simple though.
The principle of losing our life to find our life, sacrifice bringing blessing, and that joy comes from faith, righteousness, humility, service, obedience, and effort, are not intuitive to the human (natural man) condition.
People are (in their fallen "natural man" way) seeking self-fulfillment, money, pleasure, and ease, laughter, fun, and a painless existence. The gospel does not intuitively provide these things (though it does in a round about way). The core principles of Christ's gospel amount to denying oneself and taking up one's cross to follow the Savior.
These principles are obvious to those who've engaged in them, even in practical matters of life (such as working out and eating right to be healthy, being careful with money and working hard to be wealthy, etc., etc.). But the world, more and more, pushes the ideas of "deserve" and "self" and "victim" and "follow your passion" and all the Disney (a.k.a. Satan) garbage like that, which all feels, to the natural man, like how we should find/seek happiness. The problem is that it doesn't work.
So I'm not disagreeing with you. An environment where people left happy is, you're correct, the key. But what that environment looks like is sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and so forth. And that's a tough pill to swallow, even though it's the actual medicine we all need.
- laronius, zil2, Carborendum and 2 others
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
Perhaps my horror and disgust at some of the things being said on these forums have promoted me to be too aggressive towards those of my own people. In that, I am sorry.
I've never said true followers of Christ would be Democrats (I've only stated that Jesus's views are liberal, they were back then, and they are today as wel). There are many platforms that the Democrats have that go contrary to the teachings of the Lord. There are also platforms that the Republicans have that go contrary to the Lord. I'm not talking about Democrats vs. Republicans here, but Conservative views vs. Liberal views with how the world sees them today.
I'm a conservative myself (and Ironically, I'm almost positive no one here knows what my actual political beliefs are. I don't think anyone is actually interested in that as they are so caught up in being angry at me that they have no real interest in my own political sway).
I find a LOT of what is said on these forums concerning anyone who is not a Trump worshipper. (And if one is not, perhaps they should make it far more clear and speak up against such things, rather than seemingly acquiesce when those of us who do not worship Trump are made to feel uncomfortable, unwanted, despised, and hated).
I seem to be one of the only ones that sees this as extremely concerning. However, if these reasons they have for a lot of these statements are valid...I should be easy to convince and bring over to their side.
Why would I be easy to convince...or should be?
Because, as I said, I am actually a moderate conservative. If you cannot convince me, and I'm actually on your side of the political equation, what makes You think you will convince others?
Look...these are the commandments we are ignoring on this forum when we label liberals or insult their intelligence, or any number of other things.
-------------------
#1 - Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength.
God does not want you to do things simply because you have to. You do them because you love him. You want to do what he would want you to do.
#2 - Love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the hardest commandment to follow. If you love your neighbor, you will give them everything. That means you will feed them just as soon as you would feed yourself. You would shelter them, just as soon as you would shelter yourself.
I know of almost no one that will do this, but this is an ideal we should strive for.
#3 - Love thy enemies.
We don't say how terrible our enemies are in this way or mock them. We love them. We hate the sin, but love the sinner.
--------------------------------------------
We have this misconstrued idea here that the Lord's values are Western morality, whether it is conservative or liberal. It is not, though with the above statements, Conservatives normally do not have these values.
If so, why complain about helping others gain food and shelter? Why is it so offensive that our neighbors (or even our enemies) should have a way (and regardless of whether it is taken under auspices of force such as the Early Church did to members, or in a lesser degree, how the US government does today with taxes) to feed the poor and hungry.
Why are we so against welcoming immigrants, no matter who they are, to be with us in our nation and share with them the goodness of what we have (and as I conservative, I know one of these answers. It's because of the fear that we do not have enough for them and that we are simply paying for them without a return for it, as well as criminal elements entering this nation of which will bring crime and misery with it. They have shown they are already willing to break the law...they probably won't have problems breaking others. This does not mean I am on the right in this area, and I've seen the First Presidency seemingly teach a more welcoming aspect towards immigrants. Reality paints a different picture to me than what I see as fantasy, but I also think Jesus would not turn anyone away. We are all beggars before him and all are illegal in relation to his commandments).
This is what Jesus taught, and that along with the way they did it in the New Testament is absolutely what many would consider Liberal today. Turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, are all liberal ideals.
These have never been Conservative Ideals in my lifetime. I'm leaning more towards Libertarian ideas these days, but I have no illusions that these may not be in line with what the Lord actually desires, and at times it causes me difficulty in reconciling my own politics in regards to what the Lord would teach. In fact, at times in some threads I have actually mourned my own failings in this regard.
Most here have no idea what my political ideas really are (and they are simple, when boiled to the heart of it).
