The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
11507 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
161
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
2 hours ago, laronius said:
My question is, if Satan is already a son of perdition, perhaps perdition itself, what more can really happen to him? Why get upset? Had he not already fallen as low as he can get?
Were you under the impression that Satan is a rational being?
-
17 hours ago, mikbone said:
Unless you recognize that the Lord wants us to learn how to hit a curve ball and delight in so doing.
When I first read this I thought, "Cool, very wise." But as I was thinking about it I started questioning it. I cannot help but wonder if sometimes we are, as is said, "looking beyond the mark" when we think of things this way.
Yes, I know that eternally we all have to learn to hit curve balls, as it were. And yes, some of things that some face in life are related to that sort of eternal learning. For sure. I'm just not sure it's really what mortality is about or for.
It strikes me that "work[ing] out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him" isn't about swinging and missing and swinging and missing until we finally learn to connect, per se. Or about merely learning to enjoy the process of trying. It's about humility. In other words, we "work out" our salvation by coming unto, and following, and accepting the free salvation offered by the Savior, rather than developing our own prowess and getting good at finally hitting those curve balls -- or getting good at enjoying trying to hit the curve balls even though we don't connect. Learning to enjoy trying does bring happiness and satisfaction. And connecting with the odd pitch does bring us some happiness. But it's not where true joy lies. Rather, if we're trusting God, we have joy even if we never learn such things. But true joy comes from our relationship with God. Joy is knowing God. Anyone, even those without God, can delight in learning to hit a curve ball. But true joy can only be found through God.
Yes, we do have experiences that are for our good. Yes, we do learn line upon line. But mortality is restrictive in a way that seems to me, logically, to not really apply to the actual learning (or learning to learn -- or even learning to delight in learning). But some can't do those things in mortality. They can only obey and repent when they sin. Which is sufficient.
I wrote the following before working out a bit more what you were saying, so it may not apply, but I thought it was interesting so I'm leaving it. I realize you aren't talking about actually learning to hit the curve ball, but only finding joy in the trying... But anyhow....
Mortality, In some ways, is like if one were trying to teach their tweenager to drive, but doing so by blindfolding them and tying their arms behind their back, and then suggesting they'd be able to learn to drive better that way. We're sitting here in mortality blinded and restrained. We're just not going to become good drivers, for the most part. Eventually our restraints will be lifted. Then the actual learning starts, methinks. But in the meantime we're asked to put our faith and trust in the Lord. Just put your broken, crippled foot on the gas, because you've been asked to, and trust God.
Yes, some of us are more crippled than others. And I do think that for most, learning to enjoy learning is a wise course and will be useful to us in the eternities. But for some it isn't, and cannot be, the process, for a variety of reasons.
Just some thoughts. I still think your comment is cool.
-
59 minutes ago, popatr said:
I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek or ironic when using the word "wisdom" which is why I put it in quotes and put it in close proximity to foolishness. So-called wisdom.
My belief, or lack of it, maybe stems from my computer science background. I would compare absolute foreknowledge to a disk image of the entire universe. Such a thing is entirely static and essentially lifeless. A being who embodies such a disk image is stateless. It is hard to say he even thinks, as we comprehend it. The state is the state and we are just part of the state. What we'll do already exists fully realized and written to the disk image.
I don't want to believe in, what feels to me, like a lifeless stateless being. Such doctrine tastes bad to me, at least how I've been able to season it.
I understand. I do think it's a bit short-sighted, wisdom-of-man thinking to approach it that way. But I understand where you're coming from. Thanks.
-
52 minutes ago, popatr said:
Largely my own "wisdom". If it ends up being foolishness I hope God will forgive me.
I'm not sure there's anything that needs forgiving in it, but....
Forgive me for putting you on the spot a bit, but I'm sincerely curious as to why you think that conclusion is one of wisdom? What is it that leads you to want to or hope to believe that we shouldn't take the scriptures at their word concerning God's knowledge of the future? I'm curious. -
24 minutes ago, popatr said:
While I take God's foreknowledge pretty seriously, I believe perfect/infinite foreknowledge is impossible, and is just one of those scriptural exaggerations (like endless punishment is a scriptural exaggeration "to be more express upon the mind")
What are you basing that on?
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
FWIW, I don't think there is a deeper point to be made here. If "stress" is purely a result of personal imperfection and/or an inevitable consequence of our mortal condition, then it will not apply in the eternities. Therefore, God (and we ourselves) will not feel "stress". But he (and we) will feel something. And that something will be very real and important. Whether or not we call it "stress" seems arbitrary to me.
