The Folk Prophet

Actually, yes. "And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." - Moroni 7:18 What? You think I'm making stuff up here? I'm not sure what your point is anyhow. Isn't "wrongfully" and "unrighteously" about equivalent? He doesn't say "wrongly". He says "wrongfully". I think that distinction matters. I'm not saying we can't make mistakes. I'm saying that we need to be careful in the spirit with which we judge and make sure it isn't done "wrongfully", or "unrighteously". It does lead one to wonder. Though I think it would be just as unfair to presume that as it is to presume Tim is guilty. I maintain...there isn't enough information to presume either way. Only when it seems decidedly convenient to the situation at hand. And particularly when the left doesn't seem to mind most sexual misconduct until perpetrated by someone on the right. But it's a problem on both sides of the aisle. Whenever there's any indication of any sort of impropriety on the other side the left and the right begin to salivate. I understand why. But the side of me that tries knows it's still not right.

It's still a sin to judge wrongfully. At the risk of sounding like I'm being patronizing, I'll leave these here despite the fact that you're obviously well aware: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." "Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment." "See that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged." I'm sure we could get into some debates over how these things relate to "jumping to conclusions". I don't disagree that jumping to a conclusion is a reflex. That doesn't make said conclusion right to have jumped to. I think it behooves us to step back and say, "Nope...even though that's my reflex, I'm going to suppress it and CHOOSE be charitable in my unwillingness to presume evil." The fact that jumping to a conclusion is the natural man thing to do doesn't mean we shouldn't be making every effort to divorce ourselves from those tendencies, especially if we're aware that there's likely bias involved. And, most importantly, I think that by making such choices and putting in such effort, while turning to the Savior and His atonement, we actually CAN divorce ourselves from those tendencies, and to SHOULD expect that of ourselves. So I agree. The natural man is.....natural. But we should, and can, put off the natural man, with time, effort, practice, and the help of the Spirit. It's a deeper subject than "don't judge" of course. Judgement is always deeper than the way people make it out to be. The idea of not judging at all is silly. It's not possible. Every thought, actions, word, etc., requires judgement. There is no neutral. So we should be taking care to not judge wrongly, unfairly, meanly, unkindly, unforgivingly, hatefully, pridefully, etc., etc. PARTICULARLY, when it's a situation of hearsay and rumor.

Apropos of nothing: This sounds like: "To believe that teenagers can refrain from having sex is asking quite a bit. So let's just hand out condoms to all the 14-year-olds. We can't expect people to control their animal natures." Sorry Carb.... I'm going to continue to expect better of you.

I think the primary difference (to my thinking) is Tim's claims. I see no reason to judge him as guilty when he claims he's not. I think giving him the benefit of the doubt is the charitable approach. He may be a dirt bag scum con man pervert. But until that comes out concretely, I'll presume he's being honest. I know it can be read that one must choose between support for Tim or support for the church. I don't think so. I give the benefit of the doubt to both, and will wait and see.... or never know and maintain said benefit of the doubt. I have no delusions that all members who claim to be "in good standing" are. I also have no delusions that all apostles are and have been perfect and never make poor choices in frustration or anger. As I've said, in this case the accusations against Tim seem awfully convenient which makes me suspicious. And it strikes me that he's been universally presumed guilty without due process. I may be wrong. That's just how it strikes me. On the actual accusations re: sexual stuff....it's SO very fishy. Like I get that sometimes someone under cover might need to get into some less than ideal predicaments. And how to balance that with moral cleanliness escapes me. But the accusations, beside being conveniently anonymous are...that he sent pics of himself in his underwear and asked women to shower with him to maintain cover. REALLY?!? Pictures in boxers or his tighty-whiteys? (Ooo...sexy....) And the LUDICROUS concept that alone in their hotel room he tried to convince a woman that they had to get naked, even though no one was watching, and shower together? Either he's the dumbest idiot in the world and believed the women to be the dumbest idiots in the world too or something is seriously off here. Maybe I missed something.

Maybe. Maybe. And Maybe. An awful lot of speculation.

I don't think it takes an outside view to have this impression. It's mine as well. I believe Tim Ballard name dropped anecdotally. I believe that was perceived by Elder Ballard as name dropping for gain. I think it's irresponsible of the church to condemn him publicly like they did though. Assuming the other allegations are false, they may have entirely destroyed his career. Someone should have called him and asked him to not use Elder Ballard's name any more. He probably (from my best understanding...which may be way off), would have complied -- even apologized. But by publicly "denouncing" him, if all he made was a rather innocent mistake of telling what he felt was an interesting anecdote, not good. I think, maybe, why I feel this way is I can see anyone in Tim Ballard's position doing the same. If I was working on a project and one of the prophets or apostles said, even in passing, "You're doing great!" or anything akin to that, I might well share that and get myself into trouble too. Which, you know.... lesson to learn I suppose. Of course there may be things that went on that I'm unaware of. I only know that Tim Ballard stated that he never used Elder Ballard's name to self promote, and I believe that he believes that.