I defend Liberals on these forums because almost no one else will do so and almost no one else will point out that a Lot of what we are accusing the "Liberals" of doing are things we ourselves are doing.
Remember, when one finger is pointing to them, four others are pointing back at ourselves. We are so busy trying to point out the mote in the Liberals eyes, that we don't notice the one in our own.
One person...that's it, that I've seen defending Liberals to any degree, and they seem to be Liberal themselves. I've seen one that is lukewarm on how they talk regarding them and is more neutral. I don't see anyone else standing up for them.
I am not really a friend to "liberals" but as a Christian, I will defend their image that they can also be good people, because as a Christian, if they are also Christian, they are Family. They are OUR Family. They are OUR people.
Do we really want to show our hate and disgust of those who should be our Family? We call them brothers and sisters in church, we call them fellow Saints. Are we, or are we not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or are you members of some other church where those who are "Liberals" are not welcome.
As I said, I'm normally considered a moderate Conservative to myself (and as I said also, others consider me just a straight up conservative) and I do not feel welcome at times in many of these threads these days. Many of the things said about those who are not followers of Trump (and if you are not, why not speak up against these things) actually make me feel unwelcome here. They make me feel unhappy and terrible feelings arise due to how I feel in response. It's why I speak up, because if no one speaks up, then these types of things continue to go on.
What you DO NOT REALIZE is that, as a conservative minded individual, I feel more able to point out the problems that us conservatives are having because I am one of them.
The GREAT IRONY, is that I am not considered Liberal in any way, shape, or form, in any other place but here. In fact, in some places, ironically, I am actually considered a FAR RIGHT conservative. If I, who is seen that way, is considered so far left on these forums that people spout how liberal and far left I am, or how non-conservative I am and I can't understand conservatives or where the movement is and that's why I have problems...
That speaks volumes on how far a forum has gone into putting their own political idealogy over that of Christianity or anything else.
I am shocked at how quickly this forum has devolved into an area where we could express valid ideas without being labeled as not "good" or even "Evil" because we refuse to bow the knee to Trump.
Outside the US right now, contacts I have are painting a grim picture of what Trump is seen as being. Saints worldwide are not "appreciating" the same things that people on these forums think they should. In fact, I'd say quite a number of Saints worldwide suffer from "TDS" as this thread puts it. Do we wish to welcome them to our rooms and discussions, or are these forums only for United States Members who are those who strongly support Trump?
Because if it's the latter, that's a great minority of Saints (though from these forums it would seem the majority, this is not reality).
A large majority in the Utah, Idaho, Arizona areas may be this far to the right, in fact, it may even be a majority of Saints in the US, but once out of the US, it's not like this. Are we a worldwide church, or are we the small group that pertains specifically to the conservative members (and not even all of them, as I myself can attest personally) that follow and support Trump?
Are we brothers and sisters in the Church, or is this some other church that these forums represent?
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.
- Ann, JohnsonJones and Still_Small_Voice
-
2
-
1
-
21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
whatever, dude; I’m going home to my wife and kids now
That's my mantra!
-
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
if you focus your efforts into cultivating a “move on” mentality.
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.
- Just_A_Guy, mordorbund and SilentOne
-
2
-
1
-
56 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Did anyone who had a bad high school experience have a good college experience? That happened to me. I went to a small, Catholic college for two years and was miserable. Then I transferred to UNH and absolutely loved it. Graduated with honors too.
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.
-
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
plus ?
Remember the time John Wick John Wicked Wicked's Wicked Witch of the West?
- mirkwood, NeuroTypical, LDSGator and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Ironhold said:
This is why I loathed the movie so much, as even when I was at my lowest I still wouldn't have done what Evan did, nor would I have tried to use it as an excuse to justify anything.
Understood. But... I thought they handled it really well and it was intriguing and engaging. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
But it was through force. It was far worse than just going to jail. We know the story of Peter and this. You defy this after you pledged to follow it...it would be an execution if you didn't. That's pretty forceful.
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?
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:Brigham Young also enforced these measures pretty strictly,
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.)
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:and he was a force of government for a while.
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?
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:He probably enforced it with measures that most here would find pretty intrusive today,
Your cynicism of Latter-day Saint conservatives is consistent. I'll give you that.
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:I state that this can apply to both sides
But you're not applying it to both sides. You're defending leftists and lambasting conservatives.
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:When we are attempting to label people of a different party as the other, we are trying to make it seem as if we are superior or otherwise.
I'm somewhat shocked at the hypocrisy in this comment.
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:(and if you read my ps, you would see the same would apply in the opposite direction).
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.
AI Is the Threat that Pres. Nelson Warned About
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Which is funny branding because.... well, have you ever tried to explain cloud storage, for example, to someone in their 80s? Here's the explanation you give so they get it: "It saves it on the internet."