The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
This sort of question feels an awful lot like an effort to excuse the words of the Lord. What comes to mind immediately for me is D&C 1:38: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;"
This is expressed practically immediately after the Lord declares the church to be the only true and living church in D&C 1:30.
But inevitably someone comes along and tries to excuse what the Lord said. Let's focus "less" on that. Let's be apologetic about what the Lord declared. I don't find the Lord's declaration in this case as useful. Etc., etc.
That doesn't sit well with me.
I think instead of trying to excuse what the Lord said I'll focus instead on trying to understand why He said it and why it's important.
- askandanswer, mordorbund, zil2 and 1 other
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
In junior high we had a mock election for Clinton vs Bush. A mom of the one of the students wrote a four page rant about she could never vote for Bush because he wasn’t 100% pro life. I remember asking the teacher how voting for someone who had no chance of winning would further the pro life cause. He agreed with me. I was such a snotty little kid, but I was right about that one. Since then, I’ve always thought that going third party was done for your own pleasure. To show off how you don’t get your hands dirty like the scumbag peasants. And to feed a superiority complex.
I don't agree with the cynicism. But.... I used to think more like @Just_A_Guy re not voting for someone who wasn't legitimately "good" (as if that exists in politics) even if it meant throwing away my vote. Since I've gotten more into politics and whatnot I've changed my tune quite a bit. I now see it as a very simple equation. There's a good-ish side (with bad, flawed people running), and a truly evil and awful side (with bad, flawed people running), and it's as simple as that. And that's not to say there are mistaken approaches/policies on the good-ish side or that all the approaches/policies on the truly evil and awful side are straight up evil. But in broad strokes, it's pretty plain. One side's going to destroy freedom, promote sexual corruption, tax it's citizenry to oblivion, destroy the economy, and murder babies gleefully. The other side stands against those things, on the whole.
I would, in a heartbeat, have voted for DeSantos or Ramaswamy instead of Trump. And if there were a truly, legitimately, righteous man/woman running... I'd happily vote for them. But that's not an option. It's (likely) Trump or Biden. That's the choice. "Neither" isn't an option.
I'm reminded of when we give our kids a choice on something. "You can pick up your toys or you can go to your room," and they try and choose neither. Nope. Sorry. That's not the option. You pick up you toys or you go to your room. By choosing neither, you choose your room because that's the alternate for not picking up your toys.
Obviously it's not really the same thing. And for someone in Utah voting.... well your vote's pretty meaningless (at this point) anyhow because Trump will win Utah. So I'm not really against people choosing to vote otherwise on "principle", per se, unless they live in a so-called "swing state". But as for myself.... I simply see the reality of it. You can pick up your toys or go to your room. So I'll pick up my toys.
-
My quibble isn't punctuation so much as... in what world is a factorial considered "Basic Math"?
- JohnsonJones and zil2
-
2
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:4 hours ago, LDSGator said:
You keep beating the “They stole the election” horse.
Where have I ever even mentioned the issue before? I mean ever, in any thread? Maybe I have, but I don't remember ever having done so.
To be fair, it's just a rhetorical device @LDSGator's employing. Not a particularly good one one. But it's not that he's literally saying "you" have been beating that horse. But that it, generally, has been beaten repeatedly. As I pointed out earlier, for people running for office, perhaps, this is a political strategy, but to imply that those suggesting it's an issue on this forum are using it as a political strategy to gather more voters to their cause is pretty off-based.
-
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I believe children ought to be taught to properly avoid ambiguity and always use parenthesis to properly express mathematical thinking and process.
This is how I code. I said above that JS (or any computer language) does... such-n-such. But if I were coding it I wouldn't write
230 - 220 / 2
I would write
230 - (220 / 2)
to be explicit.
- NeuroTypical, zil2 and Traveler
-
2
-
1
-
Javascript disagrees with you.
-
8 hours ago, Vort said:
Clearly, we should not [fear]. We have been encouraged and even commanded not to fear. But you asked why people are concerned. And whether or not concern is merited, the reasons for concern seem obvious to me.
