The Folk Prophet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. I really tried to take interest in this. I just couldn't quite find it in me.
  2. I'll grant this point as a generic, though I personally believe there's more to it. I know the "all things are possible with God" idea is scriptural...but one must always consider the sort of idea, "Can God make something so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" More important would be the idea, "Can God sin?" And also, "Can God save someone in their sins?" Expressions abound in the scriptures where God "cannot" do this or that. Where we are explicitly taught that we can trust that these sorts of things cannot be. ("for God cannot be tempted with evil" James 1:13, "he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; " Alma 7:20, "I, the Lord, promise the faithful and cannot lie" D&C 62:6, etc.) So it's all fine and dandy to consider the science of it or to semantically twist the ideas into whim (as in suggesting God "can" sin, but He chooses not to.) Suggesting that all things are possible means that God could cast away His power and authority by choosing sin tomorrow seems flawed. I don't believe the "order" of things is God's whim either. The order of procreation, I believe, is eternal. Male and female. So I would suggest, no, we cannot procreate with Christ. It takes male and a female. We are sealed to one another, male and female, to that end. That's what I'm getting at. Clearly that is not the end-all of sealing. But it is an important component of it I think. As a reminder of the discussion point, you said, " if it was not important who we are individually sealed to – why not just be sealed to Christ alone?" My suggestion is that it is important that we are sealed to a member of the opposite sex for the sake of eternal procreation, and that is one of only two keys that matter in that regard. The second being that said person is exalted as well. Beyond that, I tend to think that it won't matter who we are sealed to, for one perfect individual is as perfect as another. Since I reject your view of pre-committed agency as to who we are sealed to, I reason it thusly: We choose in this life who we are sealed in marriage to. The individual who we choose may, or may not, exercise their agency to gain exaltation. If we exercise our agency to that end and they do not then we must still be sealed to someone in order to gain our exaltation. Additionally there are many who choose righteousness but never have the opportunity to be sealed in marriage in this life. And when it comes to that time where we must be sealed, are worthy of it, but are not for reasons beyond our control....? Well I'm not sure how it will all work out but it doesn't matter to me. My point is that God could simply arrange all such marriages and it would lead to the same perfect joy in exaltation as were we to mingle, date, and select based on...well...based on what? If all women involved are, at that time, perfectly perfect, then what characteristics, exactly, are we using to choose one above the other? I suggest this thinking based entirely upon my reason, not my feelings. I feel, strongly, (as I believe we all do) that my wife, individually, matters and that being sealed to her, specifically, matters to me a great deal. But I also must trust that if she ultimately fails to achieve exaltation that I will not be left out to dry for that reason alone. And that despite her choices, I will have eternal joy if I choose to follow Christ in obedience. My eternal joy is not dependent upon her choices (even though it often feels in this life as if our eternal joy is dependent on others choices.) It seems like you're suggesting two ideas that feel contradictory. 1. We choose everything about this life in the pre-existence. 2. This life is a test. How does that work out? Correct my misunderstanding. Because it feels as if you are saying that the pre-existence was the test where we exercised our agency to select everything about this life, and now we're just riding the wave of those choices. Am I misunderstanding? Another question: How do you reconcile your idea that knowledge is requisite for agency with the concept of faith? You claim we cannot use our agency to choose without knowledge. But it strikes me that the entire test of mortality is just that. We are intentionally put behind a veil, intentionally deprived of knowledge, and then tested upon whether we will use our agency to exercise faith without knowledge to choose obedience. And, just so we're clear, obviously some knowledge is required for agency. I don't reject that. We must have some level of knowledge in order to be accountable (accountability being a key component of agency). The point where we seem to differ is whether we need explicit knowledge of every little thing in order to exercise agency in every little thing. For example. God commands us to climb a mountain. We don't know what's up the mountain. But based on our trust in God, we exercise our agency to go up the mountain. Or based on our lack of trust in God we refuse. The lack of knowledge about the mountain doesn't seem important. So another question: Is the use of agency important in every choice we make -- large or small? I would suggest not. But what think ye?
