The Folk Prophet

Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.

I know we're joking around a bit.... but..... This sort of response (if used seriously, as it sometimes is) is the kind of dismissiveness that's a real problem... not in that it's dismissive, but in that it's calling something a fact without proof or even evidence that it might be a fact. I'm not arguing here, btw, just using what you said as an example to my point. You said people who say "facts don't care about your feelings" think they're right 100% of the time. But you provide no evidence. Can there be evidence? How can you, or anyone, possibly know what people think? It's just your assumption based on what seems to be a bit of bias. Then you follow that by jokingly suggesting that what you said may be a fact. (I know you're being humorously snarky...but just go with it here for the point....). Fine, right. Maybe. Sure. Maybe. But it really strikes me that therein lies the potential problem. When we assume things without evidence are factual because of how we feel ----- well by golly that's half the point of the saying. We really ought to stop "feeling" what we think is factual and use actual evidence or statistics to inform our views instead of just our "sense of the matter" (how we feel about it). As to the specific comment at hand... take Ben Shapiro, for example (after all, he's the one famous for the saying in question). Does Ben Shapiro think he's right 100% of the time? Obviously it would be easy to assume he does. He speaks as if he's that confident. His mannerisms and attitudes imply it might be true. But.... "First, let me point out that I’ve made mistakes and said dumb stuff. When this is pointed out, I’m more than happy to admit it, " - Ben Shapiro https://www.dailywire.com/news/so-heres-giant-list-all-dumb-stuff-ive-ever-done-ben-shapiro Of course this sort of thing is still only evidence. I wouldn't consider it "factual" that Ben Shapiro doesn't believe he's right 100% of the time. He may be providing nothing but lip service. It is, however, factual that he said he's made mistakes. And whether someone "feels" he's never admitted such...well he has. That's a fact.

This strikes me as your bias bleeding into your view on the matter.

I agree that it is often dismissive. That doesn't make it wrong, meaningless, or useless. In point of fact, it's an extremely meaningful idea that actually matters a great deal. It's unfortunate that it is often used dismissively. (Though I'd argue that it's taken dismissively more than it's used that way.) It's also often misrepresented to be saying "feelings don't matter". But it doesn't actually mean or say that. I said it in a jokingly way, but the actual fact is that facts don't care about feelings. That's an obvious truth, but one that's denied by a lot of the world. Denying truth because of feelings is a serious problem in our society. I can understand that the saying itself has become a dismissive weapon. But to take the idea behind it, the actual meaning of the saying, and disregard it because of that isn't a good idea.

Not really. Facts don't care about your feelings is a fact. You're making the case that facts don't care about feelings. A true statement is true no matter how some people use it. It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.

Really? So if you just feel strongly enough that you can fly like Superman then the facts of gravity have no application in reality?

Well I'm not sure how I can be more clear than I've been. So I guess we'll leave it at that. As for my being "wound up" and "snarky": As is common, I'm really significantly less emotional than I'm probably coming across. So I apologize for that. And I apologize for my other phrasing that was insensitive as well. I'm not that wound up, more just mildly huffed. But I'm clearly "in a mood". So I apologize for that and will try and do better.