It seems like you're separating the ideas of "fear" and "concern", which has some validity if what one means by "concern" is, indeed, separate from having "fear". It's my perception that most of what's being expressed by way of "I'm concerned" is semantically synonymous to "I'm scared".
Obviously we should be concerned about the well being of the church, the well being of family, the well being of friends, and so forth. But when that means, "I'm scared about what's going to happen" then I think it's legitimate to respond by suggesting that we need to remember that the Lord has said to fear not.
Honesty dictates that we look at our feelings and consider the faith we're giving to the matter. That's all I'm suggesting.
Otherwise, what you get, just as you've described, is that fear is leading people near to leaving the church for Catholicism or Orthodoxy or whatnot. That's a result of fear. It's a result of not trusting in God.
Frankly, I find it a bit stunning that when I or others suggest that we should be at ease on the matter that there's so much resistance to the idea.
-
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
Actually, I copied your words.
Without question the most amusing thing out there is the hard right ranting about stolen elections while the…hard right…tried to overturn…the election by storming the capital. Odd for the party of law and order.
I don’t think I’m wrong anymore than you think you are. The issue the right has is that, even if I’m dead wrong, millions of Americans agree with me. So if the right was a little wiser, they’d drop the stolen election rants and focus on winning issues.
The “stolen election” rants is what the losing side always does. No difference from Bush vs Gore. Or Bush Kerry. It happens all the time, it always will. It’s just another version of the same old story. Winners win, losers make excuses. Happens in sports, business, personal lives. It’s human nature.
I know the drill though. Only the other side whines about stolen elections. When the side I agree with complains it’s totally legit.
Not making excuses means people have to admit they failed. Which people have a very hard time doing. It requires good ole’ personal accountability and being able to admit they were wrong.
You have a bad habit of arguing from the perspective that either side saying something means anything. "The right always say [whatever]" is NOT an argument for anything and it means less than nothing. And while calculated to shut the other side up, has it ever worked? Does it do anything to change viewpoints?
If a team loses because the other side cheated then it lost because the other side cheated. Whether either team makes that claim is irrelevant to that fact. Someone like you coming along and saying "losers whine" as if that's proof there wasn't cheating doesn't do anything to get to the truth. It certainly doesn't weigh in on whether there was foul play or not. So I'm not sure what your game is here other than to try and shame those you disagree with into shutting up. But really, you know me well enough by now. Do you really think you can shame me into shutting up with a claim that I'm whining and being a sore loser?*
The facts are the facts and we should seek those. And I don't care which side of the aisle that's on. Truth should be sought stridently.
Despite your insinuations, it has nothing to do with trying to win the next election or a refusal to admit failure. My concern is about the country falling apart though. But I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that.
These are hard facts: The left suppressed information to sway the vote. The left illegally changed voting practices in swing states. The left lied and lied and lied about Trump again and again.
You don't even have to believe that ballots were stuffed to see that the election was obviously corrupted.
And, yeah...the do-nothing republicans did nothing to stop it. And so they failed. And they'll likely keep failing because they're do-nothing-ers. But that's a very different narrative than "everyone hates Trump so he can't win" which is just not true.
Things aren't the same this time around. Whether the differences will play out as a Trump win or not remains to be seen. I sort of doubt it, because I think they'll probably go so far as to off Trump before letting him in the Whitehouse again. But...we'll see. But the most obvious reason Trump lost last time comes down directly to mail-in voting...which democrats do in much greater numbers than republicans. That may well be different this time around. The republicans, having cottoned on, may well increase their mail-in voting. In places where it's legal, republicans have started talking about using other similar tactics to what the democrats used. (Heck, maybe even extra-legal things, like ballot harvesting, etc.) Kind of an if-you-can't-beat-em, join-em attitude. And that could make the difference. Or it could not.
Like I said, I don't think Trump will end up in the white house again, personally. But it's way more complex that "republicans just can't admit that the majority of people just don't like Trump." WAY more complicated than that.
*That being said, I'm not going to shut up from embarrassment or the like, but I might well shut up because, frankly, arguing politics bores me. So I might well drop out here.
-
18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
People also will blame widespread fraud and conspiracies when Trump loses again. But it’s just not true. I mean not even remotely.