If we really want to dig into the "philosophy" of it all, God sees, and presumably feels, past, present and future before him. We can't really comprehend that, but in theory, that includes ALL past -- which also means His past prior to exaltation, and which, perhaps (depending on one's view as to whether God the Father was always perfect, like the Savior, or might have been mortal like unto us) included stress... I don't know what that means or even what point I'm trying to make. But that's the thought that came out of my brain.
What I do think it means, by interpretation (as you said...semantics).... Stress by way of anxiety (or anxiety by way of stress) is, definitionally (argumentatively), NOT knowing the future. So God, knowing the future, can't have stress. He knows what's going to happen. Of course stress, more broadly, simple means pressure. So in that regard, if someone knew beyond a shadow of a doubt their kid was going to die tomorrow, I think the weight (pressure/stress) of that would exist. But the anxiety at not knowing things related to that (What life will be like without them? Can one go on? How will one's family be affected. Etc.) plays into that somewhat.
Anyhow...God already knows which of His children will be lost. He certainly has sorrow about that. But knowing of it eternally cannot, to my thinking, cause eternal stress. It's interesting. It is something I don't understand. God has eternal joy. A perfect joy. Somehow, that I can't fathom, that exists alongside His losing a great majority of His children, and being eternally aware of that. I don't know how that all works. So I live by faith.
-
5 hours ago, laronius said:
I appreciate your perspective. It makes me think of the man who brought a child to Jesus to be healed but when questioned about his faith he makes the request of "help thou mine unbelief." Or in other words he is seeking to exercise faith in the midst of his lack of faith. I have certainly felt this way at times.
But what if this man was not lacking in faith? Of course he would still be concerned about the physical welfare of his child. I don't think there is any escaping that in this life But if he truly believed that either Christ would heal him or if not then everything would still work out fine either way, would this man still be feeling the desperate anxiety that seemed to grip him?
I believe we learn from Alma that to have faith is not to have a perfect knowledge, and if we have sure knowledge then our faith becomes dormant.
-
This strikes me as the same idea as the question of courage meaning one has no fear -- or is courage moving forward despite great fear? Which is, actually, more courageous?
Because it strikes me that if one has no fear, it isn't actually courageous to act. My jumping in the deep end of the pool is not an act of courage. My 5-year-old doing the same is an act of tremendous courage.
Faith in the face of stress and worry, seems to me, the same. Having great stress and worry is when faith becomes necessary, useful and meaningful.
- Vort and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I listened to the first 15 min.
Only 15 min huh? 😞
Actual that's probably further than most get.
-
I know I'm resurrecting an ancient thread, but... My buddy and I decided to talk about Empathy, and so I had done a bunch of research on it and clarified some of my thinking.
Also, here's the link to the podcast I listened to about Against Empathy
https://think.kera.org/2017/01/05/the-case-against-empathy/
And the link to Paul Boom's book:
If you don't have time to listen to the hour long video or kera podcast, here's the basics:
Empathy as a means of making moral choices is no bueno and leads to worse outcomes, not better ones. Empathy is not the end all save-the-world solution it's made out to be. Instead we should use rational compassion (with God's teachings and commands as the guiding standard) to make our moral choices.
-
On 8/13/2022 at 1:23 PM, Carborendum said:
You look a lot like a friend of our family who is our GM for gaming night.
Send him my condolences.
-
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
One of the many reasons I hate emojis is that they have become an excuse to insult people and use unsociable language, then place any blame for offense on the lack of intelligence or simple oversensitivity of the offended party. "Nice pic. Your makeup looks like you got jumped by a violent gang of kindergarteners armed with colored Sharpies. 😀 Also, your mother is ugly and smells awful. 😁"
Come on. The power to insult others and get away with it! This is a reason to like emojis. Not hate them.
It reminds me of the Southern, "bless your heart" sentence suffix.
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
One of the many reasons I hate emojis is that they have become an excuse to insult people and use unsociable language, then place any blame for offense on the lack of intelligence or simple oversensitivity of the offended party. "Nice pic. Your makeup looks like you got jumped by a violent gang of kindergarteners armed with colored Sharpies. 😀 Also, your mother is ugly and smells awful. 😁"
Hopefully that's not how @Backroadstook my post! 😱
-
2 minutes ago, Backroads said:
This is where I am. Do I like him as a person? No, I think he's an idiot. Do I think he did a good job at his actual presidential duties? Yes.