  3. Yeah, but it amount to the same thing. I'm a firm believer in the Lord doesn't lie. But he also doesn't explain everything to us in detail, knowing we cannot understand. My point was simply that the strong feeling that we don't need to have another child may well be a "for now" thing, whether it's implicit in the feeling or not. In some ways it's like going to a service project, feeling that the service was good, acceptable to the Lord, and it was time to go home now, and translating that feeling to "you never have to serve again"? The Spirit may communicate decisions to us. The simple decision is to not have more children. But we take that feeling and translate it to "for the rest of our life!" Which may or may not have anything to do with what we were inspired for. Another example might be something like... we come to a fork in the road. We pray to the Lord and ask which path is safer. We receive a clear impression to go left. Then we get into all sorts of danger and trauma. Others who took the right path tell us how safe and easy it was. So what's up with that? Well... first... the direction may not have been related to the mortal concerns we have. He may not have said, "the left is safer." He may have just said, "go left". We injected the safer idea. But...even more important... What does "safer" mean? We may have been in more physical peril. But maybe the safety with which the Lord was concerned was our soul's? Perhaps the physical trials protected us spiritually. We see examples of that sort of thing all over the place in scripture and church history. (Zion's camp, for example.) So that's what I'm really getting at. I don't believe the Lord tricks us through deception. But he doesn't reveal everything to us either. He says to trust Him and move forward. Another more difficult example to explain (this one is based on real life): A pregnant sister in my ward testified that she had received revelation that she was going to have a little girl. Then....she had a boy. Literally the opposite of what she received revelation would be the case happened. My takeaway....she didn't actually receive revelation. She just had a thought and presumed it was revelation when it wasn't. But...I don't really know. I don't want to poo-poo other's spiritual experiences as invalid.* * some cases I do. For example, another individual I knew said that they received revelation in the Celestial room in the temple that the church wasn't true.
  4. Does that mean you believe everyone willfully chose whether they will be in the the Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial kingdoms prior to mortality? And does that further mean that you believe that this life is not a test? Can we procreate with Christ? What do you believe the important part of being "sealed" is? It doesn't logically resonate with you that one perfect, exalted, all-knowing, all-loving being might be no different than another perfect, exalted, all-knowing, all-loving being? Have you forgotten that we've gone the rounds on this many, many times, with many frustrated feelings following? I'll pose my responses as questions. You can justify your position in response as you like. But I'll forgo countering those positions. Anyhow, I'd be surprised if you cannot recall my view on these matters. I've expressed it to you in great detail.
  5. Are you suggesting that choices we made in the preexisting about our mortal family structure negate the ability to make choices about it here? Also, why do you believe who we are sealed to eternally is important?
  6. This comment makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify.
  7. This strikes me as a pretty big guess -- akin to the Jews presuming The Messiah would be a military leader come to free them from Rome.
  8. My wife and I are watching through it again on Sundays. If I come across something specific I'll try and remember to remember it so I can share. Mostly it was just a feeling I had sometimes watching through it originally. But I don't have any specific cases I recall. The only thing I specifically remember thinking I didn't care for was Jesus figuring out and practicing the Sermon on the Mount. But that wasn't related to the sarcasm/untrue idea. I recall Jesus telling a joke about underage wives keeping David warm... Something along the lines of he only slept with them for warmth or something like that. Maybe I'm misremembering...but I remember laughing out loud. But it was definitely a "Would Jesus have cracked a joke like that?" moment.
  9. The problem is that the highest interest I have often seems to be the time wasting itself.
  10. "Reading" is not my problem. Being too much of a great listener out there in the real world isn't my problem either.
  11. Well, I checked them out and..... I'm trying to not be too negative because I' know....trying..... But I dislike them. (Note, I didn't say "hate". This is growth!) But I'm not yet so offend as to storm off in protest.
  12. Hmm. I wonder how long it will take me to leave the forum again now? I probably should anyhow. Wasting....too.............much......................................time..................................................
  13. I haven't fully followed this thread or read through the details of what JJ wrote, so this isn't meant to refer to him, but I've seen others argue similarly. And I always have to wonder how they reconcile stories like Job, among others, with such an idea.
  14. I wonder if he's still see it that way with the astounding drop in religious affiliation that's occurred since. I was going to suggest that he'd maybe view the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ stuff as more threatening...but then I realized that most of Christianity seems to have embraced that stuff and doesn't view it as a threat at all.