You're saying it, so it must be true.
20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:The majority of voters don’t like him.
With this point I probably agree. Of course we don't live in a majority rules country.
That being said... "the majority of voters don't like him" as a principle unto itself is honestly partially a result of how the left lies, cheats, and steals.
With as many flaws as Trump has, you'd think they wouldn't need to lie and twist and scheme so much. But talk to any Trump hater and the talking points they'll give as to why are almost entirely falsehoods that the media has spread.
Trump's got some serious character flaws. No doubt. But people aren't refusing to vote for him because he's a braggart, has been sexually immoral in the past, or because he over-inflated property values to take out loans (which he paid back). They call him the next Hitler, a fascist and a racist.
31 minutes ago, LDSGator said:His supporters can stomp their feet, storm the capital, rant and rave, but it won’t change reality.
Just to put a wee bit of check on the hyperbole here... do you know how many ardent Trump supporters there are in the country? Take out the word "ardent" and... any idea? And do you know how many "stormed" the capitol?
Just curious if you've thought about that. I mean it's a fine tactic to try and put others in their place... you know, crying "INSURRECTION" and all that. But, really? Are you implying that I, who firmly believes that the 2020 election was unfair, filled with fraud and conspiracies (known fraud and conspiracies, I might add, not conjecture), am part and parcel of those who entered the capitol building on JANUARY 6TH (*echoing...JANUARY 6TH, JANUARY 6TH, JANUARY 6TH, JANUARY 6TH....*)?
- NeuroTypical and Vort
-
2
-
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Now you're just rehashing
old arguments[truth].Fixed.
And I'm rehashing it because people keep harping on about being worried or concerned.
5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:Yes, I agree with you that in the end all will be well. I just look at all the crap that will be in the middle and have to wonder. And that can be as little as rolling your eyes at the comments from the peanut gallery or as bad as a crap-ton of persecution.
Again, alls well that ends well is a correct philosophy. But that doesn't really help me to handle all the crap on the way to the end. I wish I were better than that. I'm trying to be. But for now, I'm not.
Lest you think falsely of me, I fully understand. I wish I too had more trust in God about the middle stuff. It scares me a lot. And I wish I felt more naturally fearless.
But God tells us consistently to Fear Not! (I won't post 20 more scriptures here. But, you know, I could.
)
At some level we need to exercise faith. Faith isn't knowing. It's putting our trust in, believing in, and commitment to an idea despite not having complete knowledge.
Accepting the concept of "fear not" is a matter of faith. Not a matter of natural feeling.
I too wish I were better at it. My expressions here are, actually, me trying to be. Because, after all, faith is a choice we make to act on an idea despite misgivings. I choose, partially by posting these so-called rehashed arguments, to be better than my natural man is.
And, for what it's worth, I'm not sure it's as hard as people make it out to be to choose that.
Something happens that we don't understand and frustrates and confuses us and we have two choices before us. Murmur, or show confidence.
Also, fwiw, this rehashed argument is the only one with which we really ought to be concerning ourselves.
-
12 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
What’s the best definition of insanity? Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.
People say this all the time. But it's just not true. I mean not even remotely.
Whoever coined this saying clearly never learned to play an instrument. Never learned any sort of physical skill. Never tried to get in shape. Never even heard of the idea of line upon line. Never re-read scriptures. Or other books for that matter. And, it seems, doesn't actually understand the meaning of the word "definition".
Okay...sorry. I'm being a bit meaninglessly contrary for no reason. I just don't like this saying.
As to the substance of your post, I'm not sure looking at the upcoming presidential race as "the same thing again" in the details works. Sure...it's going to maybe be the same two people. But there's so much else that's changed that it doesn't seem right to write it off this way.
That being said, I agree with you in one regard...one big point that hasn't changed and will likely lead to the same results: The left will do anything to stop Trump. ANYTHING. Lies. No biggie. Impeachments. You betchya. Indictments. Oh yeah. Cheating? Of course. Killing? Would anyone put it past them?
If Trump ends up in the Whitehouse again I'll be truly surprised. But not because I don't think he can beat Biden.
- Vort and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
35 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
It would depend on whatever the big secret is that JAG alluded to.