Of course asserting we should follow the examples and counsel of our priesthood leaders isn't a bad thing. Are you really oblivious to the fact that correlating it to certain innocuous behavior is likely to offend? That's the wide-eyed faux innocence's I'm talking about. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting that if they drink soda they're not following the prophet. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting if they don't homeschool their children their not true Christians. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by implying that any true followers of Christ will be clean shaven. OBVIOUSLY we should follow the prophet. That's not the concept that offends. And assuming or pretending like it is is a deflection. If someone is asked to shave by a priesthood leader then clearly they should shave. I'm am clean shaven currently. Why? Because I'm a temple worker and they asked me to shave. I have no issues with doing as we are asked to do. I have an issue with the idea that allowing others to believe that we HAVE been asked to do things that we have NOT been asked to do is a good idea. The problem is the reverse. There are those who may never get around to the challenge of giving up coffee or alcohol because they won't investigate the church because they NEEDLESSLY believe that "Mormons" look down on anyone with facial hair and can't drink Coca-Cola. It's the needless part I take issue with. And I don't think we should be driving potential investigators away needlessly. We have litmus tests to pass. Let them be the tests they're meant to be and not otherwise shut doors that should be open. And, frankly, I find the attitude that we can just write off anyone who doesn't take a look at the church because they believe things like we have to be clean shaven seriously problematic. I don't have any issue with someone coming to the conclusion that they need to be clean shaven to follow the prophet. I do have an issue with preaching to others that if they don't shave they aren't following the prophet, and even more so preaching to non-members that all faithful Latter-day Saints abstain from soda and shave.

When you suggest that all the good and faithful brethren in the church, my father-in-law, my neighbors, my friends, and oft times me, are not following the prophet because we have facial hair, and are essentially the same as those who are drinking alcohol and coffee, and then virtue blink in feigned wide-eyed innocence like it's not meant to be offensive or antagonistic...sorry....it doesn't play. It's rude and it's wrong.

Give me a freaking break. You should know exactly what I'm saying. Are you trying to be antagonistic?

But we DON'T have to shave every week.

The implication that "Mormons" don't wear beards wasn't very accurate. Brock didn't seem to catch that he was thinking that meant for all Latter-day Saints rather than just BYU and/or leadership like roles. Things like that can be problematic. Thinking that if you join the church you can't wear a beard anymore is going to drive some away. A minor complaint though.

This is me btw, if anyone wants to know.

Thanks. I'm an okay singer. I'm a decent producer, so I can make myself sound even better than I am. Everything is relative though. What I would give to get some really, legitimately GREAT singers to sing for me though. Maybe someday.

I have before. But... https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCrAik2zq2hrmBY0M6jrGMrQ

Interesting. I didn't consider this forum when I stated I'd never been "censored". I was only thinking Facebook, Youtube, etc. I have actually had a post or two edited or removed in the past here, now that I think of it. Dang it @pam!!! You think that because I help program a client and inventory management system for someone that I'm worthy of an expert opinion status on internet censorship? Thanks!! I'll take it!

I'm a web developer for my day job. If I could just get some fans for my YouTube channel then maybe I could monetize things and do it for a living. But... yeah. I have no idea how to build an audience.

Disagree. (Putting aside that I'm not "professional" when it comes to music (I only wish I was)), I despise certain forms of art as a matter of taste. Some of those forms are art are very beloved by an awful lot of people. Me having the view that Taylor Swift is incredibly overrated, or that no one should have been interested in the Barbie movie isn't meaningful. It's just my personal opinions. And if I think your singing voice is terrible but a billion people love it and pay to hear it then what's the point being theoretically "qualified" for that view? Also....not really true. An awful lot of people listen to an awful lot of other people on their views about abortion, tax policy and religion. I mean all I do all day while I work is listen to people talking about that stuff. Yes, it sometimes has more to do with confirmation bias and entertainment than it does respect for the individuals or trusting them as qualified in any way. But either way, it's not accurate to say that no one cares about other people's opinions. I think, in fact, that this very forum proves that idea wrong. If no one cared about anyone else's opinions then what are any of us doing here? At least I would hope we'd have some level of interest in what others have to say on any given matter rather than just being 100% narcissistic. I know I'm one to talk more than listen, and maybe a bigger offender in that regard than many...and yet I STILL care about other's views and want to hear what others think on various matters. And...even more important..... I almost care MORE about their opinions if I don't agree with them. Disagreeing with others views is not the same as not caring about those views. I mean the very idea that someone is pro abortion and the other is anti abortion means they don't care about each others opinion.... well that would just solve all the problems. But we DEEPLY care about those issues. And the more people who are into baby slaughter, high taxes, and anti-religion, the more I worry about the world, and the more I actually do care about their opinions. Because their opinions, when they gain enough popularity and power, effect the world.