  15. Haha. Well... a few things. 1. You're probably right, and probably less than ideal of me. But: 2. I've been around and seen enough of PC's posts and thoughts to think I know that, yes, while he would, ideally, see us all converted away from our faith traditions to his, that doesn't mean he would wish to do so by staging a sit-in in our chapels so we cannot attend, nor does he even come anywhere CLOSE to believing the idea that our church and faith traditions are equivalent in wrongness to a drag queen reading time session. 3. I must admit that bringing PC into the matter was a tactic. For which, if I have made him uncomfortable, I apologize. But the tactic was just that...does @Just_A_Guy really think people like PC believe "Mormonism" is in any way equivalent to transvestites on display for kids? But the weakness of the tactic (which JaG may well point out know...he's JaG....) is that PC is clearly not representative of all "Christian" ministers or the like out there, in that he's part of this forum and they are not. That and his behavior and input is civil, respectful, and fair. The fact that PC is like that is possibly (probably) an anomaly. Particularly when we see a lot of other so-called "Christian" folk come in and behave rather badly regarding our doctrine. No. If @prisonchaplain considered my being a Latter-day Saint just as problematic and evil as were I a groomer transvestite it would bother me.
  16. It's really context based, which was the point I was trying to make with @Just_A_Guy. We believe there's Christ's church and the church of the Devil. Which means that from a certain point of view we believe all faiths that are not part of what we believe to be Christ's legitimate church are part of the the church of the Devil. But we can understand that there are degrees. It's not like understanding that means we believe you're either a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or you're a Satan worshipper. I expect that's true of most reasonable Christians too. It's a context thing. From their perspective, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of their idea of the church of the Devil in the same way we believe theirs is. And their goal, accordingly, just as ours, would be to lead as many as possible to believe in their "correct" faith tradition instead of the corrupted faith tradition. I'll grant there's more of a narrative in our church now-a-days to see the good in other faiths, which narrative doesn't exist in other Christian denominations. But I still think that narrative is in context to the battle being fought. Sure...if we're talking about conversion the "Christian" goal is to eradicate "Mormonism". They don't want us preaching or teaching, leading souls away from their ideas of God and truth. But when it comes to fighting for child protection or the like, I don't think that's an argument against us joining together in a cause. Moreover, I don't think most reasonable people, no matter what faith, would be like, "We must defeat pornography, the trans epidemic, the homosexual agenda, and.......the Mormons. Because all are equivalent!" Don't get me wrong. I have no delusions that there aren't some "Christian" preachers and denominations who do just that. I just don't think it's as common or pervasive as suggested, or that it means we're acting the hypocrite by joining together with other Christians to fight against these things because they see us in a negative light. I expect they see it in a hierarchy or priority. Just_A_Guy's argument that the sit-in is the wrong method is fine. But applying the "they'd do the same to us if they could" idea doesn't connect. Because surely, were the method correct per his thinking, JaG would agree that joining forces with other like minded individuals who also happen to belong to other church's, some hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to legally, politically, and culturally curb these damaging things is a good idea. And that refusing to join with them because they would legally, politically, and culturally remove all Mormonism from the world isn't related to whether we should join hands in noble and good causes in the proper time, place, and way.
  17. I don't think anyone really cares about the R-rating so much as the WHY the movies are rated R. Moreover...I think that interpreting discussion points as being "dogged" is a bit of a mischaracterization. But suggesting that people who don't think watching shows with nudity, extreme violence or gore, and tons of f-bombs is a good idea, that must mean they would therefore have a problem with "rock music" doesn't equate. FWIW, I love Metallica. One of my favorites. But I will not listen to Am I Evil or Last Caress. There is, certainly, a bit of "just for good measure" when it comes to members not watching R-rated shows. For example.... The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is rated R. But good golly....why?!? It's SO mellow compared to even most PG-13 movies nowadays. I think there's a strong case to be made that disregarding that rating is fine. That being said...I certainly wouldn't think badly of someone who determined to not watch it "just for good measure", so to speak, because of the rating. But I'm pretty positive there aren't many who would doggedly demand that another not watch it because of the rating either. If someone is watching Babylon or The Wolf of Wall Street or the like then that's another matter. Rate them R...NC-17, PG-13, or G and I'd still say they shouldn't be viewed. It's the content. But to suggest that my view on those equals "how dare you listen to that devil music?!?" is just silly. I will say, however, that my views on the "no R-rating" thing has changed somewhat in recent times.