Whatever comes, if he doesn't do his job well, they'll remove him (or not), and the gospel will roll forth. Satan will continue to do what he does and God will continue in His purposes until he puts Satan down. I don't know, really, what there is to be "concerned" with. I'm not just trying to be contrary. I really don't understand.
Quote"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Daniel 4:35
Quote"What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 121:33
Quote"And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand." Doctrine and Covenants 38:33
Quote"Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing." Isaiah 40:15
Quote"O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth." Helaman 12:7
I mean add these to the myriads of similar scriptures... The ones @zil2 shared on being still, the repeated "fear not" scriptures. The might and power of God scriptures. The one's about God's wisdom, and about His work not being destroyed...for example:
Quote"I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil." D&C 10:43
Etc.
Etc.
I mean I could literally post a hundred here that have similar ideas.
Why should we fear? This guy won't destroy God's work. We can have 100% confidence in that if we have even the slightest faith in the written word of God and His promises.
- zil2, askandanswer, Just_A_Guy and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
To be fair, in the Church we do sometimes take ordinary words and assign them very specific, theologically-loaded definitions that would seem foreign to outsiders.
Sure. But in this case it's hard and confusing and muddles the issue. The very ideas that we have both continuing revelation...but doctrine never changes.... Those ideas don't really work together.
Edit: I understand that this has been defined this way at the top levels of the church in cases. I just don't understand how it's helpful to do so. But...sure... not my purview. Just my thoughts.
-
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
That doesn't really line up with what I said.
In my post prior to the one you responded to I said
Telling everyone the Church now endorses gay marriage is not "humiliating" the Church.
I also wonder about the big secret that JAG has to keep under wraps for now. He said that once all the information is out, it will exonerate the Church. But will he provide all the information in a manner that bodes well for the Church?
One cannot serve two masters. When push comes to shove, which one will he choose? That is a candid question. I don't know.
I've known liberals leave because the Church wasn't accepting enough of gay rights. I've known conservatives leave because the Church obeyed the law regarding masks, distancing, and getting the jab.
I've also known those on both sides who humble themselves in spite of disagreements and continue in faith. I don't know which way he will go when all the chips are down.
Okay. What do you imagine might humiliate the church then that he would say?
-
-
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:
I think its important and helpful to have the kind of faith whereby you can say, after an appropriate degree of analysis, that I don't understand this particular issue, so I'm going to put it in the too hard basket for now, and move onwards, unperturbed, with an undivided focus on the final destination and the things that matter most.
The older and wiser I get, the more I realize that we don't understand much of anything, and in reality, it all ultimately needs to go in that basket.
- Just_A_Guy, Vort and zil2
-
3
-
1 hour ago, laronius said:
Doctrine does not change
I've always found this such a strange claim to make. It's applying meaning to a word that the word doesn't mean.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/doctrine
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doctrine
"Doctrine" means what is taught and accepted by an organization. Obviously, by definition of the word, doctrine changes in the Church. And it's strange to me to try and define "doctrine" as something it is not. There are many things that have been taught and accepted by the church that are now no longer taught or accepted.
It would make more sense to add an adjective to the word. Eternal doctrine doesn't change. Core doctrine doesn't change. God's doctrine doesn't change. Or the like. But just "doctrine" obviously changes.
- Just_A_Guy, mikbone and Maverick
-
3
-
41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
We can't say for sure that divine ratification of same-sex marriage is impossible; any more than we can rule out [a bunch of other stuff]...that the Savior of the World was actually an overweight pipefitter with a heart condition named Earl who died in Chicago in 1954.
Kinda playing it fast and loose with that underlined word there I think.
-
15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
You’ve reached old age @The Folk Prophet. I think people view Tik Tok the way our parents viewed Facebook!
😜
My parents had an IBM PC....compatible. I don't think they were viewing Facebook.
-
-
The "Only true and living church" vs "The most correct of any church".
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by The Folk Prophet
Does it?
Are you suggesting that if you or I or someone says something that offends another that their exaltation will be lost on our account? That they, after all is said and done, didn't have agency after all? That their choice of exaltation is in our hands, rather than theirs?