Your strange blend of cynicism and faith is charming.

Haha. I see. Yeah, I think you're usually right. In this case I don't believe what's being reported because of my bias against the news rather than my bias towards anything, however.

Out of curiosity...why? I tend to not simply because of the politics. The lefty news has been hardcore after Tim Ballard, Jim Caveziel, and Angel Studios, ever since Sound of Freedom made some waves. And then this. That alone makes it suspect to me.

Vice doesn't have to "make something up". They only have to repeat accusations without evidence. Have you not been around for the advents of the "Me Too" movement and the way things work now? Here's the way it works for me. When something is reported by the news...I consider it suspect. Who's to say he won't? That being said, suing for slander is a very difficult road. You have to prove intentional deception. You thought Tim Ballard was a sex pervert prior to this?

Well, do you believe Tim Ballard or Vice? Choose.

It. Specifically that Tim Ballard did what he's being accused of. Apparently a statement was released. Tim Ballard says he didn't believe it was from the church (apparently it was), because he had spoken to his Stake President and Bishop and neither of them knew anything about it. He's shocked that the church would release a public condemnation of one of its members without even talking to that member's Bishop or Stake President first. Which does, indeed, sound wrong to me too. But, you know....it happens. The church public relations department releasing a condemnatory statement because of news articles containing accusations isn't proof of wrong doing though. I disbelieve the accusations. We've had all these anti responses to The Sound of Freedom by the leftist news, and then when there are rumors of Tim Ballard running for the Senate to replace Mitt Romney accusations conveniently appear.....in Vice? Convenient. Things may escalate. Things may come out that prove it one way or the other. Tim Ballard may secretly be a sexual predator and evil. But until those proofs come out, I'm inclined to disbelieve it. Assuming he is innocent, I hope the church's response doesn't have the effect of destroying the man and his commitment to the church. He has stated in response that he is faithful and committed. I hope that remains true. Having the church one loves publicly smear them unjustly could be a pretty huge trial of faith. But it happens. The church is made of mortal men who make mortal men mistakes.

I disbelieve it.

It seems to have done a number on Disney too.

The pride cycle is a symptom (or indicator) more than a cause.

I don't think very many would object to a sister leaving a hat or cap on during a prayer. But I also fully understand how a sister would remove it. As @mikbone pounted out, pins would hold hats in place. When it's a cap it's a different issue. But as you said, with the longer hair going through, then it becomes a bigger issue again so...... ??

I don't disagree with some of the theoretical ideas you present here. I just don't find it practical. Beards just aren't a canary in a coal mine any longer. They used to be. They aren't any more. They just aren't a strong social statement any longer. (Not a basic, well trimmed one, at least.) And...from personal experience, I don't understand or agree with the beard thing...and so I'm personally highly offended by your implications!! I'm kidding, of course. But the point is still that I don't fully agree that not understanding or disagreeing with things is relative to a healthy and productive approach to deeper spiritual struggles. I'd say there are a great many righteous, faithful, and committed men who don't understand or agree with the no beard thing. In the relative grand scheme of things, none of us fully understand the things of God. Hence...obedience. But we have plenty of humble obedience to get behind without arbitrary "drift" obedience issues that become as commandments when they are nothing of the sort. That sort of thing, to my best thinking, tends to lead more to arrogance, holier-than-thou-ness, and blind robotic-ness rather than true humility, faith and obedience. Yes...I'm letting my anti-BYU bias bleed through a bit here... I guess I've just known too many robotic, holier-than-thou, arrogant people reared of BYU. You know I've argued strongly for obedience. Even with these sorts of things. I still do. Just wear a white shirt to church! But with the changes happening with a lot of policies and approaches where they're leaning more to "follow the Spirit" I'm just surprised at this one. I accept that my point of view on the matter is from a place of zero purview. It's just my view. I support the brethren. I support BYU. I support the no beard thing. I just have an opinion on it, which is surprised.

No reasonable person needs Trump to convince them of the obvious fact.

Yeah. I had a beard for a few years there. I took a shift as an ordinance worker at the temple though, so...

Here's my latest family pic: Please note........WRONG!!! But dang, look at how cute those stinking kids are!!!

You have to explain that to me. How does the beard ban sift anyone? You mean there are legitimately, otherwise well qualified, righteous, faithful, honorable men who, because they'd have to shave, didn't attend BYU? And that's good.......why?

Doesn't make sense to me. Mission rules are mission rules despite what can and cannot be worn at BYU. They don't require white shirts and ties at BYU, and yet....

Because, as we all well know, Jesus was "slovenly". The strange thing to me is that the no beard thing is 100% cultural. There's no reality to it other than perception. And it is my perception that the entire beard=rebel thing is pretty darned outdated. Obviously wording such as they used with mustaches would make sense. But a well groomed beard still being against the honor code is just weird. It feels very out of touch. Shrug. What do I care?

I'm legitimately surprised they're still asking for no beards to be worn.

Every time new tech comes along people make this sort of claim. I don't buy it at all.