The Folk Prophet

Who says you interpreted what He said correctly? Maybe what He said was, "You're done, for now" and in your mortal weakness you just didn't understand the "for now" part.

I've never heard the concept of a premortal family other all of us being God's children. Is that something you picked up from somewhere or is it just the unorthodox thing? edit: I mean I guess Saturday's Warrior alluded to something akin...but.......??

But the Church doesn't stand alone in this matter. If we all feel this way then, yes. If enough conservatives would fight then it could matter. But conservatives tend to let libs take over the culture. That's what bothers me I suppose. It strikes me that if we all stood up and did what we should have regarding these things from the start we wouldn't be in the lost cause situation we find ourselves in nowadays. How do you feel about the illegality of strip clubs or liquor stores in certain places? The idea being that allowing certain activities brings with it related societal consequences. Do you give any merit to that type of associative restriction? The proper how seems to be failing.

Surely you don't mean to say that my posts have been pessimistic lately!

I hear ya. I want to be clear too. I AM trying to be a stick in the mud. I'm not just trying to be a stick in the mud. At some level, we should all be sticks in the mud though....relatively speaking.

I don't think the implication here is that someone who doesn't choose to partake in South Park has no sense of humor.... I would hope not. I think I've stated this before...but South Park is funny. But I still maintain it shouldn't be watched, generally speaking. I know people who claim religion is unbearably dull, church is unbearably dull, scripture reading is unbearably dull, seminary or institute is unbearably dull, the temple is unbearably dull, etc. It cannot help but strike me that "dull" is in the eye of the receiver, and that, perhaps, when certain things are viewed as dull, maybe the problem isn't always with the things. And some things that aren't dull...drugs, pornography, violence, sex, alcohol, etc. I dunno. I'm just not convinced using whether something is dull or not is a valid measuring stick as to it's worth. Lest you think I'm just being contrary...I'm not. I get your point. There is some value, obviously, in quality of production and presentation. And humor is useful in both. But there are, ultimately, more important things that, when put up against how exciting something is perceived to be or not, matter a whole lot more.

So this does tie into my earlier thoughts and does support what @Just_A_Guy is suggesting. There is a certain level where if I want to be left alone to raise my children the way I want to, then I have to be willing to let others be left alone and raise their children the way they want to...no matter how terrible I think their parenting choices are. It just feels awfully different to say something such as one parent should have the right to deny their children sugar while another has the right to give their child sugar, vs. one parent has the right to protect their children from perverse sexual ideologies while another has the right to expose their children to pornography, convince them they're trans, and chop off their body parts. In theory...I get the point...it just.......... really? It really goes back to my overall political philosophy. Nothing works out if people are evil. People are evil. We're doomed. Now back to sucking my thumb.

Well, Homer did constantly choke his son. Haha. Hilarious. *wipes tear from eye* Good times.

Fine. (Pun intended). I acquiesce.

Same.

On a side note: I know many who would claim the exact same for shows like The Simpsons. But I love The Simpsons and think it's fine. So...you know... we all have to judge for ourselves on these things.

I have a more...conservative thought... No one should watch it. Funny is not a virtue. I'll just leave this here for everyone's consideration: "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." I'm not trying to just be a stick in the mud. I get that there's a level of balance when it comes to consuming entertainment. I'm not one who says never watch anything that isn't produced by the church or the like. Never read a book that isn't scripture...or something. I'm not suggesting that. I get that sometimes there's going to be something that's more crude than ideal in shows or movies that we can, reasonably, just ignore. But it just strikes me the South Park crosses so far over that line that it really should be avoided by anyone who legitimately seeks after that which is virtuous and is legitimately striving to remove that which is unholy from their lives. And since I believe we should all be seeking and striving after such things...well.... Just my thoughts.

I'd be tattling to my bishop so fast on this sort of thing! And if he blew it off I'd tattle up the chain. I'm a rat fink, apparently.

It was a fine because of taxes though, ultimately, wasn't it? I mean I haven't looked into it that thoroughly, but wasn't it a law-suit related to hiding income related to taxable income? Maybe I'm wrong.