What's the point of a freaking survey then? That being said... I'm not sure it's really a matter of opinion (though it gets pretty blurred, obviously). So perhaps that word was poorly chosen. The fact is that I have had several people I know censored on social media. That's not my opinion. And I have not been censored on social media, but I have self censored out of fear. That's not my opinion either. It might be my opinion that social media tends to censor conservative views more...but that's because I'm not armed with the data to prove it more than an opinion. I suspect that opinion is correct...but yeah...that one's just my opinion.... And finally... that no one cares....that's not true. Some people care very much about the opinions of random strangers. They probably all shouldn't. But to suggest that no one cares is factually inaccurate. A LOT of people care way more than they should. And some people care and SHOULD care. For example, businesses should definitely care about the collective opinions of their customers. Obviously a single opinion shouldn't be their concern. But that's the point of surveys and the like. If the consensus of opinions is that your product, service, or elsewise sucks, then they very well should care. And some companies actually do.

I gotchya. So the fact that I answered that I've never been censored (yet), but only self-censor will probably be interpreted as my opinion doesn't count. Yeah.

Because of friends and family we all know who don't self-censor and report it when they are.

I believe this is true. I also believe He is more strict, severe, and harsh than most of us give Him credit for. Here's my take, for what it's worth. People pit justice against mercy as if they're opposing forces (not saying you're doing that, just generally). My view has always been that justice encompasses mercy. Justice is equivalent to fairness. God is perfectly just. He is perfectly fair. The atonement and God's plan for us with it is designed so that God can be just. Perfectly. Without the atonement I don't think God could be perfectly just. With it He can. That's why it was done. That's why it is His plan. In His perfectness he satisfies justice. I know the scriptures speak of the theoretical, no mercy without the atonement. But I think there's also no justice without the atonement. As if God would send us to earth, give us no way to repent, and then condemn us all. He would not do that. It would not be just. But he also would not do as Satan's plan implied either...save us all regardless. That also wouldn't be just. Justice will be. Period. There will be no "you deserved this but you're getting that instead". Everyone will get what they deserve*. They will get what they deserve BECAUSE of the atonement. (Of course we're getting into semantics here a bit, because from another view practically no one will get what they deserve. Since by strict law we all deserve the darkest hell.) Mercy cannot rob justice. It must be PART of justice. Justice must be. God cannot be unfair. Will not be unfair. He won't punish when it isn't deserved*. He won't reward when it isn't deserved (once again "deserved" being a semantically relative term*.) He made a way for us to escape the condemnation required from our sin. Christ paid that price. Therefore we can repent. *The way we "deserve" anything is through the conditions set -- which conditions are faith in His name, obedience to His law, and repentance when we transgress that law. In other words, God will not condemn any who repent... that is his mercy. But he will not save any who do not repent. That is His justice. So yes, his mercy is greater than we understand. But we cannot and should not think that means that any of us can be saved in our sins. We can and will be saved from our sins if we repent. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved, and no amount of presumed mercy can or will change that.

Without having read the thread or the details of it, but just looking at the question: Is Faith in Jesus Christ More Important for our Salvation than the Condition of our Hearts? The simple, plain and obvious answer is yes. Faith in Jesus Christ is more important for our salvation than the condition of our heart. The reason for Jesus Christ's atonement is EXACTLY because of the guaranteed failure we'll all have in our heart's conditions. It is through faith in Him (and associated repentance) that we are redeemed BY Him, not by ourselves and our condition, status, prowess, etc.,etc.

The home page of the church has a Common questions section and the first question is: Are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian? The answer given: Yes! As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World. He loves us all more than we can imagine. We consider ourselves devoted followers of Jesus. While some of our beliefs are distinct, we believe that through His life, ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from sin, suffering, and death.

That's not what faith means. (Meaning it is more comprehensive)