I believe Trump has his flaws. But I cannot help but question this sort of rhetoric. The primary reason people seem to think Trump's an "idiot" seems to be because he does things like call other people idiots and the like. Irony meter activated.
(Note: please take this in the light-hearted spirit it was intended, hopefully communicated with the winky emoji. @Vort, I'm telling you...emojis are awesome!!)
- Backroads and Carborendum
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, Vort said:
I admit that I don't really get the lionization (here literally) of Trump. I believe it's largely a reflexive reaction to the media's unceasing drumbeat of hatred toward the man. I myself, no huge fan of Trump, have felt the itch to get behind the guy and support him much more than I normally would, just because the leftist hatred of him is soooooooooooo far overboard. My rational faculties are hoping that Trump does not run in 2024, but some vindictive and grudge-holding part of my being secretly wants to see it as a way to give a big middle finger to those who despise Trump supporters.
Same. My rational self much prefers the idea of DeSantis. But....
-
-
-
9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
I’m deeply concerned about “free speech” if “free speech” means I can convince you to start shooting at people.
I agree. And so does, pretty much, everyone. In point of fact, it's already illegal to do that. If you tell me to shoot someone and I do it, you're already breaking the law.
But if you tell me you don't like someone and in response I shoot them...well now where are we? Should you be held accountable then?
We'd be in a position where you couldn't say you think anyone is problematic, dishonest, or anything of the sort...ever... because someone who hears you might then take that as justification for shooting at them and then you are liable.
Is that how it should be? Is that free speech? No ability to even question someone you don't agree with?
This is clearly the path we're headed down. And, note, pretty much everyone who's being held accountable in these cases is a "conservative" voice.
You can criticize a conservative all you want. But if you are a conservative....watch your mouth.
13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:My other issue is that I think Jones has no conscience and is exploiting his followers who don't know any better. It does not take great intellectual capacity to grasp that no, crisis actors were not used at Sandy Hook. This isn’t rocket science. I’m really stupid and I can get it. So I sort of think Jones knew this and played his followers like marionettes. Which means his actions are even worse.
If this were true I totally agree. But I do not believe this to be true.
And, also, if someone takes a shot at Jones because of what you just said, you might be accountable for millions of dollars! Watch it!
Oh...wait... he's a conservative. So you're okay.
-
19 hours ago, mirkwood said:
I must be missing something here TFP. That seems to me a really odd question to ask in this thread. Care to explain?
Sorry. The context was, if you blame Jones for his follower's nutty actions, do you blame Brigham Young for his followers nutty actions?
The idea being that it doesn't, necessarily, follow logically that just because nutty followers of someone engage in horrible behavior that the individual they follow is culpable. Or more directly, I'm saying that people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents is the fault of the people harassing and shooting at the Sandy Hook parents.
Obviously it isn't a perfect analogy. It's just the thought I had when Gator stated that Jones' followers' actions meant Jones had no right to claim free speech, or that because his followers did bad things, he has no right to call himself a victim of the press or the government.
I'm not saying that Jones is or isn't culpable. I'm just saying that his followers' actions alone aren't proof that he is.
-
23 hours ago, LDSGator said:
Is anyone a role model in 2022? No, because the masses look for any reason to tear someone down. We place foolishly high expectations on people than act shocked when we find out they aren’t perfect. So we’ve created a society where no one can be a role model.
I find his personal behavior reckless, and yes,I’d call it morally troublesome. But, I’ve got my own issues so I’m in no position to lecture him.
I also see the fruitlessness of it. Elon Musk loses no sleep over people calling him immoral. So what’s the point? Yup, religious people find having babies out of wedlock immoral. Nothing new here.
Shouldn't being a role model be specific to whatever role is being modeled? I look up to certain composers as composers. That doesn't mean I want to emulate their personal lives.
-
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:
Biden and his administration are clearly undercover conservatives, working behind the Democratic curtain to undermine them and ensure the Republicans take power back. This is painfully obvious, is it not?
-
Biden and his administration are clearly undercover conservatives, working behind the democratic curtain to undermine them and ensure the Republicans take power back. This is painfully obvious, is it not?
Satan's second cursing?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by The Folk Prophet
Thanks for stepping all over my attempt at being funny. 🤣
Edit: Maybe my joke would have played better if I'd stated it thusly: Were you under the impression that Satan was a calm, peaceful, and happy being?
My point is that Satan seems driven by emotion, rather than logic and reason, not that he has no ability to be logical. It strikes me as a bit of a funny thing to ask, "Why would Satan be angry (upset) at [any given thing]?" Isn't Satan, sort of, upset incarnate?