The Folk Prophet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. On 3/13/2024 at 10:57 AM, NeuroTypical said:

    Fun story: We moderators have a private forum for talking about moderator stuff like account warnings and bans and stuff.  We also have a forum open to everyone to talk to moderators about moderator stuff.  One time I got those mixed up, and talked in the open forum about a problematic poster, and then the problematic poster saw my post and life was awkward for a bit.

    Moral of the story: When you skip all the forums except for General Discussion, ya miss the juicy stuff!

    We need a private forum where we can talk about the moderators behind their backs!

  2. 1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

    And yet that was not the context of my meaning.

    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.

  3. 4 hours ago, LDSGator said:


    And, “just out of curiosity” do you recognize how someone would find it odd if a person acts nice and polite offline then acts like a jerk on a forum? Essentially, it tells the world that you know how to act properly but for whatever reason you feel like it’s fine to act the opposite way online. 

    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.

  4. 2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

    That’s accurate, and it’s also accurate to say it’s very naive if someone thinks they can be spread truth by being abrasive, obnoxious or insulting. If I walk up to you and say “Hey, only an idiot doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon.” You virtually guarantee that the person will never open a Book of Mormon in their lives. 

    Church members like to believe that how you present yourself and how you dress matters. That’s partially why missionaries can’t light up cigarettes in ripped jeans and vulgar t shirts. However, a guy in a suit with a clean haircut calling people who don’t agree with him “stupid”  is far more damaging. 

    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?

  5. On 3/2/2024 at 12:12 PM, Ironhold said:

    It's a matter of seeing things from the perspective of another and adjusting how we talk to them accordingly. 

    For example, I once heard a speaker talk about how they had to be careful using the word "Father" because they were assigned to an inner city area that had alarmingly high rates of familial violence and abuse. Many of the people they tried to preach to had a *lot* of baggage associated with the word accordingly.

    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.


    On 1/10/2024 at 9:33 PM, Vort said:

    God created the races. What would it even mean for God to be "racist"? It's a stooopid question that no adult with two or more brain cells to rub together should ever ask.

    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. 


  7. 1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

    That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.

    I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.

    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.

  8. 1 hour ago, zil2 said:

    Others have already brought up the general shopping comparison.  I'll add two more angles of view:

    1. IMO, the temple recommend question about your thoughts, beliefs, and intent.  Do you go out of your way to shop at Satan's Groceries where you pay a mark-up intending to fund the owner's efforts to proselytize his Satanic beliefs?  Or do you just shop at whichever grocery store happens to be convenient and has the item(s) you want?  (Is your intent to get groceries, or is it (also) to fund activities contrary to the Church?)

    2. There was only one seller from whom we could buy (back) the Kirtland temple.  The Church is probably more picky about its suppliers when there are many to choose from.

    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.

  9. 3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

    But I can't say the Church of Christ is the church of the devil... 

    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.

  10. 3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Ask the 3 wise men.  There have always been stars going supernova.

    Ask Noah.  There has always been extreme weather killing lots of people.

    Ask Pharaoh.  Plagues and locusts are endemic to the human experience.

    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: ???:confused:??? Wha......????

    3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Whether God caused those things to happen, or whether He simply saw them coming and used the events as a way to prepare and shape His children, you have to admit the historical record is full of folks in awe and wonder that a supreme being not only knew it was coming and told humans about it.  

    I'm not a huge fan of speculation, but if I were to speculate, it would be along the lines of "God will tell His prophets of unexpected things in advance.  That way, faith gets rewarded, and faithlessness gets a consequence too."   In other words, I'd guess this predicted solar eclipse isn't going to be a sign.  Especially since we're not hearing a bunch of "The Lord cometh soon and will show a sign by turning the day sky to black" and whatnot coming out of General Conference. 

    You'd think if there was going to be any of it, it would have shown up in Oct, to give folks a little time to prepare.  With the next GC happening on April 6-7, and the eclipse happening the 8th, one wonders how much preparation folks could do with 24 hours notice.

    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.

  11. 1 hour ago, mikbone said:
    3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    The fact that there has been superstitious association with anything at any given time is irrelevant to the signs of God.

    What about all the signs in the heavens discussed in the scriptures?  Are those irrelevant too?



  12. On 2/28/2024 at 7:17 PM, carlimac said:

    Do you believe the coming eclipse on April 8th is a sign from the heavens that correlates with end times? Why or why not? 

    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....

  13. 25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

    embracing that language (and its associated subtext)

    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.

  14. 1 minute ago, zil2 said:

    Things in my subconscious left unspoken:  The "who are physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of doing the job" was a given in my brain.  Another unspoken prerequisite is that the standards aren't lowered or otherwise negatively altered just because someone who can't meet them happens to belong to some "special" group.  (I know, that wasn't your concern - or doesn't appear to be - I'm just adding it in to add it in.  And frankly, those unspoken rules would disqualify a lot of people, including the (vast?) majority of women.)

    Note that in order to be logically consistent on the "no fighting and dying for us" front, you should probably be opposed to women in all forms of law enforcement that remotely risk confronting a criminal who is not already restrained (at the very least).  (The possible exception being women guards in women's prisons.) 

    Perhaps you should also be opposed to women defending others (e.g. with a concealed firearm) either at all, or at least when there's a man around (until / unless all the men get killed first) - I mean, if it's "women shouldn't be fighting and dying for us", there are a lot more ways to do that than just in the military...  :)  (Yes, at this point, I'm just giving you a hard time just because I can. :P  I can't say I care that much about this issue, though I think it would be really fun to get launched off an aircraft carrier is whatever F-## is popular these days.  Once would probably be enough for me, though. :D )

    Since ultimately I'm probably a "women should be barefoot and pregnant housewives" type (a.k.a. chauvinist pig), :D 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!

  15. 4 hours ago, zil2 said:

    "It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc have equal opportunity to achieve / enter all ranks and trades if they want..."

    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).

  16. Just now, LDSGator said:

    as long as others don’t use that as a crutch to treat people like rubbish, I generally agree. 

    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.

  17. 6 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    Yeah, that’s too far and I agree with you there. But how we treat others matters, especially those who know nothing about the church.  

    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.

  18. 5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    Bedside manner and how you treat people doesn’t matter?

    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.