  18. But you can say that about anything. "Instead of thinking about our jobs we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord." "Instead of thinking about our homes, (or vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc. etc.,) we should be thinking about our obedience to the Lord. The problem, of course, is that it's not entirely true. We should be thinking about politics, our jobs, homes, vacations, investments, communities, hobbies, etc., etc. AND we should be thinking about obedience to the Lord. More importantly, the way we think about all of these things should be primarily informed by obedience to the Lord. Also, we've been counselled by the Lord's prophets to get involved politically. So if we're thinking about obedience to the Lord by way of hearkening unto the counsel of his anointed servants, then we must be thinking about politics at some level. The prophet (and the apostles) have counselled us to get involved politically, and have also continually declared themselves politically neutral, very rarely giving specific counsel in such. So I'm just not sure this sort of comment answers much when it comes to politics. I mean @Just_A_Guy and I see this issue differently. I'm fairly certain we're both doing our best to follow the prophet. @JohnsonJones and I wildly differ in political views. But I am confident he, also, is doing his best to follow the prophet. You and I often disagree on many issues. But I know you believe it when you say to follow the prophet. "Follow the prophet" is a starting point. But you seem to be implying that we bury our heads in the sand on politics. I have no doubt that if the prophet or apostles explicitly said, "vote this way" or "don't attend this or that", etc., that we'd mostly all follow that counsel to the letter. But they don't. Instead they give us principles and tell us to get involved as best we can and as best we know how. And I have no doubt that many of us are screwing it up pretty badly in our approaches or thoughts. In that I realize that, and realize it might well be me who's screwing it up, I feel it behooves me to be pretty forgiving of others who see it differently than I do. I know good people who go to rallies and marches and the like all the time. I know others who (like me) would never do such a thing. And I have confidence that in that matter neither has the advantage when it comes to being a wheat or a tare. I know many very good people who believe that supporting Disney in any regard is terrible and all good people should never give their money to Disney again. I know other very good people who are going to Disneyland this year. Are some of them wheat and some of them tares? Which of them are following the prophet? Has the prophet counselled us in a way that we can even begin to make such a choice. There are so many choices like this that people who try to follow the prophet make very differently. For example, my grandparents, way back in the 80s an 90s, had a video store. They had to struggle with the decision as to whether they'd carry R-rated movies or not. It was a challenge for them, but ultimately they decided that they would. At the time, I questioned that decision. I questioned the decision to open a video store at all where they even had to make such a choice. My grandparents were good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet people. Another example: my father worked for Nuskin for several decades as a computer programmer. Although he wasn't directly involved in it, I believed Nuskin to be a predatory, evil company (in that they primarily make profit through multi-level-marketing). And I couldn't help but struggle with the idea of whether working for an evil company or not was right. My father is a good, God-fearing, follow-the-prophet man. I could go on. Hopefully what I'm getting at will be clear.