So I just watched a clip from Michael Knowles where he talks of this LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ dude who dresses as a woman but is being lauded by the conservative right for denouncing "pronouns". Michael Knowles makes the point, which which I agree, that we, as conservatives, continually lose by this very method. Essentially, he says, 50 years ago conservatives said feminism is fine but homosexual is crazy, then 30 years ago they said, homosexual is fine, but gay marriage is crazy, then 10 years ago...gay marriage is fine, but transgender is crazy, and now they say transgender is fine, but non-binary is crazy...etc., etc... This relates to the discussion I was having with @Just_A_Guy as to when and where we draw the line. The plain fact is, we don't seem to ever draw the line. We just cave, and cave, and cave, and cave, letting the Overton window shift, and shift, and shift, and shift. It guarantees we'll lose. And we will. Because little by little, we accept the progressive narrative. Not that long back the idea of drag queen story hour for kids would have been ridiculous. Parent who exposed their children to such things would have been thrown in jail, their children taken away. Now we're arguing that it's fine, as long as contracts and parental rights are in order and as long as no actual genitalia is exposed? Hmm. How long until the exposed genitalia is fine as long as the kids aren't forced to participate? Then how long until the kids being forced to participate is fine, as long as the parents are there? Then how long until...... Of course in saying this, I'm not proposing anything. I don't have an actual proposal. I respect and appreciate what parents did in this instance. But I don't think it will do any good. But isn't that defeatist? But maybe we should be defeatist. We can't win this. Because we keep buying into the progressive narrative...bit by bit, frogs boiling in the pot. And @NeuroTypical, I accept what you shared fully. We should follow our church leaders and trust them. I trust that civility is the right course right now. But I don't understand it. I don't understand the idea that we should get along with evil. I don't know how the ideas presented by President Oakes fit in with the concepts about defense of our religion, faith, and family, as I understand them to be taught in the Book of Mormon. It seems by the church's "civil" approach to the fight that we lose. I'm not saying that as a critical thing. I trust that's right. Apparently we're meant to lose the culture war. And, likely, we'd lose anyway...even if uncivil. Even if literally going to war...we'd probably lose the culture war. I mean take what the church has done with Prop 8 and homosexuality, for example. They fought the good fight civilly and through proper politics and all that. And the result...we lost. Entirely. We lost. Gay marriage is fully culturally accepted and fully enshrined in law. Well...okay. I trust that the church's approach was still correct. And I can accept that being civil is more important than actually winning. But here's where I get confused... if we know that being civil in our fight is going to lose, and being civil is the priority, then why are we even fighting? Why don't we just be civil and quit the fight? I mean politically and legally, of course. But that doesn't fit with the counsel we're given either to get involved. So this is how it reads to me. These parents, desperate to protect children, but trying their best to do it in a legal and peaceful manner, and trying to get involved, are reprimanded and called hateful and divisive by their stake presidency. Apparently, they shouldn't be trying to protect children. Nope. They should be protecting the feelings of perverted freaks who get their kicks by dressing up as overly sexualized women in front of children. Because despite the theory that it should be handled through the law and those in charge should be fired....that is never going to happen. Efforts to that end will fail as surely as prop 8 failed. These parents know that. Which is why they acted as they did. They can't go through the proper means to protect children and have any measure of success. But doing as they did, they successfully (in this instance), protected children, and the library is reconsidering hosting such events because of concerns of escalating violence. They got results! But nope...hateful and divisive. How dare they? And I feel like in the near future, continuing along this course, my children might be forcibly (but fully legally) removed from my care so they can be transgendered and raped, because protecting my children from such is clearly hateful and divisive, and my response should be to let it happen because we believe in honoring and obeying the law. "That's ridiculous," they say. "Clearly that's not going to be the societal standard. Your slippery slope argument is a fallacy." But of course they said the exact same thing 50 years ago, and then 30, and then 10.... The writing is pretty clearly on the wall. And it scares me. And I don't know what to do. And when I do see someone stand up and fight on behalf of what feels right, they get reprimanded for being hateful and divisive? My mind cannot reconcile that. So it doesn't. I just...I don't know...blindly obey I guess. I'm going to go curl up in a blanket and suck my thumb for a while.

My thoughts: 1. Bureaucratic nonsense. 2. Taxation is theft.

I just read the news article. I've changed my view. The people involved in this protest were not stupid for protesting. They did nothing illegal or immoral. They weren't marching or shouting. They merely occupied seats open to the public. They have every right to do that.

Well now...I cannot respond to that in any way but agreement without becoming a major hypocrite. That being said, I believe I am, at times, bending the Word of Wisdom somewhat in my usage. Great googly moogly I use a lot of caffeine! But we have been counselled to not use mind or mood altering substances...so the argument really comes down to whether caffeine counts in that. Hmm. I suppose we have been counselled to not engage in Satanism too...so the argument really comes down to whether Halloween counts in that. So the question is then, are these two ideas equivalent: 1. We have been counselled to not use mind/mood altering substances. Caffeine counts. We shouldn't use it and, 2. We have been counselled to not worship Satan. Halloween counts. We shouldn't celebrate it. In my mind the arguments don't even come close to being the same, even though there are similarities. Caffeine is clearly (to my thinking) a mind/mood altering substance that should realistically be used medicinally and not recreationally.* Halloween is clearly (to my thinking) not Satanic. That being said...there are measures. I mean eating food of any sort is a mood, mind altering substance. So where's the line? Marijuana's easy. A sandwich is easy the other way. But caffeine sits somewhere in the gray that, clearly, poses a challenge in the decision making paradigm. Well, at least in my mind it does. Hmm. Or I guess what I'm saying...whenever someone's suggests in church that faithful members shouldn't use caffeine it's never really bothered me. I kind of think...yeah...I probably ought to not. But the no Halloween thing I roll my eyes at. *on a side note, I self medicate my A.D.D. with caffeine. But that's a tricky idea that I'm not always comfortable with. And despite the fact that I have that theoretical (and perhaps poor) excuse, I use it recreationally because it feels good. And that's not good. Or...does it make me feel normal and help me focus....and I just think it "feels good" because I feel so distracted and unmotivated otherwise?

Shocking. It's not like you wear it on your sleeve or anything.

I think my response stands as to basically communicating what I'm trying to. Maybe. Sort of.

Where do you draw the line then? Strip shows in front of children -- as long as the contracts are being honored? Pornographic movies? Live sex shows? When is it appropriate for society at large to step in and say, "Nope. Not allowed. I don't care about your contracts or your parental rights. This cannot stand." ??

Politics is the debate of what should be civil based on what is moral. I do not believe the majority yet considers drag shows for kids morally equivalent to missionaries preaching. We may be getting their quickly. But not yet. I agree, except perhaps with the word "deeply". Depends on what you mean by playing on the field I guess. As I've said, I think protesting is stupid. But not because what's being done isn't wrong and gross. If it comes to proper methods though...voting, establishing laws, getting people fired, etc., then that's pretty much the only field to play on. What other point can be made of the matter than it's wrong and gross and that children should be protected from that which is wrong and gross?

But it's not. It's only problematic to the cause of outreach and fellowship for a certain type of individual (progressives). To another type of individual...who are, frankly, significantly more likely to respond positively to outreach and fellowship, it's potentially quite useful.

@Just_A_Guy I was going to say something similar. Actually what I was going to say was more along the lines that protesting is STUPID! I hate it. It's not a fine American tradition. It's a childish hippy-inspired get-a-life activity. I can be forgiving of those who believe it's a good idea though. Barely. That being said...if anything ever deserved protesting, it's drag shows for kids. But I fully agree that there are better, appropriate, and correct ways to affect change that should never involve marching in circles with signs or the like. There's a flaw with just calling something hateful though. The plain fact is that I do, very much, hate drag shows for kids. I mean I hate drag shows for adults too. But especially for kids. But the narrative is that must mean I hate the individuals involved...or even worse, it implies I wish them harm. (That's also a relative word, because if it means going to jail for exposing sexual things to children, then I do wish that upon them...but if it means physical beatings or death, I do not. Of course calling something hateful always implies the latter). But the greater flaw is the equation you're making. It's buying into the lefty woke-mob logic. They would like to have us believe that protesting a bunch of dudes dressed up as over sexualized women, doing crude and suggesting things in front of children, is exactly equivalent to protesting missionaries. But it's not. I expect Putin would have us all believe that his invasion of Ukraine was exactly equivalent to the Allies invading Germany at the end of WWII. Or the people who claim putting up a Satanic display next to a manger scene at Christmas is exactly equivalent. We do not have to accept those types of claims.

So I don't necessarily disagree with you on this point per se. But just as a counter thought exercise... Sometimes some of this stuff is hilarious. And it honestly feels like wokesters just have no sense of humor about anything. And that's on them. I mean I've watched the South Park episode on Joseph Smith. And although in principle it's offensive...I have to admit it's funny. I don't support making fun of something others find sacred... but I don't exclaim my life feels threatened and demand censorship. No one posting a photoshopped picture of president Kimball with a machine gun is being serious. I don't expect everyone to join in the laughing. But the pearl-clutching, "my life is threatened", kind of response is just as much a tactic as is the poop-posting. It's also just as holier-than-thou. So if the response is to cave because offense is being caused...isn't that letting the ideological enemy manipulate the narrative in an unfair way? As I said...I actually think I agree with you...I think. But it's not so black and white really.