  19. Maybe, just maybe....defining someone by their generation is just as problematic as defining them by their race.
  20. So... since @Just_A_Guy and I see differently on this of must must be a tare?
  21. You know they have drag events for "all ages' in Provo too, right?
  22. You made the point that "the Church" loses spectacularly and catastrophically when things become physical. I was pointing out that this isn't "the Church" vs. the mob. It's half the country vs. half the country. Really it's more than that if people would get involved. I'm not using it as justification for violence. I'm simply saying that your argument that "the Church" loses when things turn physical isn't a correct paradigm. I'm saying the premise of your argument in this point is flawed. I think the premise here is flawed too, in that I think the fight IS being carried out via the political, legal, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual arenas...and it's not being effective in many cases, and these sorts of actions are, in part, a response to that reality. I also think your implication that there was "intimidation" involved here is wrong. I mean I can't speak for everyone involved. But as I read it, these weren't big, burly folk carrying baseball bats and chains. That being said... and I'm not sure this is directly related, the intimidation idea just made me think of it...l My father-in-law was a member of a group called BACA for several decades. For anyone unfamiliar, that's Bikers Against Child Abuse. One of the things they engaged in was escorting in certain situations where there was need. They did this escorting exactly for the purpose of intimidation in order to ensure peace and security. The children and adults involved could more confidently travel to the appropriate courts and what-have-you knowing a bunch of burly bikers had their backs. That was the idea at least. I'm curious if you have a view on BACA. I expect you're familiar with them. Like I said...not exactly related (except in a very conceptual way, I suppose). On a side side note: My father in law only looked like a biker in that he had a big beard and wore black leather when he rode. Otherwise, he used the beard for a different purpose. This painting is of my father-in-law: Anyhow...back to the "disruptive" idea... I'm just not convinced that such a thing is wrong. The "how" you disrupt matters. One (with enough money) could disrupt, for example, by purchasing a major social network company to allow more free speech. Or one could lie down in the freeway to block traffic. One could run a campaign to boycott something. Or one could burn down buildings. All these things are "disruptive" and not specifically the political. legal, cultural, or what-have-you arena. Some of them are good ideas. Some of them are terrible evil ideas. Though one could make the argument that all of them could be good ideas in the right time and place. This particular instance at the library strikes me as falling somewhere in between a good idea and a not-so-great idea. I'm not making the argument that it IS the way, and it definitely SHOULD have happened, and we should ALL be doing likewise. I don't know on that matter. I am, however, judging it a lot less harshly than you. In fact I'm judging it as a net positive thing. I do not see it as the end all perfect response however. I don't think that's the point. As you correctly pointed out, the kids of the parents who would take their kids to such an event are probably pretty doomed whether there are drag shows at the library or not. My point is that having drag shows in the community, just like having strip clubs or bars, actually affects the community. The idea here is to curb these things. I don't think the objective is a one time preservation of 2 or 3 or 10 children. It's to remove the offending event from the community. It's one battle in a war. It may not be the most effective tactic...though in this case there was was positive result in that the article stated the Library is reconsidering holding such events moving forward. The idea is that if the people putting on drag shows for children don't get the children or the people who want to see said show, but instead a bunch of sour-faced conservatives sitting there with crossed arms and not really watching...and again and again this is the long before they give up? It's a long game related to community standards. It's not a single case of saving a single kid from witnessing a single thing. And it's about building momentum against the ideology. It's getting people talking. It's helping to put people in the know. It's generating news articles. It's making people aware. It's causing debate. As much as I'm not a fan of street protests, I have to reluctantly admit that they ARE part of the equation when it comes to social change. Maybe I missed it when you suggested such a thing, and you assumed I tacitly agreed then. But that isn't the case. I would assume the proper "how" has been, and is being tried, but it is failing. Per my best understanding, the proper "how" is getting shut down again and again across the country. Those in power, by and large, seem to have bought into the trans narrative. It's a protected class and the only way to help people is to uphold, support, and defend all things trans related. This seems to be true in most all centers of power -- government, social and traditional media, business, etc. Maybe that's cynical of me. But that's how it seems to me. Speaking of cynical. I wonder, @prisonchaplain, do you feel that way about us all here? This sounds like the same sort of argument I've heard made of we Latter-day Saints. "You do realize that Mormons consider everyone but them to be damned, and all our children are in grave eternal danger for not being Mormons!" Yes. Some people are like that. I don't think it's as universal as you imply. Moreover, technically, we Latter-day Saints kind of do believe that...and "Christians" kind of do believe that. But you're stating it in a hyperbolic that fails as an ultimate premise. Because even if all non-LDS Christians thought that, It'd be like suggesting we shouldn't fight alongside Democrats to defeat Hitler because "you do realize that Democrats are socialists who believe......" And "the Church" has very clearly set an example of working with other faiths for good causes. So I think that idea has proper precedent.
  23. I don't believe this was agreed upon. More tomorrow.
  24. Sure. But that's like saying my generation was defined by parachute pants. I lived through my generation....the actual amount of people who actually wore parachute pants was about...4...and I think most of them did so on TV shows. Generations get defined by their extremes. But that doesn't mean the extremes actually represents the great majority.
  25. Strikes me as highly unlikely. But who knows.